JOSE ANTONIO MAPA, petitioner, vs. HON. JOKER ARROYO, in his Capacity as Executive Secretary, and LABRADOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents.; G.R. No. 78585 July 5, 1989

on

Rationale:

“Ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sentential”

Relative words refer to the nearest antecedent, unless it be prevented by the context. 

In the present case, the employment of the word "and" between "facilities, improvements, infrastructures" and "other forms of development," far from supporting petitioner's theory, enervates it instead since it is basic in legal hermeneutics that "and" is not meant to separate words but is a conjunction used to denote a joinder or union.

Facts:

1. On 1975, four contracts of sale of subdivision lots were entered by petitioner Jose Antonio Mapa and respondent Labrador Development Corporation (Labrador). 

2. After Mapa’s failure to pay his unpaid installments despite two demand letters, Labrador sent a notarial cancellation of the four contracts.

3. Such certification was withheld in the demand of petitioner that respondent must comply with his contractual obligation imbued in Clause 20 of their contract to provide for lighting and water facilities to subdivision lot buyers. 

4. Since the petitioner did not pay the agreed amount in full, respondent refused to accept his payment. 

5. Mapa then filed a complaint that respondent neglected to meet the minimum HSRC standard for water system, and electrical power supply, and to enjoin respondent to cancel his contracts. 

6. The HSRC dismissed the complaint by default of the petitioner on the lapse of 5 years. 

6. Under P.D. No. 957, Mapa contends that Labrador cannot rescind the said contracts since he did not cause delay on his part, but the latter, failing to perform their contractual obligations.


Issue:

Whether Labrador can validly rescind the contracts of sale with the petitioner.


Ruling:

YES, Labrador can validly rescind the said contracts of sale.

Under Section 20 of P.D. No. 957, “every owner or developer shall construct and provide the facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development…within one year from the date of the issuance of the license for the subdivision…fixed by the Authority.”

MAPA

SC

Doctrine of last antecedent

 

in the interpretation of Section 20 and, correlatively, of Section 21.

 

the enumeration of "facilities, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development" interpreted to mean that the demonstrative phrase "which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision plans, etc." refer only to "other forms of development" and not to "facilities, improvements and infrastructures."

Ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio nisi impediatur sentencia. Relative words refer to the nearest antecedent, unless it be prevented by the context.

 

In the present case, the employment of the word “and” between “facilities, improvements, infrastructures” and “other forms of development,” far from supporting petitioner’s theory, enervates it instead since it is basic in legal hermeneutics that “and” is not meant to separate words but is a conjunction used to denote a joinder or union.



Moreover, P.D. No. 957 cannot be applied retrospectively since it was issued on July 12, 1976 long after the execution of the contracts involved (September 18, 1975 - lots 12 & 13; different months in 1976, lots 15 & 16). The Court found that the respondent has the right to rescind the contracts, petitioner’s suspended payments on the ground of nondevelopment was improper since the period allowed for respondent’s obligation to undertake such development has not yet expired. Thus, the petition was dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment