Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
47Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rexbookstore Case Digest 2006 Vol. I

Rexbookstore Case Digest 2006 Vol. I

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,087 |Likes:
Published by silverbow11
I do not own this document. This is only for future references and for back up.
I do not own this document. This is only for future references and for back up.

More info:

Published by: silverbow11 on Aug 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
209REX CASE DIGEST: CIVIL LAW
Sales; R.A. 6552 (Maceda Law)
Where less than two years of installments have been made,Section 4 of RA 6552 grants the vendee a grace period of not less than sixty days from the date the installment became dueto pay the amortizations. If the vendee fails to pay at the end of the grace period, the vendor may cancel the contract 30 daysafter the receipt by the vendee of the notice of cancellation.
RUSSEL DE LOS SANTOS,
et al.
, petitioners,
v.
COURT OF APPEALS,
et al
.,respondents, G.R. No. 147912, April 26, 2006. Second Division.
Corona, J.
 Facts:
On
certiorari
is the decision of the Court of Appeals which dis-missed the petition
led by the petitioner due to technical grounds.Petitioners entered into a contact to sell with the private respondentPasig Realty and Development Corp. for the purchase of a parcel of land. Peti-tioners paid the downpayment and issued ten postdated checks. However, onlyone of the checks was honored. Respondent demanded payment of all unpaidamortizations, but petitioners failed to make any payments. This prompted thecorporation to notify the petitioners that it was exercising its option to cancelthe contract with forfeiture of payments made, effective 30 days from notice,as provided by Section 4 of R.A. 6552 and par. 6 of the contract to sell.
 Issue:
Whether the private respondent is justi
ed in canceling the contractto sell and revoking the payments previously made by the petitioners.
 Ruling:
The petition is DISMISSED. The rescission of the contract and theconsequent forfeiture of the payments were in accordance to the contract itself and R.A. 6552.
 Rule in case a vendee of a real property has paid less than two years of in-stallments.
 
In cases such as this where less than two years of installmentshave been made, Section 4 of R.A. 6552 grants the vendee a grace period of not less than sixty days from the date the installment became due to pay theamortizations. If the vendee fails to pay at the end of the grace period, thevendor may cancel the contract 30 days after the receipt by the vendee of thenotice of cancellation.
The contract to sell grants the same option to the vendor.
 
In the same vein,paragraph 6 of the contract to sell granted the vendor an option to cancel thecontract and forfeit the payments made should the vendee fail to pay any of the monthly amortizations within 60 days from the due date. Thereafter, thevendor may dispose of the subject lot to any other person as if said contracthad never been made. Here, petitioners paid P10,000 on June 6, 1988. Despite
 
REX CASE DIGEST 2006210
the lapse of more than 60 days as grace period, they continued to default intheir obligation. On January 18, 1989, private respondent corporation opted tocancel the contract with forfeiture of payments made. Accordingly, thirty daystherefrom, the contract was cancelled and payments made were forfeited.
 P.D. No. 957 is not applicable.
 
Petitioners cannot seek protection from P.D.957 particularly its provision providing for non-forfeiture of payments whenthe vendee desists from further payment due to the failure of the developer orowner to develop the subdivision. The ocular inspection report showed sub-stantial compliance on the part of the corporation insofar as the development of the subdivision was concerned. We have no reason to disturb that
nding.-o0o-
Trusts; Implied Trusts; Constructive Trusts
Constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against one who,by fraud, duress or abuse of con
 
dence, obtains or holds thelegal right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.
JESUS DURAN AND DEMETRIA DURAN, petitioners,
v.
COURT OF AP-PEALS,
et al.,
respondents, G.R. No. 125256, May 2, 2006. Third Division.
 Tinga, J.
 Facts:
For review is the decision of the Court of Appeals ordering the dismiss-al of the complaint for unlawful detainer and ruled that petitioners are obligedto turn over the possession of the pertinent portions of the property to privaterespondents being the owners thereofe unlawful detainer complaint.The herein private respondents
led an action for reconveyance of aportion of land now belonging to Jesus Duran, the herein petitioner. The Courtof Appeals af 
rmed the decision of RTC ordering that the portion of the sub- ject land be conveyed to the plaintiffs subject to reimbursement of the price of the land for there was a verbal contract of agency between the parties wherebythe petitioner was constituted as an agent. Jesus Duran, the herein petitioner,
led an action for unlawful detainer which was subsequently denied by thesame division. Hence, this petition.
 
211REX CASE DIGEST: CIVIL LAW
 Issue:
Whether or not an agency was constituted thereby creating a con-structive trust.
 Ruling:
The petition is DENIED.
 A contract of agency was constituted.
 
Petitioners’ theory that Jesus Duranwas not constituted as an agent because private respondents did not entrustmoney to him for the negotiations has no merit. By his own admission, Je-sus Duran volunteered and was authorized by private respondents to representthem in the negotiations for the sale of the property. Whether the designationwas as a spokesman or as an agent is immaterial. His actions thereafter shouldhave been in representation of, not only himself, but also private respondentsas dictated by the principle of equity, which lies at the core of constructivetrust.
 Implied Trusts; Resulting Trusts vs. Constructive Trusts.
— Trusts are eitherexpress or implied. Express trusts are created by the intention of the trustoror of the parties, while implied trusts come into being by operation of law,either through implication of an intention to create a trust as a matter of law orthrough the imposition of the trust irrespective of, and even contrary to, anysuch intention. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts.Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable considerationand not legal title determines the equitable title or interest and are presumedalways to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise from the nature orcircumstances of the consideration involved in a transaction whereby one per-son thereby becomes invested with legal title but is obligated in equity to holdhis legal title for the bene
t of another. On the other hand, constructive trustsare created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the demands of jus-tice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against onewho, by fraud, duress or abuse of con
dence, obtains or holds the legal right toproperty which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold.
The burden of proving the existence of a trust is generally on the party as-serting its existence.
 
The burden of proving the existence of a trust is gener-ally on the party asserting its existence. Such proof must be clear and must sat-isfactorily show the existence of the trust and its elements. While oral evidencemay be presented to prove the existence of an implied trust, such evidencemust be trustworthy because oral evidence can easily be fabricated. Further,the evidence must be received by the Courts with extreme caution. The exis-tence of an implied trust should not be made to rest on loose, equivocal andinde
nite declarations.-o0o-

Activity (47)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Elaine Mercado liked this
removeignorance liked this
roansalanga liked this
jafernand liked this
Lizzy Liezel liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->