5/19/2018 07 Catungal v Rodriguez
1/3
Catungal v. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 146839, March 23, 2011
Leonardo-De Castro, J.:
FACTS: Agapita Catungal owned a parcel of land with an area of
65, 246 square meters in
Talamban, Cebu City. She entered into a Contract to Sell with
Angel Rodriguez. Subsequently,the Contract to Sell was upgraded
into a Conditional Deed of Sale between the same parties.Rodriguez
secured the necessary survey and plans that reclassified the land
from agricultural to
residential and actively negotiated for the road right of way.
The spouses Catungal requested an
advance of P5,000,000.00 on the purchase price. Rodriguez
objected on the unwarranteddemands in view of the terms of the
Conditional Deed of Sale that allowed him sufficient time to
negotiate a road right of way and exclusive right to rescind the
contract. Thereafter, he received a
letter from Atty. Catungal that the contract is cancelled and
terminated.
Catungal filed a complaint contending that the Catungals
unilateral rescission of the Conditional
Deed of Sale was unjustified, arbitrary and unwarranted.
However, the Catungals claims that
Rodriguez does not have an exclusive right to rescind the
contract it being recorocal. The trialcourt ruled in favor of
Rodriguez. The Catungals appealed the decision to the Court of
Appeals.
In a Motion for Reconsideration, Atty. Borromeo, a new counsel
for the Catungals, argued for
the first time that the paragraphs 1(b) and 5(49) of the
Conditional Deed of Sale violated the
principle of mutuality under Article 1308 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE
1. Whether petitioners allowed to raise their theory of nullity
of the Conditional Deed of Salefor the first time on appeal?
2. Whether paragraphs 1(b) and 5 of the Conditional Deed of Sale
violate the principle of
mutuality of contracts under Article 1308?
HELD1. No. The Court held that a situation where a party
completely changes his theory of the case
on appeal and abandons his previous assignment of errors in his
brief, which plainly shouldnot be allowed as anathema to due
process. During the proceedings before the trial court, the
spouses Catungal never claimed that the provisions in the
Conditional Deed of Sale,
stipulating that the payment of the balance of the purchase
price was contingent upon thesuccessful negotiation of a road right
of way and granting Rodriguez the option to rescind,
were void for allegedly making the fulfillment of the contract
dependent solely on the will of
Rodriguez.
2. No. The Court held that in the Conditional Deed of Sale the
respondent shall pay the balance
of the purchase price when he has successfully negotiated and
secured a road right of way, isnot purely potestative as what the
petitioners contend. It is not dependent on the sole will of
the debtor but also on the will of third persons who own the
adjacent land and from whom
the road right of way shall be negotiated. This mixed condition
is expressly allowed underArticle 1182 of the Civil Code. In other
words, the obligation to pay the balance is
conditioned upon the acquisition of the road right-of-way, in
accordance with paragraph 2 of
Article 1181 of the New Civil Code. In the event that the
condition is not fulfilled, Rodriguez
