Ynionvsantel.jurisprudence

8/12/2019 Ynionvsantel.jurisprudence

1/4

There is an issue posed by the respondent that theReservation Agreement is the law between the parties. Itmay be argued that the same is an adhesion contract whichprovides for onerous conditions, and thus Maceda Law

cannot be applied as it would run counter to the basic policyof the law as held in the case below.

Active Realty & Development Corp. vs. Daroya, GR No.141205, May 9, 2002:

The contract to sell in the case at bar is governed by Republic ActNo. 6552 -- "The Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act," or more

popularly known as the Maceda Law -- which came into effect inSeptember 1972. Its declared public policy is to protect buyersof real estate on installment basis against onerous andoppressive conditions.The law seeks to address the acute housingshortage problem in our country that has prompted thousands ofmiddle and lower class buyers of houses, lots and condominium unitsto enter into all sorts of contracts with private housing developersinvolving installment schemes. Lot buyers, mostly low income earnerseager to acquire a lot upon which to build their homes, readily affix

their signatures on these contracts, without an opportunity toquestion the onerous provisions therein as the contract is offered tothem on a "take it or leave it" basis. Most of these contracts ofadhesion, drawn exclusively by the developers, entrapinnocent buyers by requiring cash deposits for reservationagreements which oftentimes include, in fine print, onerousdefault clauses where all the installment payments made willbe forfeited upon failure to pay any installment due even ifthe buyers had made payments for several years.Real estate

developers thus enjoy an unnecessary advantage over lot buyers whothey often exploit with iniquitous results. They get to forfeit all theinstallment payments of defaulting buyers and resell the same lot toanother buyer with the same exigent conditions. To help especiallythe low income lot buyers, the legislature enacted R.A. No. 6552delineating the rights and remedies of lot buyers and protect themfrom one-sided and pernicious contract stipulations.


2/4

Reservation Agreement is different from Contract to Sell

JULIETA E. BERNARDO vs. ANDREW (CHONG BUAN) L. TANG.R. No. 185491, July 11, 2012

As can be surmised from the allegations in the petition of Bernardo,her purpose for signing the Reservation Agreement and paying thereservation deposit was merely to reserve the right to purchase Unit23 E of Paseo Parkview Tower II. According to her, Megaworldproposed to enter into a Contract to Buy and Sell - "a distinctcontract from the Reservation Agreement" - but the contract

was never signed by the parties.

Thus, the Reservation Agreemententered into by petitioner andMegaworld must be deemed merely as an option contract.

RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THERE WAS NO NOVATIONWHEN THE LATTER AGREED TO SELL ONLY FIVE

CONDOMINIUM UNITS TO COMPLAINANT.

ISAIAS F. FABRIGAS and MARCELINA R. FABRIGAS vs.SAN FRANCISCO DEL MONTE, INC. (G.R. No. 152346November 25, 2005)

Novation, in its broad concept, may either be extinctive ormodificatory. It is extinctive when an old obligation is terminated by

the creation of a new obligation that takes the place of the former; itis merely modificatory when the old obligation subsists to the extentit remains compatible with the amendatory agreement. Anextinctive novation results either by changing the object orprincipal conditions (objective or real), or by substituting theperson of the debtor or subrogating a third person in the rights of thecreditor (subjective or personal). Under this mode, novation would


3/4

have dual functionsone to extinguish an existing obligation, theother to substitute a new one in its placerequiring a conflux of fouressential requisites: (1) a previous valid obligation; (2) an agreementof all parties concerned to a new contract; (3) the extinguishment of

the old obligation; and (4) the birth of a valid new obligation.

Notwithstanding the improper rescission, the facts of the case showthat Contract to Sell No. 2482-Vwas subsequently novatedby Contract to Sell No. 2491-V. The execution of Contract to Sell No.2491-V accompanied an upward change in the contract price, whichconstitutes a change in the object or principal conditions of thecontract. In entering into Contract to Sell No. 2491-V, the partieswere impelled by causes different from those obtaining

under Contract to Sell No. 2482-V. On the part of petitioners,they agreed to the terms and conditions ofContract to Sell No. 2491-Vnot only to acquire ownership over the subject property but also toavoid the consequences of their default under Contract No. 2482-V.On Del Montes end, the upward change in price was theconsideration for entering into Contract to Sell No. 2491-V.

Sir, I know this does not support our cause but for your

reference, below is a Supreme Court case whichunequivocally held that RA 6552 or Maceda Law applies toReservation Agreements.

REALTY EXCHANGE VENTURE CORPORATION AND/ORMAGDIWANG, REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. LUCINA S. SENDINO and the OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVESECRETARY, Office of the President, Malacaang,Manila, (G.R. No. 109703 July 5, 1994)

Finally, petitioners' assertion thatRA 6552 is inapplicable inthe instant case because the said law does not apply to casesof reservation agreements finds no merit in the case at benchin view of Section 24 of P.D. 957 which provides:


4/4

Sec. 24. Failure to Pay InstallmentsThe rights of the buyer in theevent of his failure to pay the installments due for reasons other thanthe failure of the owner or developer to develop the project shall begoverned by Republic Act No. 6552.

As the Solicitor General correctly pointed out, RA 6552 makes nodistinction between "option" and "sale"which, under P.D. 957also includes "an exchange or attempt to sell, an option of saleor purchase, a solicitation of a sale or an offer to selldirectly." This all-embracing definition virtually includes alltransactions concerning land and housing acquisition,including reservation agreements. Since R.A. 6552 mandatescancellation by notarial actamong other requirementsbefore any

cancellation of a contract may be effected, petitioners' precipitatecancellation of its contract with private respondent without observingthe conditions imposed by the said law was invalid and improper.

Documents

Ynionvsantel.jurisprudence