4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly payment could not be retained as there was no stipulation to that effect between the parties.[17] The Court of Appeals cited Olivarez Realty Corporation v. Castillo,[18] which clarified that while amounts already paid on a contract to sell will generally be returned in case the full purchase price is not paid, the same may be retained if the buyer was given possession of the property prior to transfer of title. The Court of Appeals held that the Norman Spouses were not given "full possession" of the housing unit because they were restricted to storing their furniture and appliances to a single room, and that the Godinez Spouses retained a key to the premises. Thus, the absence of "full possession" rendered the partial payments on the contract refundable. In any event, the parties never stipulated on the forfeiture of the partial payments made by the Norman Spouses in case the contract to sell failed to push through.[19] WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision on appeal is AFFIRMED. As discussed above, the legal interest to be paid on the amount of US40,000.00 or its peso equivalent is twelve percent (12%) per annum, reckoned from the date of the filing of the complaint until 30 June 2013, and six percent (6%) per annum from 1 July 2013 until finality. Thereafter, the principal amount due as adjusted by interest shall likewise earn interest at six percent (6%) per annum until fully paid. IT IS SO ORDERED.[20] The Godinez Spouses moved for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals' Decision, arguing that Olivarez applied in their favor because it allowed the sellers to retain the partial payments made on the contract.[21] However, the Court of Appeals denied the Motion in a Resolution dated May 12, 2016.[22] The Court of Appeals maintained that the cited portion of Olivarez did not apply to the Godinez Spouses' case.[23] According to the Court of Appeals, Olivarez allowed the retention of the partial payments on the contract to sell only because the prospective buyers were "given full possession of the subject property."[24] Since the Norman Spouses were not allowed such full possession, the amounts paid on the contract should be reimbursed to the Norman Spouses.[25] Thus, the Godinez Spouses filed before this Court a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, arguing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by misapplying Olivarez. While petitioners agreed that the contract was one to sell, they asserted that the ruling in Olivarez actually justified their retention of the partial payments.[26] According to petitioners, Olivarez allowed the prospective seller to retain the partial payments made by the prospective buyers, because the latter were placed in full possession of the subject property pending transfer of title. Here, petitioners alleged that although the Norman Spouses did not occupy the property, they were in full possession of it from August 23, 2006 to January 2007, having stored furniture, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66239 3/14