Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Collated Sales (Mine)

Collated Sales (Mine)

|Views: 385|Likes:
Published by Clase Na Pud

More info:

Published by: Clase Na Pud on Jun 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





#12: VICENTE GOMEZ vs. CA; GR No. 120747 September 21, 2000; Definition (1458)By: Lloyd Paul C. LedesmaFACTS:Luisa Gomez, predecessor-in-interest of herein petitioner Vicente Gomez, was awarded Lot4, Block 1, subject to the provisions of Resolution No. 3-78 of the URBAN and building,subdivision and zoning rules and regulations.On 18 January 1980, Luisa Gomez finally paid in full the P3,556.00 purchase price of thelot. In 1982, Luisa, together with her spouse Daniel, left again for the United States of America where she died on 09 January 1983.On 23 November 1984 there was an investigation concerning the awarded lots because of violations to the conditions agreed upon by the awardee-lessee.Violation: The place was found actually occupied by Mrs. Erlinda Perez and her familytogether with Mr. Mignony Lorghas and family, who are paying monthly rentals of P210.00 each to Vicente Gomez, brother of awardee.On 01 July 1986, the URBAN, ordered the cancellation of the lot awards of Daniel Gomez.On 01 February 1989, the surviving children of the deceased spouses, who were Americancitizens and residents of the United States of America, executed an affidavit of adjudicationwith deed of donation disposing the lot gratuitously to their uncle Vicente Gomez.RTC ordered to set aside the cancellation. The CA reversed that decision.ISSUE: whether or not the cancellation of the lot awarded was proper.HELD: YES. Primarily, it must be stressed that the contract entered into between the Cityof Manila and awardee Luisa Gomez was not one of sale but a contract to sell. A contractof sale may either be absolute or conditional- where ownership or title is retained until thefulfillment of a positive suspensive condition normally the payment of the purchase pricein the manner agreed upon.Verily, Resolution 16-A and the Contract to Sell which was annexed, attached and made toform part of said resolution, clearly laid down the terms and conditions which the awardee-vendee must comply with. Accordingly, as an awardee, Luisa Gomez, her heirs andsuccessors-in-interest alike, are duty-bound to perform the correlative obligationsembodied in Resolution 16-A and the Contract to-Sell.The resolution requires Filipino citizenship for award to be valid, among others, and that itmust be occupied actually by the awardee, that they must not have any other property in thePhilippines, and that they are able to pay, conditions among others which were violated.Also, paragraph (8) of the Contract proscribes the sale or lease, etc. of the lot without thewritten consent of the City Mayor, within a period of twenty (20) years from complete payment of the purchase price and execution of the final deed of sale. The donation is alsoa violation. Complete payment was on 1980 and the donation was on 1989.#4: SPS. ORDEN vs. SPS. AUREA ;G.R. No. 172733 August 20, 2008; Nature and formBy: Lloyd Paul C. LedesmaFacts:
On 29 September 1994, a Deed of Absolute Sale was entered into by respondents Aurea, asvendees, and petitioners Orden, as vendors, for the 2 lots and a residential house. Theconsideration of which is P1.9M. Respondents Aurea then executed a Joint Affidavitdeclaring respondents Cobile as the true and real buyers of the subject properties, who are both American Citizens and residents of Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. Respondent paidP384,000.00 as partial payment. Respondent Cobile then executed a promissory note inwhich they promised to pay petitioners Orden the amount of P566,000.00 on or beforeOctober 31, 1994, and the remaining P950,000.00 to be paid as soon as the titles to the properties shall have been transferred to them.11 March 1995, petitioners sent respondent a letter informing the latter of their intention todispose of the properties to other interested parties if respondents Cobile did not comply.On 21 May 1996, petitioners sold the properties to Fortunata Adalim Houthuijzen and thetitles thereto transferred to her name.Respondents filed an action in the court for the delivery of the titles, if not, the payment of the whole price plus 20% per annum interest. The RTC ordered to return the advance payments at 20% per annum interest. The CA affirmed in toto.ISSUE:Whether or not the contract entered into was a Contract to Sell and thus maybe cancelledupon failure to complete payment.HELD: YES. CONTRACT TO SELL. It is clear from the promissory note that the partiesagreed to a conditional sale, the consummation of which is subject to the conditionscontained therein - full payment of the purchase price.The distinction between a contract of sale and a contract to sell is well-settled. In a contractof sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; in acontract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved to the vendor and is not to pass to thevendee until full payment of the purchase price. In the latter contract, payment of the priceis a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not a breach but an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming effective.Although there is a document denominated as "Deed of Absolute Sale," and there is no provision therein of reservation of ownership to the seller, we are persuaded that the trueintent of the parties was to transfer the ownership of the properties only upon the buyer'sfull payment of the purchase price. Rescission, whether judicially or by notarial act, is notrequired to be done by petitioners Orden. There can be no rescission of an obligation that isstill non-existing, the suspensive condition not having happened. In the exercise of theseller's right to automatically cancel the contract to sell, at least a written notice must besent to the defaulter informing him of the same.Dignos vs CA (G.R. No. L-59266)By: Lloyd Paul C. LedesmaFACTS: The spouses Silvestre and Isabel Dignos were owners of a parcel of land in Opon,Lapu-Lapu City. On June 7, 1965, appellants, herein petitioners Dignos spouses sold the
said parcel of land to respondent Atilano J. Jabil for the sum of P28,000.00, payable in twoinstallments, with an assumption of indebtedness with the First Insular Bank of Cebu in thesum of P12,000.00, which was paid and acknowledged by the vendors in the deed of saleexecuted in favor of plaintiff-appellant, and the next installment in the sum of P4,000.00 to be paid on or before September 15, 1965.On November 25, 1965 the Dignos spouses sold the same land in favor of defendantsspouses, Luciano Cabigas and Jovita L. De Cabigas, who were then U.S. citizens, for the price of P35,000.00. A deed of absolute sale was executed by the Dignos spouses in favor of the Cabigas spouses, and which was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 3344.As the Dignos spouses refused to accept from plaintiff-appellant the balance of the purchase price of the land, and as plaintiff- appellant discovered the second sale made bydefendants-appellants to the Cabigas spouses, plaintiff-appellant brought the present suit.ISSUE:1 . Whether or not there was an absolute contract of sale.HELD: I. Yes. That a deed of sale is absolute in nature although denominated as a “Deedof Conditional Sale” where nowhere in the contract in question is a proviso or stipulation tothe effect that title to the property sold is reserved in the vendor until full payment of the purchase price, nor is there a stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescindthe contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period.A careful examination of the contract shows that there is no such stipulation reserving thetitle of the property on the vendors nor does it give them the right to unilaterally rescind thecontract upon non-payment of the balance thereof within a fixed period.On the contrary, all the elements of a valid contract of sale under Article 1458 of the CivilCode, are present. While it may be conceded that there was no constructive delivery of theland sold in the case at bar, as subject Deed of Sale is a private instrument, it is beyondquestion that there was actual delivery thereof.As found by the trial court, the Dignos spouses delivered the possession of the land inquestion to Jabil as early as March 27,1965 so that the latter constructed thereon Sally’sBeach Resort also known as Jabil’s Beach Resort in March, 1965; Mactan White BeachResort on January 15, J 966 and Bevirlyn’s Beach Resort on September 1, 1965. Such factswere admitted by petitioner spouses.TAÑEDO V. CA (January 22, 1996)By: Lloyd Paul C. LedesmaFACTS:

You're Reading a Free Preview

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