- Petitioner
- Brittany
- Respondent
- Bentulan
- Citation
- G.R. No. 231506
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decided
- April 24, 2023
Whether there was a valid contract to sell between the parties and the obligation to refund payments made under the Maceda Law
Summary
This case involves a real estate dispute between developer Brittany Corporation and buyer Paz Bentulan over lot purchase in Georgia Club Subdivision. Bentulan signed a quotation sheet, paid reservation fee and partial down payments, but later withdrew demanding full refund when subsequent checks bounced. Lower courts initially ordered partial or full refund based on equity principles. However, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that parties entered into a valid contract to sell based on the quotation sheet's essential elements. The Court found no valid rescission under the Maceda Law because Brittany's cancellation notice was not properly notarized as required by RA 6552. The contract remains valid and subsisting, with no obligation to refund payments. The decision clarifies requirements for valid contract rescission under consumer protection laws and emphasizes proper notarization procedures for real estate transaction cancellations.