Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Case Study - Business Law

    Uploaded by

    Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
    This case summary discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Gastaya vs. Mabasa - The court ruled that there was fraud when Sabas and Jessie Gasataya intentionally failed to pay the remaining balance on property to defeat Editha Mabasa's right to repurchase the land. The court found Editha had the better claim. 2) Fidela del Castillo vs. Sps. Naguiat - The court ruled that Fidela could not rescind the land sale contract with Naguiat because the transaction was a contract of sale, which cannot be cancelled for nonpayment but only allows claims for specific performance or interest. Rescission requires a substantial or fundamental breach

    Copyright:

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

    Case Study - Business Law

    Uploaded by

    Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
    38 views2 pages
    This case summary discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Gastaya vs. Mabasa - The court ruled that there was fraud when Sabas and Jessie Gasataya intentionally failed to pay the remaining balance on property to defeat Editha Mabasa's right to repurchase the land. The court found Editha had the better claim. 2) Fidela del Castillo vs. Sps. Naguiat - The court ruled that Fidela could not rescind the land sale contract with Naguiat because the transaction was a contract of sale, which cannot be cancelled for nonpayment but only allows claims for specific performance or interest. Rescission requires a substantial or fundamental breach

    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 summary discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Gastaya vs. Mabasa - The court ruled that there was fraud when Sabas and Jessie Gasataya intentionally failed to pay the remaining balance on property to defeat Editha Mabasa's right to repurchase the land. The court found Editha had the better claim. 2) Fidela del Castillo vs. Sps. Naguiat - The court ruled that Fidela could not rescind the land sale contract with Naguiat because the transaction was a contract of sale, which cannot be cancelled for nonpayment but only allows claims for specific performance or interest. Rescission requires a substantial or fundamental breach

    Copyright:

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

    Case Study - Business Law

    Uploaded by

    Amiel Gian Mario Zapanta
    This case summary discusses two Philippine Supreme Court cases: 1) Gastaya vs. Mabasa - The court ruled that there was fraud when Sabas and Jessie Gasataya intentionally failed to pay the remaining balance on property to defeat Editha Mabasa's right to repurchase the land. The court found Editha had the better claim. 2) Fidela del Castillo vs. Sps. Naguiat - The court ruled that Fidela could not rescind the land sale contract with Naguiat because the transaction was a contract of sale, which cannot be cancelled for nonpayment but only allows claims for specific performance or interest. Rescission requires a substantial or fundamental breach

    Copyright:

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

    GASTAYA VS.

    MABASA, 
    G.R. No. 148147, February 16, 2007

    Buenaventura Mabasa, the father of Editha Mabasa, was bestowed a land under
    the homestead patent located at Lala, Lanao del Norte, and had a loan from the
    Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), which along with this loan is a mortgage
    contract that subjects the said land granted to them, on it. Eventually, their family was not
    able to pay the loan which caused the foreclosure of their property, and as a result, it was
    subjected to a public auction that the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) had
    successfully bought by bidding the highest. The Development Bank of the Philippines
    (DBP), being the new owner of the land, entered a conditional sale with Editha Mabasa
    and granted her a right to repurchase the said land provided she will still pay the
    Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) the remaining balance. Editha Mabasa sold
    the land to Sabas Gasataya and to Jessie Gasataya who will now assume the obligation to
    pay the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) of the remaining balance. Sabas
    Gasataya and Jessie Gasataya, according to Editha Mabasa, intentionally and fraudulently
    defaulted in paying the remaining balance to the Development Bank of the Philippines
    (DBP) because it will remove her right to repurchase— which is much more clear now
    especially when the land was auctioned again, it was Sabas Gasataya and Jessie Gasataya
    who have bought the property.

    Now, the real question in this case is if there is fraud when Sabas Gasataya and
    Jessie Gasataya intentionally failed to pay the property in order to defeat the right to
    repurchase of Editha Mabasa to the said land? Yes, according to the Supreme Court of
    the Philippines there is fraud when Sabas Gasataya and Jessie Gasataya intentionally
    failed to pay the remaining balance to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
    Although Editha Mabasa is not the legal owner of the disputed lots, she has a better right
    than the Gasatayas to the contested lots on the following grounds: first, the deed of
    conditional sale executed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) vested on
    her the right to repurchase the lots and second, her right to repurchase them would have
    subsisted or rather still exist had they (Sabas Gasataya and Jessie Gasataya) not
    defrauded her. This fact was adopted by the Supreme Court of the Philippines from the
    findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and is already considered binding when the
    case is appealed to the higher courts (the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the
    Philippines).

    FIDELA DEL CASTILLO Vda. DE MISTICA vs. SPS. NAGUIAT


    G.R. No. 137909, December 11, 2003

    Eulalio Mistica, the husband of Fidela Del Castillo, sold his land to Bernardino
    Naguiat with a condition that if ever Naguiat failed to pay the remaining balance, he will
    be obligated to pay the 12% interest agreed. Naguiat failed to pay the balance. Fidela Del
    Castillo Vda. De Mistica, since her husband died, filed a case to rescind the contract of
    sale and ask the return of the land to them against Naguiat. Naguiat argued that this
    cannot be favored since under their contract, if ever he failed to pay the balance, only a
    payment of interest and the maintaining balance can be recovered and not the cancellation
    of the contract. This leads the question if Fidela Del Castillo Vda. De Mistica, can rescind
    the contract?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that Fidela Del Castillo cannot cancel
    or rescind the contract because the transaction between Eulalio Mistica and respondents,
    as evidenced by the Kasulatan, was clearly a Contract of Sale. A deed of sale is
    considered absolute. In a contract of sale, the remedy of an unpaid seller is either specific
    performance or rescission. Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, the right to rescind an
    obligation is predicated on the violation of the reciprocity between parties, brought about
    by a breach of faith by one of them. Rescission, however, is allowed only where the
    breach is substantial and fundamental to the fulfillment of the obligation.

    You might also like