Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Robes-Francisco vs. Cfi

    Uploaded by

    Richard Amor
    This case involves an appeal by Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corp. regarding a decision by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in favor of Millan. Millan had fully paid for a parcel of land according to a 1962 contract of sale with Robes Corp., but the deed of sale could not be registered due to the land being mortgaged by Robes Corp. to GSIS. The court ruled Robes Corp. must register the deed or refund Millan, and awarded nominal damages of P20,000 and attorney fees of P5,000. The Supreme Court found the nominal damages excessive and reduced it to P10,000, as Robes Corp. did not act in bad

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Robes-Francisco vs. Cfi

    Uploaded by

    Richard Amor
    1K views2 pages
    This case involves an appeal by Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corp. regarding a decision by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in favor of Millan. Millan had fully paid for a parcel of land according to a 1962 contract of sale with Robes Corp., but the deed of sale could not be registered due to the land being mortgaged by Robes Corp. to GSIS. The court ruled Robes Corp. must register the deed or refund Millan, and awarded nominal damages of P20,000 and attorney fees of P5,000. The Supreme Court found the nominal damages excessive and reduced it to P10,000, as Robes Corp. did not act in bad

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Robes-francisco vs. Cfi

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves an appeal by Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corp. regarding a decision by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in favor of Millan. Millan had fully paid for a parcel of land according to a 1962 contract of sale with Robes Corp., but the deed of sale could not be registered due to the land being mortgaged by Robes Corp. to GSIS. The court ruled Robes Corp. must register the deed or refund Millan, and awarded nominal damages of P20,000 and attorney fees of P5,000. The Supreme Court found the nominal damages excessive and reduced it to P10,000, as Robes Corp. did not act in bad

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Robes-Francisco vs. Cfi

    Uploaded by

    Richard Amor
    This case involves an appeal by Robes-Francisco Realty & Development Corp. regarding a decision by the Court of First Instance of Rizal in favor of Millan. Millan had fully paid for a parcel of land according to a 1962 contract of sale with Robes Corp., but the deed of sale could not be registered due to the land being mortgaged by Robes Corp. to GSIS. The court ruled Robes Corp. must register the deed or refund Millan, and awarded nominal damages of P20,000 and attorney fees of P5,000. The Supreme Court found the nominal damages excessive and reduced it to P10,000, as Robes Corp. did not act in bad

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ROBES-FRANCISCO REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. VS.

    CFI OF RIZAL

    86 SCRA 59

    FACTS:

    This is an appeal from the decision of the CFI of Rizal rendering judgment against
    Robes-Francisco Corporation to register the deed of absolute sale in favor of Millan with the
    Register of Deeds of Caloocan City and secure the corresponding title within ten days and if not
    possible said Corporation shall pay Millan the total amount she paid P5,193.63 with interest at
    4% per annum from June 22, 1972 until fully paid. In either case Robes Corporation is
    sentenced to pay Millan nominal damages of P20,000.00 plus P5,000.00 attorney’s fees.

    Petitioner Corporation questions the award of P20,000.00 nominal damages and


    P5,000.00 attorney’s fees alleging such to be excessive and unjustified.

    In May 1962, Robes Corporation entered into a contract of sale with Millan for a parcel
    of land in the amount of 3,864.00 payable in installments. Millan complied with her obligation
    and made her final payment on December 22, 1971 for a total payment of P5,193.63 including
    interests and expenses for registration of title. On March 2, 1973 the deed of absolute sale was
    executed but the transfer certificate of title could not be executed because the parcel of land
    conveyed to Millan was included among other properties of the corporation mortgaged to GSIS
    to secure an obligation of P10 million, hence, the owner’s duplicate certificate of title of the
    subdivision was in the possession of the GSIS.

    ISSUE:

    Is the 4% interest provision of the contract a penal clause?

    RULING:

    No. Said clause does not convey any penalty, for even without it, pursuant to Article
    2209 of the Civil Code, the vendee would be entitled to recover the amount paid by her with
    legal rate of interest which is even more than the 4% provided for in the clause.

    A penal clause is an accessory undertaking to assume greater liability in case of


    breach. From this alone, the 4% provision does not come to be penal in character, hence,
    Robes Corporation’s contention that the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and
    the payment of interest in case of non-compliance does not hold water.

    Unfortunately, Millan failed to show the actual damages she suffered as a result of the
    nonperformance. Nonetheless, the facts show that the right of the vendee was violated and this
    entitles her at the very least to nominal damages.

    “In the situation before Us, We are of the view that the amount of P20,000.00 is
    excessive.” Bad faith can not be presumed. Petitioner Corporation expected that arrangements
    were possible for the GSIS to make partial releases of the subdivision lots from the overall real
    estate mortgage. It was only unfortunate for it not to succeed in that regard. Hence, the sum of
    ten thousand pesos by way of nominal damages is fair and just.

    You might also like