Article Number/s (Main Principle, topics under articles, topic discussed in case) Case Name (Keys: basic/pertinent key

words to help people remember case)

Kind of Contract Installments/payment Buyer Property Seller

FACTS: Simple narration of case, underline important details.

(Just add extra arrows & details if necessary) (Best to edit arrows below to illustrate w/c party sued first. In this diagram for ex, buyer sues first.)

(demand/argument/pleading/response) (demand/argument/pleading/response) HELD: main issues discussed in relation to specified articles; highlight which specific article or principle.

EXTRA DETAILS: Just in case you have other issues/details to add which might help impress sir during recit or in case he asks about them.

Contributor: Nickname Lname | Date accomplished

Article 1990-1192 (Resolutory Condition, remedies, effects of, offset equitably)

2. Tan vs CA (& Singson) 1989

(Keys: Baguio Easter Rd. property, delayed mortgage cancellation, DBP)

Contract of Sale Singson Easter Rd. Property Spouses P 1.55 M (bal from 1.75 M) June 25 BUT agreed
2 weeks ext.; BUT:

200 K Earnest Money

Tan

Demand earnest money; rescission for substantial breach Specific Performance: Demand for full payment of purchase price HELD: No rescission; only slight or casual breach and the delay to fulfill the condition was due to a third party (DBP); Neither party incurs in delay because both are in default (Art 1192 offset equitably).

FACTS: Parties Tan (buyer) and the Singsons (seller) entered into a contract of sale over a property in Easter Rd., Baguio City for a sum of P1.75 M. To help pay off the mortgage, Tan paid an earnest sum of P200K and to pay remaining balance of P1.55M upon the conveyance of title on June 25, 1984. Since DBP failed to release the deed of cancellation of mortgage by the aforementioned date, parties agreed to an extension of 2 weeks to execute the sale. Despite this, Tan sent a notice of cancellation and demanded for the return of the earnest sum; Singsons replied with a demand for specific performance because property was ready to be transferred by July 9 (only a few days after set date).
EXTRA DETAILS: Driveway Issue: even without title, may be conveyed to petitioner because respondents were awarded this land in 1972.

Contributor: Coco Navarro | Monday Nov. 25, 2013