De Guzman v.

CA (1982)
Petitioners: PILAR DE GUZMAN, ROLANDO GESTUVO, AND MINERVA GESTUVO
Respondents: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, THE HON. JUDGE PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA,
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, BRANCH III, PASAY
CITY, AND LEONIDA P. SINGH
Ponente: CONCEPCION JR.
Topic: Effect of valid consignation, 1259-60
SUMMARY: (1-2 sentence summary of facts, issue, ratio and ruling)
FACTS:
On February 17, 1971, Pilar De Guzman and Sps. Gestuvo (petitioners) executed a contract to
sell with Leonida Singh covering two parcels of land in Pasay. It was stipulated that Singh
should pay the P133,640-balance on or before February 17, 1975.
Two days before Feb. 1975, Singh asked the petitioners to provide the statement of account of
the balance due, copies of certificates of land titles, and power of attorney executed by Rolando
Gestuvo in favor of Pilar De Guzman.
However, petitioners refused. Thus, Singh filed a complaint for specific performance with
damages against petitioners in CFI Rizal. Singh alleged that, by refusing to furnish her with
copies of the documents requested, petitioners deliberately intended not to comply with their
obligations under the contract to sell, as a result of which they committed a breach of contract.
And they had also acted unfairly and in manifest bad faith for which they should be held liable
for damages.
Petitioners claimed that the complaint failed to state a cause of action that the balance due was
already predetermined in the contract that they have no obligation to furnish Singh with copies
of the documents requested and that Singhs failure to pay the balance on the date specified
had caused the contract to expire and become ineffective without necessity of notice or of any
judicial declaration to that effect.
The parties executed a compromise agreement which the Court approved. Under the
agreement:
a. Singh would pay P240,000 not later than Dec. 18, 1977. In case of failure to do so, she
has until Jan. 27, 1978 to pay P250,000. This shall be treated as complete and final
payment for the contract to sell.
b. Immediately upon the receipt of the amount, De Guzman undertakes to execute the
legal documents to transfer the lands to Singh.
c. De Guzman would temporarily desist from enforcing their right to the properties until Jan.
27.

d. Should Singh fail to pay either the amounts mentioned, the contract to sell is
automatically rescinded and immediate enforcement of right of possession without need
of further notice and demand.
e. Payment shall take place before Hon. Bautista in the courtroom of CFI Rizal at 10AM,
Jan. 27, 1978 unless payment was earlier made.
On January 28, petitioners filed a motion for the issuance of writ of execution, claiming that
Singh failed to abide by the terms of the compromise agreement. However, the Court denied the
petitioners' motion for execution, and instead directed the petitioners to immediately execute the
necessary documents transferring to Singh the title to the properties. It also ordered the Clerk of
Court to release to the petitioners P250,000.00, which had been deposited by Singh, upon
proper receipt therefor.
Petitioners filed a notice of appeal. Singh filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds
that: (1) the orders appealed from are inappealable and (2) that the record on appeal is
defective as it does not contain the material data showing that the appeal was perfected on
time. The trial court dismissed the appeal of petitioners. As a result, petitioners filed a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals to nullify the order of the trial court which dismissed their
appeal. The CA sustained the decision of the trial court. Hence, the present recourse.
ISSUE/S:

WoN Singh had substantially complied with the terms and conditions of the compromise
agreement
o YES.
o Her failure to deliver to the petitioners the full amount on January 27, 1978 was
not her fault. The blame lies with the petitioners. The record shows that Singh
went to the sala of Judge Bautista on the appointed day to make payment, as
agreed upon in their compromise agreement. But, the petitioners were not there
to receive it. Only the petitioners' counsel appeared later, but, he informed Singh
that he had no authority to receive and accept payment. Instead, he invited Singh
and her companions to the house of the petitioners to effect payment. But,
petitioners were not there either. They were informed that de Guzman would
arrive late in the afternoon, possibly at around 4:00 o'clock. Singh was assured,
however, that she would be informed as soon as the petitioners arrived. Singh, in
her eagerness to settle her obligation, consented and waited for the call which
did not come and unwittingly let the period lapse.
o The next day, January 28, 1978, Singh went to the office of the Clerk of CFI of
Rizal, Pasay City Branch, to deposit the balance. But, it being a Saturday, the
cashier was not there to receive it.
o So, on the next working day, Monday, January 30, 1978, Singh deposited
P30,000.00 with the cashier of the Office of the Clerk of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Pasay City Branch, to complete the payment of the purchase
price of P250,000.00.
o Since the deposit of the balance of the purchase price was made in good faith
and that the failure of Singh to deposit the purchase price on the date specified

was due to the petitioners who also make no claim that they had sustained
damages because of the two days delay, there was substantial compliance with
the terms and conditions of the compromise agreement.
NOTE: No longer includes procedural issues on the appeal