Pryce Properties Corp. (Now Pryce Corporation) v. Narciso R. Nolasco, Jr.

Summary

This case involves a real estate transaction where buyer Nolasco paid P393,435.00 in deposits for three lots but never signed the formal contract to sell due to objectionable terms. When he demanded refund, seller Pryce refused, claiming valid rescission under the Maceda Law (RA 6552). The Supreme Court affirmed lower courts' decisions ordering refund, holding that Pryce failed to comply with RA 6552's strict requirements for contract rescission. The Court emphasized that notarial rescission requires proper acknowledgment, not mere jurat, and valid proof of identity. The decision clarifies rescission procedures under the Maceda Law and protects installment buyers' rights when sellers fail to follow proper cancellation procedures. The case demonstrates the Court's strict application of consumer protection laws in real estate transactions and establishes important precedent on notarial requirements for contract rescission.