Suit for Ejectment Despite Contract to Sell

A suit for ejectment was filed despite the fact that there was a contract to sell between the parties. The buyer failed to pay as his checks bounced. In fact, one condition in the contract was that the buyer shall not possess the property until full payment but because he issued checks he was allowed to take possession. Is the ejectment suit proper? Why?

person holding a key
Photo by Kindel Media on

Answer: No, because for as long as the contract to sell is subsisting, the ejectment suit is premature. At most, the action should be for rescission of the contract. (Lavido vs CA et al., 81 SCAD 533, 271 SCRA 141). After the contract has been rescinded and demand has been made for the defendant to vacate but he refuses, an unlawful detainer suit can now prosper he can now be considered a deforciant possessor.

Write a Comment