Judicial Demand For Rescission by Way of Cross-Claim

The cross - claim found in the answer filed in the trial court constitutes judicial demand for rescission that satisfies the requirements of Article 1592, NCC. (Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc. vs. Maritime Building Co., Inc., 43 SCRA 93 (1972)). In Iringan vs. CA, 366 SCRA 41 (2001), it was held that an action for Judicial Confirmation of Rescission and Damages before the Regional Trial Court complied with the requirement of the law for judicial demand of rescission even if the intention of the moving party was to compel the other party to formalize in a public document their extrajudicial mutual agreement to rescind. In this case, the mutual agreement to rescind was forged when the injured party sent to the defaulting party a letter stating that he had considered the contract rescinded and that he would not accept any further payment. The defaulting party replied that he was not opposing the revocation of the sale, save for some reimbursements. The Court held that though the letter declaring the intention to rescind did not satisfy the “demand” required by the law, the subsequent case filed for a judicial confirmation of the rescission did meet the requirement for a valid demand. (Ramil v. Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 133208, July 31, 2006).