Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Digest Reyes Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    hiltonbraise
    The document summarizes a court case between David Reyes as the seller and Jose Lim, Chuy Cheng Keng, and Harrison Lumber Inc. as the buyers of a property. A contract to sell was executed where the buyers would pay 10 million upon signing and the balance on March 8, 1995 once the tenants vacated. However, the tenants did not vacate and Reyes sold the property to another buyer. The issues are whether there are remedies to recover Lim's down payment given the silence of law, and whether the court can order the deposit of the down payment in exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The court ruled that yes, it has jurisdiction to order the deposit to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure restitution given the

    Copyright:

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

    Digest Reyes Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    hiltonbraise
    36 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case between David Reyes as the seller and Jose Lim, Chuy Cheng Keng, and Harrison Lumber Inc. as the buyers of a property. A contract to sell was executed where the buyers would pay 10 million upon signing and the balance on March 8, 1995 once the tenants vacated. However, the tenants did not vacate and Reyes sold the property to another buyer. The issues are whether there are remedies to recover Lim's down payment given the silence of law, and whether the court can order the deposit of the down payment in exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The court ruled that yes, it has jurisdiction to order the deposit to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure restitution given the

    Original Title

    Digest; Reyes vs Lim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case between David Reyes as the seller and Jose Lim, Chuy Cheng Keng, and Harrison Lumber Inc. as the buyers of a property. A contract to sell was executed where the buyers would pay 10 million upon signing and the balance on March 8, 1995 once the tenants vacated. However, the tenants did not vacate and Reyes sold the property to another buyer. The issues are whether there are remedies to recover Lim's down payment given the silence of law, and whether the court can order the deposit of the down payment in exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The court ruled that yes, it has jurisdiction to order the deposit to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure restitution given the

    Copyright:

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

    Digest Reyes Vs Lim

    Uploaded by

    hiltonbraise
    The document summarizes a court case between David Reyes as the seller and Jose Lim, Chuy Cheng Keng, and Harrison Lumber Inc. as the buyers of a property. A contract to sell was executed where the buyers would pay 10 million upon signing and the balance on March 8, 1995 once the tenants vacated. However, the tenants did not vacate and Reyes sold the property to another buyer. The issues are whether there are remedies to recover Lim's down payment given the silence of law, and whether the court can order the deposit of the down payment in exercise of its equity jurisdiction. The court ruled that yes, it has jurisdiction to order the deposit to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure restitution given the

    Copyright:

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

    FIRST DIVISION

    G. R. No. 134241 - August 11, 2003

    DAVID REYES (Substituted by Victoria R. Fabella), Petitioner, v. JOSE LIM, CHUY CHENG KENG and
    HARRISON LUMBER, INC., respondents.

    CARPIO, J.:

    FACTS:

    A contract to sell was executed between Reyes as seller and Lim, Keng and Harrison Lumber as buyer.
    Harrison Lumber occupied the Property as lessee. The total is 10 million upon signing of this Contract to
    Sell, The balance shall be paid on or before March 8, 1995 at 9:30 A.M. at a bank to be designated by the
    Buyer but upon the complete vacation of all the tenants or occupants of the property and execution of
    the Deed of Absolute Sale and in the event the tenants or occupants of the premises subject of this sale
    shall not vacate the premises on March 8, 1995 the VENDEE shall withhold the payment of the and the
    VENDOR agrees to pay a penalty to the herein VENDEE based on the amount of the downpayment until
    the complete vacation of the premises by the tenants therein. Reyes filed a complaint claiming that it
    informed Harrison Lumber to vacate the Property. Reyes also informed Keng and Harrison Lumber that if
    they failed to vacate he would hold them liable for penalty as provided in the Contract to Sell. Lim filed
    his Answer stating that he was ready and willing to pay the balance of the purchase price on or before 8
    March 1995 but Reyes kept postponing their meeting and offered to return the down payment to Lim
    due to having problems in removing the lessee. Lim rejected Reyes offer and learned that Reyes had
    already sold the Property to Line One Foods Corporation and a TCT was issued covering the transfer. Lim
    prayed for the cancellation of the Contract to Sell in another court, and on 6 March 1997 requested in
    open court that Reyes be ordered to deposit the P10 million down payment with the cashier of the
    Regional Trial Court of Parañaque.

    ISSUES:

    Whether there is absence of specific remedies applicable to the recovery of down payment made by
    Lim?

    Yes, if left alone, the hiatus will result in unjust enrichment to Reyes at the expense of Lim. The hiatus
    may also imperil restitution, which is a precondition to the rescission of the Contract to Sell that Reyes
    himself seeks. This is not a case of equity overruling a positive provision of law or judicial rule for there is
    none that governs this particular case. This is a case of silence or insufficiency of the law and the Rules of
    Court. In this case, Article 9 of the Civil Code expressly mandates the courts to make a ruling despite the
    "silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws." This calls for the application of equity, which "fills the
    open spaces in the law."

    Whether the trial court may order the deposit of the down payment made by Lim in the exercise of its
    equity jurisdiction?
    Yes, he trial court in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction may validly order the deposit of the P10 million
    down payment in court. The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction in this case is to prevent
    unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution. Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases
    where a court of law is unable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case because of
    the inflexibility of its statutory or legal jurisdiction.24 Equity is the principle by which substantial justice
    may be attained in cases where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.

    You might also like