CASE DIGEST: Sps. Mahusay v. B.E. San Diego

 

SPOUSES JUANITO MAHUSAY and FRANCISCA MAHUSAY, petitioners, vs. B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC., respondent

G.R. No. 179675          |          June 8, 2011

FACTS:

Petitioner spouses Juanito and Francisca Mahusay purchased several lots in Aurora Subdivision, Malabon, Metro Manila, owned by respondent B.E. San Diego, Inc.

Due to petitioners’ nonpayment of the monthly amortizations, respondent was constrained to file a case for cancellation of contracts. Thereafter, a Compromise Agreement was entered into by the parties, whereby petitioners agreed to pay respondent the remaining balance of the purchase price of all the lots. Petitioners failed to comply with the terms embodied in the Compromise Agreement; thus, on April 18, 1990, respondent filed a Complaint for Specific Performance.

When the Decision became final and executory, in the execution of the Decision, the parties disagreed, particularly in the computation of the amount to be paid by petitioners.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent are entitled to receive the unpaid balance of the purchase price

RULING:

The Court notes that petitioners are in actual/physical possession of the properties and enjoying the beneficial use thereof, despite the payment of only P133,872.76, as of January 30, 1979. It would be grossly unfair for respondent to be deprived of the amount it would have received from the sale of their properties, while petitioners benefited from the use and continued possession of the properties even if no payments were made by them since October 1978. It is a basic rule in law that no one shall unjustly enrich oneself at the expense of another. Indeed, to allow petitioners to keep the properties without paying for them in full amounts to unjust enrichment on their part. The fair market value of the land has tremendously increased over the past years. It is, therefore, just, fair, and equitable that petitioners be made to pay interest/penalty for the delay in their payments.

Finally, the Court notes that this case has dragged on for many years. In order to writ finis to this protracted litigation between the parties, we resolve the case in accordance with jurisprudence on the matter. Undeniably, the instant case is a sale of real property where the purchase price is not paid in full. The unpaid seller’s remedy is either an action to collect the balance or to rescind the contract within the time allowed by law. Since rescission is no longer an option considering that petitioners have been in possession of the properties for a considerable period of time, substantial justice dictates that respondent be entitled to receive the unpaid balance of  the purchase price, plus legal interest thereon.