4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The conversion of partial payments into rentals is also consistent with Article 1378 of the Civil Code, which teaches that doubts in the interpretation of onerous contracts "should be settled in favor of the greatest reciprocity of interests."[65] We find it only proper that respondents reciprocate their use of the premises with the payment of rentals while full payment on their contract to sell was still pending. Olivarez also recognized that compensation for use of the property must be reasonable. In Olivarez, this Court allowed the seller to retain the partial payments because the buyers possessed and used the property without paying rentals. Likewise, Gomez considered the "benefits, financial or otherwise"[66] enjoyed by the buyer in determining whether or not to retain partial payments as reasonable compensation. In both cases, the sellers were unable to use their respective properties because the buyers were in possession thereof. While there is no definitive legal standard for computing reasonable rentals on residential properties, this Court notes that US$40,000.00 amounts to 22.9%, or over a fifth, of the total purchase price of petitioner's housing unit, which is not commensurate to the value respondents may have derived from their four (4) month possession of the property. While respondents' possession prevented petitioners from using the premises, even petitioners recognized that respondents did not actually occupy the housing unit. [67] There is also no evidence before this Court indicating the "benefits, financial or otherwise,"[68] that respondents may have derived from their possession. Thus, respondents' limited use of the premises requires us to temper the amount of partial payments that petitioners may reasonably retain. Determining reasonable rentals would depend on the circumstances of the parties, the nature of the property being rented, and the prevailing situation in the relevant market at the time of the transaction, among others. Ordinarily, this would require reception of evidence, and thus, a remand of the case to the lower courts. However, in order to speedily dispose of this case, and in view of the time already spent litigating this issue, a recourse to the analogous case of Olivarez is proper. In Olivarez, this Court effectively allowed the prospective seller to convert partial payments to rentals, with such rentals amounting to 13.1% of the property's total purchase price. Having already determined the applicability of the Olivarez ruling on the retention of partial payments, the circumstances of this case would warrant the retention of a similar amount. Thus, rentals for the housing unit may be set at 13.1% of the US$175,000.00 total purchase price, or US$22,925.00. Petitioners may, therefore, retain US$22,925.00 of the US$40,000.00 partially paid by respondents, but must return the remaining US$17,075.00 to respondents. The Court of Appeals' insistence that compensation is not warranted because respondents were unable to fully occupy the property is unmeritorious. Olivarez[69] and Gomez[70] both allowed the retention of partial payments as reasonable compensation for the prospective buyer 's possession or use of the property. Full occupation of the premises is not required; neither is this Court persuaded by respondents' argument that Olivarez does not apply because respondents did not illegally withhold possession of the premises or of payment of the purchase price. The payment of reasonable rentals is not meant to punish the illegality of respondents' actions, but to compensate https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66239 9/14