Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Occena V CA

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    The case involves a subdivision contract between Tropical Homes (respondent) and the Occenas (petitioners) to develop land. Due to rising oil prices, respondent claimed further performance would unjustly enrich petitioners and sought to modify the contract terms. The contract guaranteed petitioners 40% of cash receipts from lot sales. The Court of First Instance denied a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, citing a code article on releasing parties from difficult obligations. However, the Supreme Court held that the code article did not apply because respondent sought contract modification, not release from obligations. The court cannot rewrite or modify contract terms stipulated by the parties.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Occena V CA

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    176 views1 page
    The case involves a subdivision contract between Tropical Homes (respondent) and the Occenas (petitioners) to develop land. Due to rising oil prices, respondent claimed further performance would unjustly enrich petitioners and sought to modify the contract terms. The contract guaranteed petitioners 40% of cash receipts from lot sales. The Court of First Instance denied a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, citing a code article on releasing parties from difficult obligations. However, the Supreme Court held that the code article did not apply because respondent sought contract modification, not release from obligations. The court cannot rewrite or modify contract terms stipulated by the parties.

    Original Description:

    Occena v Ca

    Original Title

    Occena v CA.docx

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involves a subdivision contract between Tropical Homes (respondent) and the Occenas (petitioners) to develop land. Due to rising oil prices, respondent claimed further performance would unjustly enrich petitioners and sought to modify the contract terms. The contract guaranteed petitioners 40% of cash receipts from lot sales. The Court of First Instance denied a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, citing a code article on releasing parties from difficult obligations. However, the Supreme Court held that the code article did not apply because respondent sought contract modification, not release from obligations. The court cannot rewrite or modify contract terms stipulated by the parties.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views1 page

    Occena V CA

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    The case involves a subdivision contract between Tropical Homes (respondent) and the Occenas (petitioners) to develop land. Due to rising oil prices, respondent claimed further performance would unjustly enrich petitioners and sought to modify the contract terms. The contract guaranteed petitioners 40% of cash receipts from lot sales. The Court of First Instance denied a motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, citing a code article on releasing parties from difficult obligations. However, the Supreme Court held that the code article did not apply because respondent sought contract modification, not release from obligations. The court cannot rewrite or modify contract terms stipulated by the parties.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Occena v CA (1976; J.

    Teehankee)

    FACTS:
    Because

    of the increase in price of oil and its derivatives and the accompanying worldwide spiraling of prices, Tropical Homes, Inc. (private respondent) filed a complaint for modification of the terms and conditions of its subdivision contract with Jesus and Efigenia Occena (petitioners), who are owners of a 55,330 square meter parcel of land in Davao City.
    Respondents

    allege that further performance by them under the contract will result in situation where petitioners would be unjustly enriched at their expense, as it will cause an unequal distribution of proceeds from the sales of subdivided lots.
    Under

    the subdivision contract, respondent "guaranteed (petitioners as landowners) as the latter's fixed and sole share and participation an amount equivalent to forty (40%) percent of all cash receipts from the sale of the subdivision lots".
    Respondent

    pray of the CFI Rizal that modify the contract by fixing the proper shares to each party, based on the gross proceeds from the sales of subdivided lots of subjects subdivision
    Petitioners

    moved to dismiss the complaint principally for lack of cause of action, CFI denied the motion so they appealed on certiorari to CA.
    CA

    also dismissed petition citing Art 1267 (When the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in part.).

    ISSUE: WoN CA was right to apply Art 1267 in the current case

    HELD: NO, since respondent's complaint is not to be released from having to comply with the contract (which is what Art 1267 would do if applied) but to modify the terms and Conditions of the Contract by fixing the proper shares that should pertain to the herein parties out of the gross proceed., from the sales of subdivided lots of subject subdivision. The cited article does not grant the courts this authority to remake, modify or revise the contract or to fix the division of shares between the parties as contractually stipulated with the force of law between the parties, so as to substitute its own terms for those covenanted by the parties themselves. Respondent's complaint has no basis in law.

    You might also like