Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    ROBES (Revise)

    Uploaded by

    luis capulong
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of land from Robes-Francisco Realty to Lolita Millan. While Millan paid in full, the company failed to deliver the title to the land, prompting Millan to file a lawsuit seeking specific performance and damages. The trial court found in Millan's favor, ruling that the company was liable for delay and ordering it to secure the title in Millan's name or pay damages. On appeal, the court upheld the ruling and nominal damages award but reduced the amount to P10,000, finding the trial court's award of P20,000 to be excessive given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

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

    ROBES (Revise)

    Uploaded by

    luis capulong
    24 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of land from Robes-Francisco Realty to Lolita Millan. While Millan paid in full, the company failed to deliver the title to the land, prompting Millan to file a lawsuit seeking specific performance and damages. The trial court found in Millan's favor, ruling that the company was liable for delay and ordering it to secure the title in Millan's name or pay damages. On appeal, the court upheld the ruling and nominal damages award but reduced the amount to P10,000, finding the trial court's award of P20,000 to be excessive given the circumstances.

    Original Title

    ROBES(Revise).docx

    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 involved a dispute over the sale of land from Robes-Francisco Realty to Lolita Millan. While Millan paid in full, the company failed to deliver the title to the land, prompting Millan to file a lawsuit seeking specific performance and damages. The trial court found in Millan's favor, ruling that the company was liable for delay and ordering it to secure the title in Millan's name or pay damages. On appeal, the court upheld the ruling and nominal damages award but reduced the amount to P10,000, finding the trial court's award of P20,000 to be excessive given the circumstances.

    Copyright:

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

    ROBES (Revise)

    Uploaded by

    luis capulong
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of land from Robes-Francisco Realty to Lolita Millan. While Millan paid in full, the company failed to deliver the title to the land, prompting Millan to file a lawsuit seeking specific performance and damages. The trial court found in Millan's favor, ruling that the company was liable for delay and ordering it to secure the title in Millan's name or pay damages. On appeal, the court upheld the ruling and nominal damages award but reduced the amount to P10,000, finding the trial court's award of P20,000 to be excessive given the circumstances.

    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 CORPORATION vs.

    Lollita Millan

    On the said case the private respondent, Lolita Millan bought a parcel of land from the petitioner which is Robes-
    Francisco Realty unfortunately they failed to deliver the transfer certificate of title to the private respondent eventhough
    Lolita complied with the obligation and paid all the instalments including the interest and expenses for the said title. This
    compels lollita to file a complaint for specific performance and damages against the petitioner before the RTC.

    The corporation filed its answer praying for the dismissal of the said complaint alleging that the deed of sale was
    voluntarily executed and the interest of Lollita was protected by a provision in the contract which grants her an interest
    rate of 4% per annum of the total amount paid in case of delay in the issuance of the title beyond 6 months or a
    complete refund of the plus an interest rate of 4% per annum.

    The trial court found out that the land sold to the private respondent was a mortgage to the GSIS to secure a loan, so the
    court ruled in favour of lollita, rendering the petitioner guilty of delay amounting to non-performance of the obligation
    by virtues Article 170 of the Civil Code expressly provides that those who in the performance of their obligations are
    guilty of fraud, negligence, or delay, and those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof, are liable for damages.,
    and ordered the petitioner to secure the title to her name and in case if it is not possible sentenced to pay plaintiff a sum
    of money with an additional P20, 000 for nominal damages.

    Petitioner contends the decision, claiming that the private respondent is bound by the stipulations of the deed of sale,
    hence she cannot recover more than what is agreed upon. So the court presumed that the petitioner is invoking Article
    1226 of the Civil Code which provides that in obligations with a penal clause the penalty shall substitute the indemnity
    for damages and the payment of interests in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary.

    Issues:

    WON the penal clause claimed by the petitioner should govern?

    WON the awarding of nominal damage to the private respondent fair or proper?

    Held:

    On the first issue, the court decided that the argument has no merit. It does consider the provision on the
    contract a penal clause because even without it, the private respondent would still be entitled to legal interest which is
    more than what is stipulated in the contract. It clearly shows that the stipulation is made to protect the interest of the
    company not the client.

    While on the 2nd issue, the court ruled that even though the private respondent failed to present evidence of the
    damages she suffered because of the non-performance of the obligation, her right to acquire the title was violated by
    the petitioner and this entitles her for nominal damages by virtue of article 2221 and 2222 which recognized the right of
    the aggrieved party to be indemnified by means of nominal damages in case of a violation of right.

    But in this case the court considers the 20,000 pesos award to be excessive and cannot be considered as a
    nature of exemplary damages, knowing that the petitioner did not act in bad faith. To conclude, the court awarded
    P10,000.00 as nominal damages which it considered fair and just since there is a lapse of almost 3 years before the
    deed of absolute sale was executed in her favour and failure of the petitioner to transfer the Transfer Certificate of Title.

    You might also like