LAW ON SALES | POWER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORP. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 274 SCRA 597, JUNE 20, 1997
POWER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORP. VS. COURT
OF APPEALS,
274 SCRA 597, JUNE 20, 1997
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
A breach of warranty requires the concurrence of the following circumstances: (1) The purchaser has been deprived of the whole or part of the thing sold; (2) This eviction is by a final judgment; (3) The basis thereof is by virtue of a right prior to the sale made by the vendor; and (4) The vendor has been summoned and made co-defendant in the suit for eviction at the instance of the vendee. In the absence of these requisites, a breach of the warranty against eviction under Article 1547 cannot be declared.
FACTS
On January 31, 1979, petitioner Power Commercial entered
into a contract of sale with the respondent spouses Reynaldo and Angelita R.
Quiambao—involving a 612-sq. m. parcel of land in San Antonio Village, Makati
City. The parties agreed that petitioner would pay private respondents spouses
Quiambao P108,000.00 as down payment, and the balance of P295,000.00 upon the
execution of the deed of transfer of the title. Further, petitioner assumed, as
part of the purchase price, the existing mortgage on the land. In full
satisfaction thereof, he paid P79,145.77 to respondent PNB. June 1, 1979,
respondent spouses mortgaged again said land to PNB to guarantee a loan of
P145,000.00… P80,000.00 of which was paid to respondent spouses. Petitioner
PowerCom agreed to assume payment of the loan. On June 26, 1979, the parties
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale With Assumption of Mortgage. On the same date,
Mrs. C.D. Constantino, then General Manager of PowerCom, submitted to PNB said
deed with a formal application for assumption of mortgage. February 15, 1980,
PNB informed respondent spouses that, for petitioner’s failure to submit the
papers necessary for approval pursuant to the former’s letter dated January 15,
1980, the application for assumption of mortgage was considered withdrawn; that
the outstanding balance of P145,000.00 was deemed fully due and demandable; and
that said loan was to be paid in full within fifteen (15) days from notice.
Petitioner PowerCom paid PNB P41,880.45 on June 24, 1980 and P20,283.14 on
December 23, 1980, payments which were to be applied to the outstanding loan.
On March 17, 1982, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 45217 against respondent spouses
for rescission and damages. Petitioner demanded the return of the payments it
made on the ground that its assumption of mortgage was never approved. May 31,
1983: while this case was pending, the mortgage was foreclosed. The property
was ubsequently bought by PNB during the public auction. Trial Court
ruled that the failure of respondent spouses to deliver actual possession to
petitioner entitled the latter to rescind the sale, and in view of such failure
and of the denial of the latter’s assumption of mortgage, PNB was obliged to
return the payments made by the latter. Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court decision. It held that the deed of sale between respondent spouses and
petitioner did not obligate the former to eject the lessees from the land in
question as a condition of the sale, nor was the occupation thereof by said
lessees a violation of the warranty against eviction. Hence, there was no
substantial breach to justify the rescission of said contract or the return of
the payments made Petitioner contends: there was a substantial breach of the
contract between the parties warranting rescission CA gravely erred in failing
to consider in its decision that a breach of implied warranty under Article
1547 in relation to Article 1545 of the Civil Code applies in the case-at-bar.
ISSUE
Whether there was a breach of warranty.
RULING
No.
The Court held that a breach of warranty requires the
concurrence of the following circumstances: (1) The purchaser has been deprived
of the whole or part of the thing sold; (2) This eviction is by a final
judgment; (3) The basis thereof is by virtue of a right prior to the sale made
by the vendor; and (4) The vendor has been summoned and made co-defendant in
the suit for eviction at the instance of the vendee. In the absence of these
requisites, a breach of the warranty against eviction under Article 1547 cannot
be declared.