PANGILINAN VS CA

FACTS

This is a petition for review wherein the petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
in which reversed the decision of the RTC in the original action filed by the spouses petitioner.

In this case, petitioners sps. Pangilinan and respondents Canlas entered into a Contract to Buy and To
Sell a subdivision located in San Fernando Pampanga payable in installment basis for 120 months. The
petitioners paid 85% of the total cost of the lot, however they defaulted payment after the 85% has been
paid. Paragraph 5 of the contract provided for automatic extrajudicial rescission upon default in payment
of three consecutive monthly installments or to comply with any of the terms and conditions with
forfeitures of installments as rents and as payment for damages. The contract to by and to sell as well as
the receipts of various payments made by petitioners in favor of private respondents were given by the
former to Mr. Arcadio S. Mallari wherein the latter equipped with a special power of attorney from
petitioners.

Petitioners went to respondents to request them to release the titles of the lot however, Jose Canlas
(respondent) told him that they were not in a position to release the title to said lot because the same had
already been disposed of Mr. Mallari discovered that the lot was mortgaged. After the lapse of eight years
from the last date of payment he instituted a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages and the
RTC rendered decision in favor of the petitioners, however, the CA reversed and set aside the decision of
the lower court, hence, this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners are guilty of laches.

RULING

Petitioners aver that the doctrine of laches is not applicable in this case because (1) petitioners failure to
pay in full the balance of 15% of the total price of the lot was due to the reneged obligation of the private
respondents to improve the subdivision and install facilities; (2) the mortgage of the lot to Rural Bank of
Sta. Rita was done without their consent and knowledge.

The same has no merit. It must be noted that upon a careful examination of the records of this case, it
appears that the contention of the petitioners that their failure to pay the balance of 15% of the total
contract price of the lot was due to the inability of the private respondent to improve the subdivision and
install facilities which was raised only for the first time on appeal. They did not raise this issue before the
lower courts. It is settled that an issue which was neither averred in the complaint nor raised during the
trial in the court below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Issues of fact and arguments not
adequately brought to the attention of the trial court need not be and ordinarily will not be considered by a
reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Assuming arguendo that it was
raised before the trial court, the same would be without merit because the failure of the private
respondents to install facilities would not deter them from asking for the rescission of the agreement if
petitioners failed to comply with their obligation to pay the monthly installments when they become due,
otherwise, the right of rescission would be rendered inutile. In the same vein, petitioners by virtue of their
contract with private respondents should have complied in good faith with its terms and conditions being
the law between them. From the moment the contract is perfected, the parties are bound not only to the
fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all consequences which, according to their
nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. The Contract to Buy and to Sell, specifically
paragraph 5 thereof, not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, is
valid and binding between the parties thereto.
Explicitly, spouses Pangilinan instead of being vigilant and diligent in asserting their rights over the
subject property had failed to assert their rights when the law requires them to act. Laches or "stale
demands" is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the
discouragement of stale claims and unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is
principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.