Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ce site utilise des cookies provenant de Google afin de fournir ses services, personnaliser les annonces et
analyser le trafic. Les informations relatives votre utilisation du site sont partages avec Google. En acceptant
ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation des cookies.
C A
EN SAVOIR PLUS
NOK ! N O T R E
S U P R E M E C O
. . . ' C A U S E I D O N ' T K N O W H
T H U R S D A Y , N O V E M W B E E L R C O 2 M3 E, T1 O9 9 L5 A W
Finally, Romero (P) told Ongsiong (D) that she has not
complied with her obligation under their contract in good
faith. It is undeniable that she deliberately refused to exert
efforts to eject the squatters and retain the property because
of the sudden increase in the value of properties in the
surrounding areas.
The lower court held that Ongsiong (D) had no right to rescind
the contract since it was she who "violated her obligation to
eject the squatters from the subject property" and that
Romero (P), being the injured party, was the party who could,
under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, rescind the agreement.
The court further ruled that the provision calling for the
reimbursement of the down payment amounted to a "penalty
clause".
N O C O M M E N T S :
P O S T A C O M M E N T
Publish Preview