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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 156 views

    Rodrigo Enriquez, Aurea Soriano de Dizon and Urbano Dizon, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Socorro A. Ramos, Defendant-Appellee

    Uploaded by

    febwin
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of 20 subdivision lots from Enriquez and spouses Dizon to Socorro Ramos in 1958. Ramos paid only P35,056 of the P235,056 purchase price, and agreed to pay the remaining P200,000 within 2 years, secured by mortgages on land. Ramos refused to pay, arguing the roads were incomplete. The court found the roads were completed according to ordinances, and the filing of the case was sufficient notice to Ramos of her obligation to pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramos must pay the balance of P200,000 to the appellants as her demand regarding the roads was retroactive to the constitution of the obligation.

    Copyright:

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

    Rodrigo Enriquez, Aurea Soriano de Dizon and Urbano Dizon, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Socorro A. Ramos, Defendant-Appellee

    Uploaded by

    febwin
    156 views6 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of 20 subdivision lots from Enriquez and spouses Dizon to Socorro Ramos in 1958. Ramos paid only P35,056 of the P235,056 purchase price, and agreed to pay the remaining P200,000 within 2 years, secured by mortgages on land. Ramos refused to pay, arguing the roads were incomplete. The court found the roads were completed according to ordinances, and the filing of the case was sufficient notice to Ramos of her obligation to pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramos must pay the balance of P200,000 to the appellants as her demand regarding the roads was retroactive to the constitution of the obligation.

    Original Title

    Presentation3.pptx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the sale of 20 subdivision lots from Enriquez and spouses Dizon to Socorro Ramos in 1958. Ramos paid only P35,056 of the P235,056 purchase price, and agreed to pay the remaining P200,000 within 2 years, secured by mortgages on land. Ramos refused to pay, arguing the roads were incomplete. The court found the roads were completed according to ordinances, and the filing of the case was sufficient notice to Ramos of her obligation to pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramos must pay the balance of P200,000 to the appellants as her demand regarding the roads was retroactive to the constitution of the obligation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    156 views6 pages

    Rodrigo Enriquez, Aurea Soriano de Dizon and Urbano Dizon, JR., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Socorro A. Ramos, Defendant-Appellee

    Uploaded by

    febwin
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of 20 subdivision lots from Enriquez and spouses Dizon to Socorro Ramos in 1958. Ramos paid only P35,056 of the P235,056 purchase price, and agreed to pay the remaining P200,000 within 2 years, secured by mortgages on land. Ramos refused to pay, arguing the roads were incomplete. The court found the roads were completed according to ordinances, and the filing of the case was sufficient notice to Ramos of her obligation to pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramos must pay the balance of P200,000 to the appellants as her demand regarding the roads was retroactive to the constitution of the obligation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    Rodrigo Enriquez, Aurea Soriano de

    Dizon and Urbano Dizon, Jr., plaintiffs-


    appellants,
    Vs.
    Socorro A. Ramos, defendant-appellee.
    G.R. No. L-23616 September 30, 1976
    PROVISIONS OF LAW APPLIED IN THE CASE
    PRESENTED
    Section 4 of Rule 2 of the Rules of Court provides:

    Section 4. Splitting a single cause of action; effect of. If


    two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same
    cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the
    merits in any one is available as a ground for the dismissal
    of the others. (4a)
    FACTS OF THE CASE:

    Facts: On November 24, 1958 Enriquez and spouses Dizon sold to Ramos 20
    subdivision lots in Quezon City for the sum of P235,056 of which only P35,056 had
    been paid. The balance of P200,000 was to be liquidated within 2 years from the
    date of the execution of the deed of sale, with interest at 6% for the 1st year and
    12% thereafter until fully paid. To secure the payment of that balance, Ramos
    executed in the same document a deed of mortgage in favor of the vendors on
    several parcels of land variously situated in Quezon City, Pampanga and Bulacan.
    The deed of mortgage embodies certain stipulations which Ramos invoked. But
    according to the appellants the defendant violated the terms of their agreement in
    the following respects:
    The defendant refuse to pay the sum of P200,000 within the stipulated period.
    The mortgage on Bulacan property was never registered and,
    The realty tax for 1959 on the lots mortgage were not paid by the defendant.

    Ramos admit that she has not paid the realty taxes and has not registered the
    mortgage on Bulacan property but argues that it was a minor ones and still her
    obligation to pay the sum of P200,000 has not arisen as no previous notice and
    demand for payment has been made and according to her the road is not
    completed because the appellants have not yet planted trees nor put up water
    facilities as required by the ordinance.
    FACTS OF THE CASE:

    The court held that the non-payment of 1959 realty taxes as well as the non-
    registration of the mortgaged on Bulacan estate by the defendant were minor
    matters. On the issue of the completion of road the appellant adduced the
    testimonies of 2 witnesses that the road was completed on May 9, 1960 in
    accordance with the ordinances of Quezon City and there is nothing in Ordinance
    2969 which would indicate that a street may be considered completed with water
    facilities are built on the subdivision and these activities are definitely segregable.
    As to be alleged lack of previous notice completion and demand for payment, the
    filling of the case is sufficient notice to the defendant of the completion of the roads
    in question and of the appellees desire to be paid the purchase price of the
    questioned lots.
    ISSUE PRESENTED:

    Whether or not Ramos should pay her balance to


    Enriquez and spouses Dizon even though she is
    not yet fully satisfied with her demand?
    SUPREME COURT DECISION:
    Ruling: Yes, the effect of such demand retroacts to the day of the constitution of
    the defendant obligation as it was stated in Art. 1187 provides that THE
    EEFECTS OF A CONDITIONAL OBLIGATION TO GIVE, ONCE THE
    CONDITION HAS BEEN FULFILLED, SHALL RETROACT TO THE DAY OF
    THE CONSTITUTION OF THE OBLIGATION. her demand on the road is
    already considered completed and the filling of the case against her is sufficient
    notice to her therefore she is obligated to pay her balance of P200,000 to the
    appellants within 2 years from the date the roads in question are completed.

    You might also like