SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253214. November 23, 2020.]
CHRISTINE A. TERRADO-GARCIA AND CINDY A. TERRADO, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES ERNESTO AND MA. CONNIE M. GUEVARRA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 November 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253214 (Christine A. Terrado-Garcia and Cindy A. Terrado v. Spouses Ernesto and Ma. Connie M. Guevarra) — After a review of the records, this Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its October 24, 2019 Amended Decision 1 and August 28, 2020 Resolution 2 in CA-G.R. CV No. 108914.
It is a hornbook doctrine that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The trial court's findings of fact, which the CA affirmed, are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. 3 In this case, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found that there is valid cause for the rescission of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Although the CA initially ruled that the provision on rescission under the Civil Code is not applicable to the MOA because it is a Contract to Sell, the CA arrived at the conclusion that the MOA should be "deemed cancelled" due to petitioners' failure to pay the full contract price. Subsequently, the CA, in its October 24, 2019 Amended Decision, ruled that the MOA is a contract of sale, after it found that there was no express reservation of ownership on the part of respondents, and as such, the MOA could be rescinded since there is cause for its rescission. Therefore, absent any circumstance which would warrant a review of the lower courts' factual findings, this Court is not inclined to entertain factual issues.
In any event, the CA correctly upheld the findings and ruling of the RTC. As a contractual remedy, rescission is available when one of the parties substantially fails to do what he has obligated himself to perform. It aims to address the breach of faith and the violation of reciprocity between two parties in a contract. 4 Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, the right of rescission is inherent in reciprocal obligations, as in the MOA between the parties in this case. In contravention to the provisions of the MOA, petitioners stopped payment of their monthly amortizations despite demands from respondents. Accordingly, such breach defeated the very object of the parties in entering into the MOA and entitled respondents to exercise their right to rescission.
All told, the CA committed no reversible error in its October 24, 2019 Amended Decision. However, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, there is a need to apply the interest of 6% per annum to the monetary awards from the time this Resolution becomes final and executory until full payment thereof. 5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The October 24, 2019 Amended Decision and August 28, 2020 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 108914 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be imposed upon all monetary awards in favor of respondents to be computed from the finality of this Resolution until full satisfaction.
SO ORDERED. (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 52-59; penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, with Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Ramon A. Cruz, concurring.
2.Id. at 62-64.
3.Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil. 167 (2016).
4.Fong v. Dueñas, 759 Phil. 373, 384 (2015).
5.Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013).