Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The company, on the other hand, countered that Benjamin did not fully As this case involves a contract to sell, Article 1191 of the Civil Code of
assist in the case to be filed against PTA; he also did not clear the the Philippines does not apply. The contract to sell is instead cancelled,
property of tenants, thus the company had all the legal right to withhold and the parties shall stand as if the obligation to sell never existed.
instalment payment. When his request for admission to Dr. Pablo Olivarez Olivarez Realty Corporation shall return the possession of the property to
was objected to by the company, Benjamin filed a motion for judgment on Castillo. Any improvement that Olivarez Realty Corporation may have
the pleadings and/or summary judgment, attaching thereto his affidavit introduced on the property shall be forfeited in favor of Castillo per
and the affidavit of a witness attesting to the material allegations of his paragraph I of the deed of conditional sale:
complaint. According to him, the company had already admitted the
material allegations of his complaint, that is, that the company have not yet Immediately upon signing this Contract, [Olivarez Realty Corporation] shall
commenced an action against PTA, nor paid the disturbance be entitled to occupy, possess and develop the subject property. In case
compensation. Should judgment on the pleadings be denied, a summary this Contract is cancelled, any improvement introduced by [Olivarez Realty
judgment is still porper, since there are no genuine issues tendered by the Corporation] on the property shall be forfeited in favor of [Castillo.
company. The company opposed the motion, since there were genuine
issues which need to be resolved and a full blown trial is necessary to As for prospective sellers, this court generally orders the reimbursement of
fresh out the issues. the installments paid for the property when setting aside contracts to sell.
This is true especially if the property’s possession has not been delivered
The trial court granted Benjamin’s motion and rendered summary to the prospective buyer prior to the transfer of title.
judgment, ruling that the company substantially admitted the material
allegations in Benjamin’s complaint, and there were no genuine issues In this case, however, Castillo delivered the possession of the property to
tendered by it. It rescinded the contract of conditional sale between Olivarez Realty Corporation prior to the transfer of title. We cannot order
Benjamin and Olivarez Realty Corporation and forfeited the P2,500.000.00 the reimbursement of the installments paid.
as damages under Art. 1191 of the Civil Code. On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. In Gomez v. Court of Appeals, the City of Manila and Luisa Gomez
entered into a contract to sell over a parcel of land. The city delivered the
The company thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules property’s possession to Gomez. She fully paid the purchase price for the
of Court to try to reverse the judgments of the lower courts. Among the property but violated the terms of the contract to sell by renting out the
issues it presented for consideration was the propriety of the summary property to other persons. This court set aside the contract to sell for her
judgment. According to the company, it cannot be faulted for withholding violation of the terms of the contract to sell. It ordered the installments paid
instalment payments. forfeited in favor of the City of Manila “as reasonable compensation for
[Gomez’s] use of the [property]” for eight years.
What then is the nature of the contract between the company and
Benjamin? In this case, Olivarez Realty Corporation failed to fully pay the purchase
price for the property. It only paid P2,500,000.00 out of the
The Supreme Court: P19,080,490.00 agreed purchase price. Worse, petitioner corporation has
Since Olivarez Realty Corporation illegally withheld payments of the been in possession of Castillo’s property for 14 years since May 5, 2000
purchase price, Castillo is entitled to cancel his contract with petitioner and has not paid for its use of the property.
corporation. However, we properly characterize the parties’ contract as a
contract to sell, not a contract of conditional sale. Similar to the ruling in Gomez, we order the P2,500,000.00 forfeited in
favor of Castillo as reasonable compensation for Olivarez Realty
In both contracts to sell and contracts of conditional sale, title to the Corporation’s use of the property.”
property remains with the seller until the buyer fully pays the purchase
Solicitor General v Metro Manila Authority to punish violations of traffic rules elsewhere in the country with the sanction
Cruz, 1991 therein prescribed, including those here questioned.
FACTS:
In Metropolitan Traffic Command, West Traffic District vs. Hon.
Arsenio M. Gonong, the SC ruled that (1) the confiscation of the
license plates of motor vehicles for traffic violations was not
among the sanctions that could be imposed by the Metro Manila
Commission under PD 1605; and, that (2) even the confiscation
of driver's licenses for traffic violations was not directly
prescribed by the decree nor was it allowed by the decree to be
imposed by the Commission.
Several complaints were filed in the SC against the confiscation
by police authorities of driver's licenses and removal of license
plates for alleged traffic violations. These sanctions were not
among those that may be imposed under PD 1605.
The Metropolitan Manila Authority issued Ordinance No. 11,
Series of 1991, authorizing itself "to detach the license plate/tow
and impound attended/ unattended/ abandoned motor vehicles
illegally parked or obstructing the flow of traffic in Metro Manila."
o The Metropolitan Manila Authority defended the said
ordinance on the ground that it was adopted pursuant
to the powers conferred upon it by EO 392. There
was no conflict between the decision and the
ordinance because the latter was meant to
supplement and not supplant the latter.
o The Solicitor General expressed the view that the
ordinance was null and void because it represented
an invalid exercise of a delegated legislative power.
It violated PD 1605 which does not permit, and so
impliedly prohibits, the removal of license plates and
the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic
violations in Metropolitan Manila.
RATIO:
The problem before the Court is not the validity of the delegation
of legislative power. The question the SC must resolve is the
validity of the exercise of such delegated power.
o A municipal ordinance, to be valid: 1) must not
contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2) must
not be unfair or oppressive; 3) must not be partial or
discriminatory; 4) must not prohibit but may regulate
trade; 5) must not be unreasonable; and 6) must be
general and consistent with public policy.
PD 1605 does not allow either the removal of license plates or
the confiscation of driver's licenses for traffic violations
committed in Metropolitan Manila. There is nothing in the decree
authorizing the Metropolitan Manila Commission, now the
Metropolitan Manila Authority, to impose such sanctions.
Local political subdivisions are able to legislate only by virtue of
a valid delegation of legislative power from the national
legislature (except only that the power to create their own
sources of revenue and to levy taxes is conferred by the
Constitution itself). They are mere agents vested with what is
called the power of subordinate legislation. As delegates of the
Congress, the local government unit cannot contravene but must
obey at all times the will of their principal. Here, the enactments
in question, which are merely local in origin, cannot prevail
against the decree, which has the force and effect of a statute.
The measures in question do not merely add to the requirement
of PD 1605 but, worse, impose sanctions the decree does not
allow and in fact actually prohibits.
There is no statutory authority for — and indeed there is a
statutory prohibition against — the imposition of such penalties
in the Metropolitan Manila area. Hence, regardless of their
merits, they cannot be imposed by the challenged enactments
by virtue only of the delegated legislative powers.
NOTE: SC emphasized that the ruling in the Gonong case that PD 1605
applies only to the Metropolitan Manila area. It is an exception to the general
authority conferred by RA 413 on the Commissioner of Land Transportation