LEGAL RESEARCH 2013-2014MODESTO DIANE ERIKA L.20134000601BJULY 7, 2013YANEZA VS. COUR OF APPEALS (572 SCRA 413)PAPER #1Facts: Petitioner is the owner of a 603 sq. Meter parcel of land in San Juan, Rizal denominated as lot 2730-A situated at Calle kay Rumagit, Brgy. San Juan, Baras Rizal. Respondent Manuel De Jesus and Wilhelm Manzano are the owners of lot 2732 which is adjacent to lot 2732-A. The respondents lot has no access to the nearest road except through the road which they constructed over a portion of lot 2732-A. Petitioner send a letter to respondent De Jesus that he is the owner of the lot 2732-A and that he does not agree with the use of his portion of land as an access road for it will affect the configuration of his property. As an option, petitioner offered to sell to the respondents the entire property. Respondent disagreed, so Yanaza proposed a perpetual easement of right of way (4 meters wide) and stated that he will prepare the necessary document to facilitate the transaction for a consideration of P20,000. De Jesus found out that it covered only 175 sq. Meter and not 280 sq. Meter. There was renegotiation and for an additional consideration of P40,000, Yanaza agreed to sell the entire 280 sq. Meter. De Jesus LEGAL RESEARCH 2013-2014MODESTO DIANE ERIKA L.20134000601BJULY 7, 2013YANEZA VS. COUR OF APPEALS (572 SCRA 413)PAPER #1constructed a road three meters wider than what was provided in the contract. Nevertheless, petitioner allowed it even when he started the construction of his house adjacent to the access road. Later, a serious misunderstanding took place between Yaneza and respondents caretaker Benjamin Manzano because he allegedly refused to allow Yaneza to tap water and electricity from the respondents property. Allegedly, petitioner retaliated and constructed a fence along the access road hindering the trucks to pass through. Almost a year later, petitioner informed respondents that he is cancelling the deed of sale by way of a deed of cancellation which he executed on his own. Respondents refused to honor the cancellation, petitioner therefore filed a complaint for cancellation of contract with the MCTC of Teresa-Baras. The court dismiss the complaint. The Regional Trial Court affirms the MCTC decision. Thus,

LEGAL RESEARCH 2013-2014MODESTO DIANE ERIKA L.20134000601BJULY 7, 2013YANEZA VS. COUR OF APPEALS (572 SCRA 413)PAPER #1Yaneza is now praying for the rescission of the contract for easement of right of way.Issue: whether the petitioner may validly rescind the contract for easement of right of way.Held: The petition is dismissed. The construction of the road beyond the stipulated area does not constitute a breach of contract. Breach of contract implies a failure without legal excuse to perform any promise or undertaking that forms part of the contract. The original agreement had already been superseded or novated by a new contract, covering an increase area of 280 sq. meter