GR 107207; (November, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995
VIRGILIO R. ROMERO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ENRIQUETA CHUA VDA. DE ONGSIONG, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Virgilio R. Romero agreed to buy a parcel of land from respondent Enriqueta Chua Vda. de Ongsiong. The property was occupied by squatters. The parties executed a Deed of Conditional Sale. The contract stipulated that the balance of the purchase price would be paid 45 days after the removal of all squatters. A critical clause provided that if, after 60 days from the signing, the vendor could not remove the squatters, the downpayment would be returned to the vendee. Petitioner paid a P50,000.00 downpayment. Respondent filed an ejectment case, but a favorable decision was rendered only after the stipulated 60-day period had lapsed. Subsequently, respondent sought to return the downpayment, citing her inability to evict the squatters within the agreed period. Petitioner refused the tender, proposing instead to undertake the eviction himself at his own expense.
ISSUE
May the vendor validly rescind the contract and return the downpayment due to her own failure to evict the squatters within the contractually stipulated period?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the vendor could not rescind the contract for a cause attributable to her own breach. The contract was a perfected contract of sale, not a mere contract to sell, as there was a meeting of minds on the object and price, and ownership was to pass to the buyer upon full payment of a condition—the eviction of squatters. The obligation to evict the squatters within 60 days was a suspensive condition incumbent upon the vendor. Her failure to fulfill this condition within the period gave the vendee, as the injured party, the right to choose between withdrawing from the agreement and claiming reimbursement or waiving the condition and insisting on performance. The vendor, being the party at fault, could not invoke her own non-performance to rescind the contract. The power to rescind belongs solely to the injured party. The Court emphasized that a party cannot benefit from its own breach of contract. Therefore, the respondent-vendor’s act of tendering the return of the downpayment constituted an invalid rescission. The contract remained valid, and the vendor remained obligated to deliver the property free from squatters, with the vendee retaining his right to pay the balance upon such delivery.