When Can You Eject a Buyer? Understanding Rescission and Ejectment in Philippine Property Law

G.R. No. 123462, April 10, 1997

Imagine you’ve agreed to sell your property, but the buyer’s check bounces. Can you simply kick them out? This case clarifies when an ejectment suit is appropriate versus a rescission of contract, impacting property rights significantly.

INTRODUCTION

This case, Ofelia C. Lavibo and Benjamin L. Bargas vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Tradal Ventures and Management Corporation, revolves around a failed property sale and the subsequent legal battle over possession. Tradal Ventures, the seller, sought to eject Lavibo, the buyer, after her checks for the down payment bounced and she refused to vacate the property. The core issue: Can a seller file an ejectment suit when a contract to sell is still in effect, or does the contract first need to be rescinded?

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of understanding the proper legal remedies when dealing with breaches of contract in property transactions. It highlights the crucial distinction between rescission of a contract and an action for ejectment, providing valuable guidance for both sellers and buyers.

LEGAL CONTEXT: RESCISSION AND EJECTMENT

Rescission and ejectment are distinct legal remedies with different grounds and procedures. Rescission, under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, allows a party to a reciprocal obligation (like a contract to sell) to cancel the agreement due to a breach by the other party. Ejectment, on the other hand, is a summary proceeding to recover possession of property.

Rescission: Article 1191 of the Civil Code states, “The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him. The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.”

To illustrate, imagine a scenario where a buyer fails to pay the agreed-upon price for a car. The seller, under Article 1191, has the right to either demand payment (fulfillment) or cancel the sale (rescission).

Ejectment: This is a legal action to recover possession of real property. There are two primary types: forcible entry (when someone takes possession illegally) and unlawful detainer (when someone initially had lawful possession but refuses to leave after the right to possess has ended). Ejectment cases are typically summary proceedings handled expeditiously by the courts.

CASE BREAKDOWN: LAVIBO VS. TRADAL

Here’s a breakdown of the key events in the Lavibo vs. Tradal case:

• Contract to Sell: Tradal agreed to sell a townhouse unit to Lavibo for P1,500,000.00.
• Initial Payments and Occupancy: Lavibo made an initial payment and was allowed to occupy the unit after issuing postdated checks.
• Dishonored Checks: The checks bounced because the account was closed.
• Demand to Vacate: Tradal demanded Lavibo vacate the premises.
• Ejectment Suit: Tradal filed an ejectment case with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC).
• MeTC Dismissal: The MeTC dismissed the case, stating that the complaint was essentially for rescission, which was beyond its jurisdiction.
• RTC Affirms: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MeTC’s decision.
• Court of Appeals Reversal: The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts, ruling in favor of Tradal.
• Supreme Court Reversal: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the decisions of the MeTC and RTC.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the nature of the action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. The Court quoted from the complaint:

“That by virtue of the unwarranted acts of defendants, plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the contract…and declaring the contract, Annex ‘A’ rescinded.”

The Court found that Tradal’s complaint sought the rescission of the contract to sell. Because the contract to sell was still in effect (not yet rescinded), the ejectment suit was premature. The MeTC lacked jurisdiction over rescission cases, which fall under the jurisdiction of the RTC.

“Since the ‘Contract to Sell’ between the parties still subsists, at least until properly rescinded, the action for ejectment filed by Tradal is clearly premature.”

The Supreme Court underscored that an ejectment action based on a contract to sell can only prosper after the contract has been legally rescinded, either through a notarial act or a court decision.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This case highlights the critical importance of understanding the legal remedies available in property transactions. Sellers cannot simply file an ejectment suit when a buyer breaches a contract to sell, especially if the contract has not been formally rescinded. The correct procedure is to either rescind the contract and then file for ejectment or pursue specific performance.

For buyers, this case provides assurance that their rights under a contract to sell are protected, and they cannot be summarily evicted without due process.

Key Lessons

• Rescission First: Before filing an ejectment suit based on a breach of a contract to sell, ensure the contract is legally rescinded.
• Jurisdiction Matters: Understand the jurisdictional limits of different courts. The MeTC generally does not have jurisdiction over rescission cases.
• Complaint is Key: The nature of the action is determined by the allegations in the complaint. Ensure the complaint accurately reflects the desired remedy.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q: What is the difference between rescission and ejectment?

A: Rescission is the cancellation of a contract, while ejectment is a legal action to recover possession of property.

Q: When can a seller file an ejectment case against a buyer in a contract to sell?

A: Only after the contract to sell has been legally rescinded, either through a notarial act or a court decision.

Q: Which court has jurisdiction over rescission cases?

A: Generally, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction over rescission cases.

Q: What happens if a seller files an ejectment case prematurely?

A: The case may be dismissed for lack of cause of action or lack of jurisdiction.

Q: What should a buyer do if they receive a notice to vacate based on a contract to sell that hasn’t been rescinded?

A: Consult with a lawyer to understand their rights and options, which may include challenging the ejectment action.

Q: What is specific performance?

A: Specific performance is a legal remedy where the court orders a party to fulfill their obligations under a contract.

Q: What is a notarial act of rescission?

A: This is a formal written notice of rescission served to the breaching party through a notary public.

Q: What is unlawful detainer?

A: This is a type of ejectment case where someone initially had lawful possession of a property but refuses to leave after their right to possess has ended.

ASG Law specializes in real estate law, contract disputes, and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.