gg sportswear

7/23/2019 Gg Sportswear

1/3

G.G. SPORTSWEAR MFG. CORP.,Petitioner vs. WORLD CLASSPROPERTIES, INC.,Respondent

G.R. No. 18!"

FACTS# World Class is the owner/developer

of Global Business Tower (now Antel Global Corporate Center), an ocecondominium proect located on !ulia "ar#as Avenue and !ade

$rive, %rti#as Center, &asi#Cit' slated for completion on $ecember , **+

GG -portswear, a domestic corporation, o.ered to purchase the +th0oor

penthouse unit and 1 par2in# slots for 3 cars in World Class4s condominium

proect for the discounted, pre5sellin# price of &+*,136,373+3 After GG

-portswear paid the &88,88888 reservation fee, the parties, on 9a' ,

**1, si#ned a :eservation A#reement (Agreement) that provides for the

schedule of pa'ments, includin# the stipulated monthl' installments on the

down pa'ment and the balance on the purchase price

Based on the A#reement, the contract to sell pertainin# to the entire+th0oor &enthouse unit and the par2in# slots would be e;ecuted upon the

pa'ment of thirt' percent (8t also stipulated

that all its provisions would be deemed incorporated in the contract to sell

and other documents to be e;ecuted b' the parties thereafter The

A#reement also speci?ed that the failure of the bu'er to pa' an' of the

installments on the stipulated date would #ive the developer the ri#ht either

to@ () char#e < interest per month on all unpaid receivables, or (3) rescind

and cancel the A#reement without the need of an' court action and, upon

cancellation, automaticall' forfeit the reservation fee and other pa'mentsmade b' the bu'er rom 9a' to $ecember **1, GG -portswear timel' paid

the installments due the ei#ht monthl' installment pa'ments amounted to a

total of &*,77,*8, or 3< of the total contract price

>n a letter dated !anuar' 8, **7, GG -portswear reuested the return

of the outstandin# postdated chec2s it previousl' delivered to World Class

because it (GG -portswear) intended to replace these old chec2s with new

ones from the corporationDs new ban2 World Class acceded, but su##ested

the e;ecution of a new :eservation A#reement to re0ect the arran#ement

involvin# the replacement chec2s, with the retention of the other terms and

conditions of the old A#reement GG -portswear did not obect to the

e;ecution of a new :eservation A#reement, but reuested that World Class

defer the deposit of the replacement chec2s for *8 da's World Class denied

this reuest, contendin# that a deferment would dela' the subseuent

monthl' installment pa'ments >t li2ewise demanded that GG -portswear

immediatel' pa' its overdue !anuar' **7 installment to avoid the

penalties provided in the A#reement

>n its Answer, World Class countered that@ () it is not #uilt' of breach of

contract since it is the petitioner that committed a breach (3) the complaint

is an afterthou#ht since GG -portswear is su.erin# from ?nancial diculties() the petitionerDs dissatisfaction with the e;pected date of completion of the

unit as indicated in the proposed Contract to -ell is not a valid and sucient

#round for refund (6) a refund is usti?ed onl' in cases where the

owner/developer fails to developthe proect within the speci?ed period of

time under &residential $ecree (&$) Eo *7, which period has not yet
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/182720.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/182720.htm#_ftn5


2/3

arrivedand () the petitioner was already in default when it led the

complaint and therefore came to court with unclean hands

World Class appealed to the FH:B Board of Commissioners

(Board) %n !anuar' , 3881, the Board modiedthe ArbiterDs decision b'

rulin# that the A#reement could no lon#er be rescinded for lac2 of C:/-because World Class had alread' been issued a icense to -ell on Au#ust ,

**1, or before the complaint was ?led Eotwithstandin# this

pronouncement, the Board still awarded are fundin GG -portswearDs favor

The Board reasoned that World Class had onl' until Au#ust **+ to complete

the proect under its ?rst icense to -ell Fowever, World Class, b' its own

actions, impliedl' admitted that it would be incapable of completin# its

proect b' this time it repac2a#ed the proect and had applied for and been

issued a new icense to -ell, which #ranted World Class until $ecember ***

to complete the proect >n essence, the Board euated World ClassDs

Iincapabilit'J to ?nish the proect within the time speci?ed in its ?rst icense

to -ell with a developerDs Ifailure to developJ a condominium proect K an

omission sanctioned under &$ Eo *7 and entitled a bu'er to a refund of all

pa'ments made

ISS$ES#

Whether or not the CA erred when it relied heavil' on the BoardDs

?ndin# that the A#reement could no lon#er be rescinded because the

C:/- had alread' been issued at the time the complaint was ?led,

which was a mere obiter dictum.3 Whether or not the CA erred when it held that GG -portswear was not

entitled to the e;ecution of a Contract to -ell because it had not 'et

paid 8< of the total value of the sale

R$LING# >t has been held that an adudication on an' point within the issues

presented b' the case cannot be considered as obiter dictum, and this rule

applies to all pertinent uestions, althou#h onl' incidentall' involved, which

are presented and decided in the re#ular course of the consideration of the

case, and led up to the ?nal conclusion, and to an' statement as to matter on

which the decision is predicated Accordin#l', a point e;pressl' decided doesnot lose its value as a precedent because the disposition of the case is, or

mi#ht have been, made on some other #round, or even thou#h, b' reason of

other points in the case, the result reached mi#ht have been the same if the

court had held, on the particular point, otherwise than it did A decision which

the case could have turned on is not re#arded as obiter dictummerel'

because, owin# to the disposal of the contention, it was necessar' to consider

another uestion, nor can an additional reason in a decision, brou#ht forward

after the case has been disposed of on one #round, be re#arded as dicta -o,

also, where a case presents two (3) or more points, an' one of which is

sucient to determine the ultimate issue, but the court actuall' decides all

such points, the case as an authoritative precedent as to ever' point decided,

and none of such points can be re#arded as havin# the status of a dictum,

and one point should not be denied authorit' merel' because another point

was more dwelt on and more full' ar#ued and considered, nor does a decision


3/3

on one proposition ma2e statements of the court re#ardin# other

propositions dicta.

The A#reement e;pressl' provides that GG -portswear shall be entitled to

a Contract to -ell onl' upon its pa'ment of at least 8< of the total contract

price -ince GG -portswear had onl' paid 3< of the total contractprice, World ClassDs obli#ation to e;ecute a Contract to -ell had not 'et

arisen.Accordin#l', GG -portswear had no basis to claim that World Class

breached this obli#ation When GG -portswear ?led its complaint, World Class

had not 'et breached its obli#ation, and rescission under this provision of the

Civil Code was premature

gg sportswear

Documents