J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Ligaya Javier, G.R. No. L-28569 – Case Digest

  • Reading time:3 mins read


J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. executed a contract to sell, transfer, and convey a parcel of land to the defendant-appellee Ligaya Javier for a total sum of P3,691.20. The amount carries an interest of 10% per annum, with which P396.12 is payable upon the execution of the contract and P43.92 every month for a period of 10 years.

The contract also affords Javier of a grace period shall she fail to pay, and rights of the plaintiff to rescind the contract shall Javier be in default. In addition, all payments made, including the improvements she may make in the property, will be deemed as rents. The defendant defaulted. Consequently, the plaintiff rescinded the contract on May 22, 1964 however, the defendant refused to vacate the land.

The plaintiff commenced an action before the CFI to ask the court to decree the contract as validly rescinded. However, the Court gave credit to the answer of the defendant wherein she admitted her default and reasoned that such “was due to unforeseen circumstances”; that she is “willing to pay all arrears in installments under the contract” and had “in fact offered the same to the plaintiff”; and that said contract “cannot be rescinded upon the unilateral act of the plaintiff.” The CFI ordered Javier to pay all arrears and interests agreed upon within 60 days from receipt of the judgment.


Whether or not the Bill of Rights was operative during the interregnum and whether the respondents enjoy the right against illegal searches and seizures as well as their exclusionary rights.


No, the Bill of Rights was inoperative, but the respondents enjoy the protection against illegal searches and seizures under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) for which the Philippines is a signatory.

With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum. However, the Court ruled that the protection accorded to individuals under the Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the said period.

Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that “[n]o one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” The Declaration also provides in its Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”