POWER COMMERCIAL V.

CA (June 20,
1997)
FACTS:
Petitioner asbestos manufacturer Power Commercial and
industrial corporation bought the property of spouses
Reynaldo and Angelita Quiambao located in Makati City.
Since there are lessees occupying the subject land, part of
the deed of sale is a warranty of respondents that will defend
its title and peaceful possession in favor of the petitioners.
The property is mortgage to PNP and as such, petitioners
filed a request to assume responsibility of the mortgage.
Because of petitioners failure to produce the required papers,
their petition was denied.
Petitioners allege that the contract should be rescinded
because of failure of delivery.
ISSUE:
WON the contract is recissible due to breach of contract.
HELD:
There is no breach of contact in this case since there is no
provision in the contract that imposes the obligation to the
respondents to eject the people occupying the property.
There was also a constructive delivery because the deed of
sale was made in a public document. The contention of the
petitioners that there could be no constructive delivery
because the respondents is not in possession of the property

is of no merit. What matters in a constructive delivery is

control and not possession. Control was placed in the hands
of the petitioners that is why they were able to file an
ejectment case. Prior physical delivery or possession is not
legally required and the execution of the deed of sale is
deemed equivalent to delivery.