Villostas vs. Court of Appeals, and Tensuan
210 SCRA 490
June 1992
FACTS:
Petitioner Natividad Villostas and her husband decided to buy a water purifier. Private respondent Electrolux Marketing, Inc.'s (Electrolux) sales agents assured Villostas of the very special features of their brand of water purifier so she ordered one unit. On September 13, 1986, an Electrolux Aqua Guard water purifier was delivered and installed at Villostas's residence. Consequently, petitioner Villostas signed the Sales Order and the Contract of Sale with Reservation of Title in October 1986. Electrolux issued a warranty certificate which provided that it warrants the quality product to perform efficiently for 1 full year from the date of its original purchase. The purchase of said unit was on installment basis under which Villostas would pay the amount of P16,190.00 in 20 monthly installments of P635.00 per month.
After two weeks, the unit began to perform badly and dirty water started coming out of it. Upon Villostas complaint, Electrolux’s technician changed the unit’s filter, without any charge. Villostas, then, paid the amount of P1,650.00 on November 18, 1986 which included the first amortization of P700.00. However, dirty water still came out of the unit after the replacement of the filter. Villostas complained for the 2nd and the 3rd time, and, after being advised that the filter should be changed every 6 months which costs P300, she finally decided to return the unit as early as December 9, 1986 and demand a refund for the amount paid. Electrolux offered to change the water purifier with another brand of any of its appliance of the unit in her favor, but Villostas did not accept it as she was disappointed with the original unit which did not perform as warranted. Consequently, Villostas refused pay any more the subsequent installments in the amount of P14,540.00 exclusive of interests when Electrolux demanded her payment.
Electrolux filed a complaint against Villostas with the MTC of Makati for the recovery of the sum of P14,540.00 as the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the water purifeir plus interest at the rate of 42% per annum. The MTC rendered its judgment in favor of Electrolux, and upon appeal, the RTC of Makati affirmed said decision, and the Court of Appeals denied her petition for review.
ISSUE:
Is the petitioner entitled to rescind the contract on the basis of a violation of the warranty of the article delivered by the respondent?
COURT RULING:
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint of private respondent and declared the contract of sale of the water purifier as rescinded.
Electrolux’s contention that the action for rescission is barred by prescription under Article 1571 of the Civil Code providing for a prescriptive period of six months is bereft of merit. A cursory reading of the ten preceding articles to which Article 1571 refers will reveal that said rule may be applied only in cases of implied warranties. The Warranty Certificate that Electrolux issued to Villostas when the unit was delivered is an example of an express warranty, and consequently, the general rule on rescission of contracts, which is four years (Article 1389, Civil Code) should apply in the case at bar.
