This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Atty. Manuel Casiño Topic: Absolute and Conditional Sales/ Art. 1545 Delta Motors vs. Genuino G.R. No. 55665, February 8, 1989 Cortes, J. Facts:
2B S.Y. 2011-2012
Private Respondents are owners of an iceplant and cold storage who ordered black iron pipes to Delta Motors (herein petitioner) for which the latter provided two letter quotations indicating the selling price and delivery of said pipes. The terms of payment are also included in the letter quotations which must be complied with by the respondents. Private respondents made initial payments on both contracts but delivery of the pipes was not made by Delta Motors so that the Genuinos are not willing to give subsequent payments notwithstanding the agreed terms of payment requiring them of such. In July 1972 Delta offered to deliver the iron pipes but the Genuinos did not accept the offer because the construction of the ice plant building where the pipes were to be installed was not yet finished. Three years later, on April 15, 1975, Hector Genuino, in behalf of España Extension Ice Plant and Cold Storage, asked Delta to deliver the iron pipes within thirty (30) days from its receipt of the request. But petitioner Delta is unwilling to deliver said iron pipes unless the Genuinos agree to a new quotation price set by the former. Private Respondents rejected the new quoted prices and instead filed a complaint for specific performance with damages seeking to compel Delta to deliver the pipes. Meanwhile, Delta, in its answer prayed for rescission of the contracts pursuant to Art. 1191 of the New Civil Code. Issue: Whether or not Delta is entitled for rescission of contract as the latter is subject to suspensive conditions and only upon their performance or compliance would its obligation to deliver the pipes arise? Held: No. While there is merit in Delta's claim that the sale is subject to suspensive conditions, the Court finds that it has, nevertheless, waived performance of these conditions and opted to go on with the contracts although at a much higher price. Art. 1545 of the Civil Code provides: Art. 1545. Where the obligation of either party to a contract of sale is subject to any condition which is not performed, such party may refuse to proceed with the contract or he may waived performance of the condition. . . it would be highly inequitable for petitioner Delta to rescind the two (2) contracts considering the fact that not only does it have in its possession and ownership the black iron pipes, but also the down payments private respondents have paid. Delta cannot ask for increased prices based on the price offer stipulation in the contracts and in the increase in the cost of goods. Reliance by Delta on the price offer stipulation is misplaced. The moment private respondents accepted the offer of Delta, the contract of sale between them was perfected and neither party could change the terms thereof. Neither could petitioner Delta rely on the fluctuation in the market price of goods to support its claim for rescission.
Page | 1
Sales Case Digests
Atty. Manuel Casiño Topic: Absolute and Conditional Sales G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995
2B S.Y. 2011-2012
VIRGILIO R. ROMERO, Petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ENRIQUETA CHUA VDA. DE ONGSIONG, Respondents. Ponente: VITUG, J.: Facts: The petitioner decided to put up a central warehouse in Metro Manila on a land area of approximately 2,000 square meters. The respondents: The land owned by private respondent was offered measuring 1,952 square meters. Petitioner visited the property and, except for the presence of squatters in the area, he found the place suitable for a central warehouse. Private respondent, through her brokers, called on petitioner with a proposal that should petitioner advance the amount of P50,000.00 which could be used in taking up an ejectment case against the squatters, private respondent would agree to sell the property for only P800.00 per square meter. Petitioner expressed his concurrence. On 09 June 1988, a contract, denominated "Deed of Conditional Sale," was executed between petitioner and private respondent. However, private respondent sought to return the P50,000.00 she received from petitioner since she could not "get rid of the squatters" on the lot but petitioner, through a counsel, refused the tender. Petitioner's continued refusal to accept the return of the P50,000.00 advance payment, made private respondent to file with the RTC of Makati a civil case for the rescission of the deed of "conditional" sale, plus damages, and for the consignation of P50,000.00 cash. The RTC rendered decision holding that private respondent had no right to rescind the contract since it was she who "violated her obligation to eject the squatters from the subject property" and that petitioner, being the injured party, was the party who could, under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, rescind the agreement. The case was elevated to the CA. The CA reversed the RTC’s ruling. It opined that the contract entered into by the parties was subject to a resolutory condition, i.e., the ejectment of the squatters from the land, the non-occurrence of which resulted in the failure of the object of the contract; that private respondent substantially complied with her obligation to evict the squatters; that it was petitioner who was not ready to pay the purchase price and fulfill his part of the contract, and that the provision requiring a mandatory return/reimbursement of the P50,000.00 in case private respondent would fail to eject the squatters within the 60-day period was not a penal clause.
Page | 2
according to their nature. i. the payment of the agreed purchase price and. The purchase price was fixed.e. in the case of vendee. in the case of the vendor. the title given to it by the parties is not as much significant as its substance. the demandability of the reciprocal prestation of the other party. The ejectment of the squatters is a condition the operative act of which sets into motion the period of compliance by petitioner of his own obligation. in the case.00 was to be paid upon the execution of the document of sale and the balance payable "45 days after the removal of all squatters. For example. in the case at bench is the timely eviction of the squatters on the property). The term "condition" in the context of a perfected contract of sale pertains.Y.Sales Case Digests Atty. Private respondent's failure "to remove the squatters from the property" within the stipulated period gives petitioner the right to either refuse to proceed with the agreement or waive that condition in consonance with Article 1545 of the Civil Code. to pay the balance of the purchase price. Manuel Casiño Issue: 2B S. private respondent is obligated to evict the squatters on the property. In determining the real character of the contract. for a price certain.000. usage and law. a deed of sale. may be treated as absolute in nature. The object of the sale. to deliver and to transfer ownership of a specified thing or right to another (the buyer) over which the latter agrees. Page | 3 . 2011-2012 May the vendor demand the rescission of a contract for the sale of a parcel of land for a cause traceable to his own failure to have the squatters on the subject property evicted within the contractually-stipulated period? Held: The ruling of the CA was reversed by the SC ordering private respondent to execute the deed of absolute sale in favor of petitioner. A sale is at once perfected when a person (the seller) obligates himself.952-square owned by private respondent. The reciprocal obligations referred to would normally be. in reality. if title to the property sold is not reserved in the vendor or if the vendor is not granted the right to unilaterally rescind the contract predicated on the fulfillment or non-fulfillment. of which P50. of the prescribed condition. Under the agreement. This option clearly belongs to petitioner and not to private respondent. From the moment the contract is perfected. in turn. the fulfillment of certain express warranties (which. the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which. to the compliance by one party of an undertaking the fulfillment of which would beckon. although denominated as a deed of conditional sale. was specifically identified to be a 1. It would be futile to challenge the agreement here in question as not being a duly perfected contract. may be in keeping with good faith. as the case may be..
Respondent then filed a complaint for specific performance and declaration of nullity of the second sale and damages. de leon handed the keys to Ong and de leon wrote a letter to inform RSLAI that the mortgage will be assumed by Ong. the parties stipulated that the petitioner (de leon) shall execute a deed of assumption of mortgage in favor of Ong (respondent) after full payment of the P415. Issue: Whether the parties entered into a contract of sale or a contract to sell? Held: In a contract of sale. rendering the keys given to her useless. Benita T. Petitioner reiterated that they only entered into a contract to sell. As indicated in the deed of mortgage. the respondent took repairs and made improvements in the properties. Thereafter.Sales Case Digests Atty. Raymundo S. The buyer does not acquire ownership of the property until he fully pays the purchase price.000. respondent learned that the same properties were sold to a certain Viloria after March 10. the CA upheld the sale to respondent and nullified the sale to Viloria. Ong (respondent). The respondent then subsequently gave petitioner P415.Y. Real Savings & Loan Association Inc. 2011-2012 On March 10. In the present case. The parties then executed a notarized deed of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage. 170405. Respondent proceeded to RSLAI but she was informed that the mortgage has been fully paid and that the titles have been given to the said person. 1993. the deed executed by the parties did not show that the owner intends to reserve ownership of the properties. Manuel Casiño De Leon vs. 1993 and changed the locks. 2010 Absolute and Conditional Sales Facts: 2B S. They also agreed that the respondent (Ong) shall assume the mortgage. Feb. the seller conveys ownership of the property to the buyer upon the perfection of the contract. Subsequently. Contract to sell is subject to a positive suspensive condition. 2. Ong GR No. It was clear that the owner intended a sale because he unqualifiedly delivered and transferred ownership of the properties to the respondent. The non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition. The RTC dismissed the case. The said properties were mortgaged to a financial institution. Page | 4 . On appeal. Petitioner moved for reconsideration to the SC. (RSLAI). The terms and conditions affected only the manner of payment and not the immediate transfer of ownership. De Leon (petitioner) sold 3 parcels of land to Benita T. The petitioner contended that respondent does not have a cause of action against him because the sale was subject to a condition which requires the approval of RSLAI of the mortgage.000 as partial payment. On the other hand.
F. No. The full payment is a positive suspensive condition. 1191 will not apply because it presupposes obligations already existent.S. the non fulfilment of which is not a breach of contract but merely an event which prevents the seller from conveying title to the purchaser.S. The non-payment of the purchase price renders the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect. In their motion for reconsideration.R. Danny Boy Cordero and Ladylyn Cordero) Page | 5 . The RTC ruled in favour of Belen and the others while the CA ruled in favour of F.S. Egmedio Bautista.Sales Case Digests Atty. G. Batangas.S. 1191? Held: No.5 M and pay the remaining balance in 6 quarterly instalments.S. However F. F. (Note: The 6 other petitioners are: Darrel Cordero. the seller retains title to the thing sold until the purchaser fully pays the agreed purchase price.S. J. 2006 Carpio-Morales. Marion Bautista. (F.. Belen and the others contend that the contract to sell may be subject to rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code as it involves reciprocal obligations. defaulted from paying the instalments. There can be no rescission of an obligation that is still nonexisting.Y. Belen and the others filed a complaint for rescission of the contract with damages. 2011-2012 Cordero et al v. contends that it was Belen and the others who first violated the contract to sell by preventing access to the properties despite paying P2. Management Development Corp. Under the contract to sell. after demanding from F.S. 1191 would have no application. Art. Facts: Belen Cordero and 6 others entered in a contract to sell with F. the suspensive condition not having happened. Issue: Whether or not the contract to sell may be subject to rescission under Art. will pay a down payment of P3.S. Rosemary Bautista. Under the terms of the contract F. Management Development Corp.5 M worth of earnest money and two instalments and that Belen and the others refused to execute the final contract of sale unless additional payment of legal interest is made because another buyer was willing to pay a higher price.) over 5 parcels of land located in Nasugbu. Hus. Since the obligation of the petitioners did not arise because of the failure of respondent to fully pay the purchase price Art. Manuel Casiño Topic: Contract to Sell 2B S. 167213 October 31.
In dacion en pago. hence. consent.It is an objective novation of the obligation. The spouses filed for a complaint praying for the annulment of the foreclosure of the properties subject of the real estate mortgages and for them to be allowed "to deliver by way of ‘dacion en pago' one of the mortgaged properties as full payment of their mortgaged obligation". and cause or consideration must be present. The spouses failed to pay their outstanding obligation drawing them to verbally offer to cede to Dao Heng one of the two mortgaged lots by way of dacion en pago. now BDO UNIVERSAL BANK vs. 2011-2012 DAO HENG BANK. In any case. No. Dao Heng demanded for payment but the spouses failed to pay. that is. 2008 CARPIO MORALES. the creditor is really buying the thing or property of the debtor. Held: No.dacion en pago is governed by the law on sales. what actually takes place in dacion en pago is an objective novation of the obligation where the thing offered as an accepted equivalent of the performance of an obligation is considered as the object of the contract of sale. 173856 November 20. common consent of the parties is required in order to extinguish the obligation. Manuel Casiño Distinguished from Dacion in Payment 2B S.. The partial execution of a contract of sale takes the transaction out of the provisions of the Statute of Frauds so long as the essential requisites of consent of the contracting parties. INC. common consent is an essential prerequisite. . to have the effect of totally extinguishing the debt or obligation. . In its modern concept.R. LILIA and REYNALDO LAIGO G. namely. the properties were foreclosed and sold at a public auction. Issue:Whether the obligation of the spouses has been extinguished through dacion en pago. Thus.Sales Case Digests Atty. The undertaking really partakes in one sense of the nature of sale. the debtor offers another thing to the creditor who accepts it as equivalent of payment of an outstanding debt. J. object certain. as a special mode of payment.: Facts: Spouses Laigo obtained P11M loan from Dao Heng Bank secured by three real estate mortgages covering two parcels of land of the said spouses. The properties were appraised but there were no further action of the parties after the appraisal. SPS. object and cause of the obligation concur and are clearly established to be present.Y. be it sale or novation. payment for which is to be charged against the debtor's debt. while the debt is considered the purchase price. petitioner approved respondents' proposal to settle their obligation via dacion en pago.There is no concrete showingthat after the appraisal of the properties. Page | 6 ."Being likened to that of a contract of sale. Dacion en pago as a mode of extinguishing an existing obligation partakes of the nature of sale whereby property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money. As such the elements of a contract of sale. .
In their stipulation of facts the parties admitted that the assignment was by way of security for the payment of the loans. Jr. the assignment of leasehold rights was a mortgage contract. On appeal. which was a payment by cession. obtained loans from defendant Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). was but a security and not a satisfaction of indebtedness. the assignment. 2011-2012 Facts: Petitioner Lydia P. Petitioner again failed to pay the amortizations stipulated in the Deed of Conditional Sale. Cuba executed two Deeds of Assignment of her Leasehold Rights. Issue: Whether or not the assignment of Cuba’s leasehold rights is a payment by cession? Held: No.Y. respondent DBP appropriated the Leasehold Rights of petitioner over the fishpond in question without foreclosure proceedings. As security for said loans. defendant DBP executed a Deed of Conditional Sale of the Leasehold Rights in favor of Cuba over the same fishpond. a grantee of a Fishpond Lease Agreement.: 2B S. Article 1255 contemplates the existence of two or more creditors and involves the assignment of all the debtor's property. 1998 Davide. Page | 7 . Defendant DBP took possession of the Leasehold Rights of the fishpond and executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in favor of defendant Agripina Caperal. Court of Appeals and Lydia Cuba G. being in its essence a mortgage.R. The trial court ruled that DBP never acquired lawful ownership of CUBA's leasehold rights. No.Sales Case Digests Atty. this petition. Thus. DBP stressed that it merely exercised its contractual right under the Assignments of Leasehold Rights. 118342 January 5. Cuba. Thereafter. When she failed to pay her loan on the scheduled dates in accordance with the terms of the Promissory Notes. Cuba argues that the assignment of leasehold rights was a mortgage contract and that the act of DBP in appropriating to itself CUBA's leasehold rights over the fishpond in question without foreclosure proceedings was invalid. the assignment does not amount to payment by cession under Article 1255 of the Civil Code for the plain and simple reason that there was only one creditor. the court reversed the decision hence. Moreover. Manuel Casiño Distinguished from Payment by Cession Development Bank of the Philippines vs. An assignment to guarantee an obligation is in effect a mortgage. the DBP.
to keep the beds on public exhibition. Parsons Hardware Co. and that the defendant was to pay the price in the manner stipulated. to have an open establishment in Iloilo. 2011-2012 On January 24. what was essential. and if he does not succeed in selling it. 1918 Ponente: J. and that the obligations the breach of which is alleged as a cause of action are not imposed upon the defendant. Alleging that the Parsons was his agent for the sale of his beds in Iloilo. he returns it. and shall immediately report such action to Mr. due regard must be given to its essential clauses. a purchaser or an agent of the plaintiff for the sale of the latter’s beds in Iloilo? Held: The Supreme Court declared that the contract by and between the plaintiff and the defendant was one of purchase and sale. In order to classify a contract. Quiroga for his approval” while another one passed on to Parsons the obligation to order by the dozen and in no other manner the beds from Quiroga. Parsons (to whose rights and obligations the present defendant Parsons Hardware Co. These features exclude the legal conception of an agency or order to sell whereby the mandatory or agent received the thing to sell it. 1911. but delivers to the principal the price he obtains from the sale of the thing to a third person. to pay their price.. Manuel Casiño Topic: Distinguished from Contract of Agency to Sell Quiroga v. Parsons may sell. later subrogated itself) entered into a contract. One of the said conditions provided that “Mr. Avancena Facts: 2B S. itself to conduct the agency.R. and to order the beds by the dozen and in no other manner. Quiroga filed a complaint against the former for violating the following obligations implied in what he contended to be a contract of commercial agency: not to sell the beds at higher prices than those of the invoices. Issue: Is the defendant. at the price stipulated. 11491. No. There was the obligation on the part of the plaintiff to supply the beds. August 23. and. by reason of the contract. where it was stated among others that Quiroga grants in favor of Parsons the exclusive rights to sell his beds in the Visayan Islands under some conditions. on the part of the defendant. and does not pay its price. G. In the contract in question. as constituting its cause and subject matter.Sales Case Digests Atty. or establish branches of his agency for the sale of "Quiroga" beds in all the towns of the Archipelago where there are no exclusive agents. Page | 8 .Y. plaintiff Andres Quiroga and J. and to pay for the advertisement expenses for the same. either by agreement or by law. is that the plaintiff was to furnish the defendant with the beds which the latter might order.
that the proceeds of the sale of the tobacco should be turned over to the complainant as soon as the same was sold.Sales Case Digests Atty. as agent of Ayroso. The fact that appellant received the tobacco to be sold at P1. Page | 9 . The agreement (Exhibit "A') constituted her as an agent with the obligation to return the tobacco if the same was not sold.30 per kilo and the proceeds to be given to complainant as soon as it was sold (contract of agency to sell).Y. Anent the argument that petitioner was not an agent because Exhibit "A" does not say that she would be paid the commission if the goods were sold.R. No. Issue: whether the receipt is a contract of agency to sell or a contract of sale of the subject tobacco.30/kilo which was sold by Lim. Held: It is clear in the agreement. thereby precluding criminal liability of petitioner for the crime charged. Manuel Casiño Topic: Distinguished from Contract of Agency to Sell or a Contract of Sale Lim vs. a businesswoman. Lim issued a receipt to Ayroso after receiving the tobacco. People G. 2011-2012 Ponente: Justice Relova Facts: Lourdes Valerio Lim. and the transaction was witnessed by Ayroso’s sister and maid. Exhibit "A". 21. was found guilty of the crime of estafa after failing to comply with her obligation to give Maria de Guzman Vda. Lim was only able to give Ayroso P240. 1984 2B S. or. L-34338 Nov. the appellant was to receive the overprice for which she could sell the tobacco.00 in three (3) installments and failed to deliver the balance even after demands from the plaintiff. De Ayroso the expected profit (P799. the acts of the petitioner negates her argument as she clearly intend to make a profit out of the transaction. that the obligation was immediately demandable as soon as the tobacco was disposed of.50) from the latter’s tobacco consisting of 615 kilos at P1. However. after selling the tobacco. CA affirmed the decision of the lower court as well as its claim that the receipt issued by the petitioner is a contract of agency to sell as against Lim’s theory that it is a contract of sale. strongly negates transfer of ownership of the goods (contract of sale) to the petitioner. Under the agreement.
and in consequence of. The true test of a contractor would seem to be that he renders service in the course of an independent occupation. The reduction was due to the finding of CTA that EESC is a contractor. even though it may be entirely made after. EESC appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and the investigating revenue examiners reduced the deficiency of EESC to P740. labor and materials is tested by the inquiry whether the thing transferred is one not in existence and which never would have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it. the Court discussed that a contractor is specially referred to as a person who. hence.R. A raid was then conducted by CB together with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). where several records of EESC were seized and confiscated. L-27044 June 30. undertakes to do a specific job or piece of work for other persons. One Juan de la Cruz allegedly wrote the then Collector. The revenue examiners reported that EESC has a P916. among others.86 during the pendency of the case. arguing.000 compromise in extrajudicial settlement of EESC’s penal liability for violating the Tax Code. of Internal Revenue and denounced EESC. Moreover. was accused of tax evasion by misdeclaring its imported articles and failing to pay the correct percentage taxes due thereon in connivance with its foreign supplier. or a thing which would have existed and has been the subject of sale to some other persons even if the order had not been given. L-27452 June 30. The Civil Code likewise distinguishes the two. representing the will of his employer only as to the result of his work. The Court provided that the distinction between a contract of sale and one for work. Page | 10 . Manuel Casiño DISTINGUISHED FROM CONTRACT FOR A PIECE OF WORK 2B S. it is a contract of sale. using his own means and methods without submitting himself to control as to the petty details. as well as to the Central Bank (CB). The Commissioner then appealed.56 deficiency advance sales tax and manufacturers sales tax. 587.Y. No. that the CTA erred in holding EESC as a contractor and not a manufacturer.362. ISSUE: Whether or not EESC is a manufacturer of air conditioning units. pumping plants and steel fabrications. EESC contested the assessment but the Commissioner said that it was in accordance with the law. Engineering Equipment and Supply Company and the Court of Tax Appeals G. engaged in design and installation of central type air conditioning system. and no change or modification of it is made at defendant's request. 1975 FACTS: Engineering Equipment and Supply Company (EESC). 1975 Engineering Equipment and Supply Company vs.Sales Case Digests Atty. now Commissioner. 2011-2012 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. in the pursuit of the independent business. If the article ordered by the purchaser is exactly such as the plaintiff makes and keeps on hand for sale to anyone. as provided in Article 1467. RULING: No. The Commissioner then assessed and demanded EESC the payment of such and a P10. the defendants order for it. EESC is a contractor. No. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Court of Tax Appeals G.R. the manufacturer’s sales tax was subtracted from the original assessed tax. and not as to the means by which it is accomplished.
Page | 11 . 2011-2012 Based on the facts and circumstances provided by the record of BIR and CTA. Manuel Casiño 2B S. but imported some items which were used in executing contracts entered into by it.Sales Case Digests Atty. As such. It undertook negotiations and execution of individual contracts for design. EESC nevertheless was found guilty of fraud for misdeclaring its importation of air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof to evade payment of a 30% compensating tax. the Court affirmed the decision of CTA with modification that EESC be made liable to pay 50% fraud surcharge. and installation of central type air conditioning units.Y. and from the exhibits submitted by both EESC and the Commissioner. the Court found that EESC did not manufacture air conditioning units for sale to the general public. for which it shall also be subject to a 25% surcharge for delinquency in the payment of said tax. supply.
to give something or to render some service. Simply put. intelligence. as attorney-in-fact. relationship and the conduct of the parties at the time of making the contract and subsequent thereto. and (3) it should be spontaneous. physical infirmity. (2) it should be free. Jr. LIM. freedom by violence. or those without which there can be no contract consent. Lim. VICTOR K. In determining whether consent is vitiated by the circumstances provided for in Article 1330 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. violence. a contract where consent is given through mistake. undue influence or fraud is voidable. intimidation or undue influence. A knowledge of these essential elements is material because the perfection stage or the birth of the contract only occurs when the parties to a contract agree upon the essential elements of the same. SAN and ELINDO LO. Respondents Facts: Petitioner Antonio S. filed a complaint4 before the Regional Trial Court of Davao City seeking the annulment of a Deed of Absolute Sale5 involving a parcel of land purportedly executed by Paz S. petitioner vs. as such it is perfected by mere consent. with respect to the other. respondent Victor K. Page | 12 . much less received by the plaintiff or by his Attorney-in-Fact. represented by his mother. JR. Manuel Casiño Elements of a Contract of Sale 2B S. The petitioner alleged that the signature of the Attorney-in-Fact in the aforecited Deed of Absolute Sale was obtained through fraud and trickery employed by the herein defendant and that she never appeared before the Notary Public.20 The petition is DENIED. PAZ S.16 Consent is essential for the existence of a contract. LIM. Lim. irrespective of whether the contract is in a public or private writing. Issue: Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale obtained by the defendant was void Held: A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself.R. and spontaneity by fraud.Y. represented by his attorney-in-fact. intimidation.18 Thus. San. Lim in favor of her brother. the Deed of Absolute Sale was void ab initio for lack of consideration and for lack of a valid consent. 159723 : September 9.14 A contract of sale is consensual.. 2011-2012 G.12 It has three essential elements. Paz S. subject matter and cause.Sales Case Digests Atty. and where it is wanting.. courts are given a wide latitude in weighing the facts or circumstances in a given case and in deciding in favor of what they believe to have actually occurred. 2004 ANTONIO S.17 Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers. Intelligence in consent is vitiated by error. considering the age. No. the contract is non-existent. who notarized the said deed and that no consideration was ever paid.
After 2 months from receipt of Litonjua’s letter. decided to sell SMAB and the latter’s worldwide match. 128120. offering US$36 million. 1990.Sales Case Digests Atty. October 20. 1990. 2004 Ponente: Tinga. and such was merely a preliminary offer. J. Rossi informed Litonjua that on July 2. VP of SMSA (management company of SMAB). SMAB signed a conditional contract with a local group for the disposal of Phimco and that the latter’s bid would no longer be considered unless the local group would fail to consummate the transaction on or before September 15. however. The lack of a definite offer on the part of the respondents could not possibly serve as the basis of their claim that the sale of the Phimco shares in their favour was perfected. AB (SMAB) is a corporation organized under the laws of Sweden. *Petition was GRANTED. Provident Tree Farms. Inc. After an exchange of information between CEO Rossi of SMAB and Litonjua. In a letter dated July 3. for one essential element of a contract of sale needed to be certain --. Respondents’ failure to submit their final bid on the deadline set by the petitioners prevented the perfection of the contract of sale. Inc. No.the price in money or its equivalent. and OTT/Louie (Phils. Consent in a contract of sale should be manifested by the meeting of the offer and acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. lighter and shaving products operation to Swedish Match NV (SMNV). was held under special instructions that the sale of Phimco shares should be executed on or before June 30. to which Litonjua expressed objections and emphasized that the new offer constituted an attempt to reopen the already perfected contract of sale.R. Irked by SMAB’s decision to junk his bid. Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale between petitioners and respondents. 2011-2012 Swedish Match. the latter informed that they may not be able to submit their final bid on the given deadline considering that the acquisition audit of Phimco and the review of the draft agreements have not been completed. 1990. Enriquez informed the former that the proposed sale with the local buyers did not materialize and invited to resume negotiations for the sale of Phimco shares based on a new set of conditions. STORA. its parent company. Respondents’ attempt to prove the alleged verbal acceptance of their US$36 million bid becomes futile since there was in the first place no meeting of the minds with respect to the price. with respect to the Phimco shares. there was no perfected contract of sale since Litonjua’s letter of proposing acquisition of the Phimco shares for US$36 million was merely an offer. In 1988. there can be no sale without a price.Y. Court of Appeals G. Enriquez. Litonjua asserted that the US$36 million bid was final. No. Facts: 2B S.). was one of the interested parties to acquire Phimco shares. Respondent GM Antonio Litonjua of ALS Management and Development Corp. had 3 subsidiary corporations in the Philippines organized under Philippine laws: Phimco. Page | 13 Held: Issue: . Obviously. thus finalizing the terms of the sale. Manuel Casiño Topic: Elements of the Contract of Sale Swedish Match AB vs. as to reducing the period of sale from 30-day to 15.
Manuel Casiño Topic: Elements of the Contract of Sale 2B S. vs. MMCC then requested an extension of time to repurchase the property on instalment basis bit it was rejected by PNB. Once perfected. SR.000 was accepted by PNB on the condition that the purchase price is still subject to the approval of the PNB Board. Meanwhile.R. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK G. they bind other contracting parties and the obligations arising therefrom have the form of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith.47. petitioner remitted P725. PNB then filed an extrajudicial foreclosure of the estate mortgage ans sought to have the property sold at a public auction.00 to respondent PNB as "deposit to repurchase. When apprised of the statement of account. Again. 1984 petitioner's obligation amounted to P1. PNB cannot take advantage of its own delay and long inaction in demanding a higher amount based on unilateral computation of interest rate without the consent of Manila Metal.000 which the latter rejected with a counter offer and insisted that it should be 1. Issue: Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale between the parties." and Official Receipt No. PNB was declared the winning bidder. Held: No. The trial court and the CA ruled that there was no perfected contract of sale because there was no meeting of the minds.574.Y.” SAMD then informed MMCC that the current market price of the lot was at 2.574. PNB’s Board of Directors then accepted MMCC’s offer to purchase the property but for 1.47 for which it accepted P725. 2011-2012 MANILA METAL CONTAINER CORPORATION. and as of June 25.560.. J. MMCC insisted on the 1.000 from respondent bank in which he executed a real estate mortgage on one of its lots. 2006 . (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract. 166862 CALLEJO.560. MMCC’s claim rests on the argument that PNB approved the repurchase price of P1.000.Sales Case Digests Atty.: Facts: Petitioner Manila Metal Container Corporation (MMCC) obtained a loan of 900. Contracts are perfected by mere consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. to give something or to render some service.5M.560.574. MMCC however failed to comply with the payment of the loan. 978191 was issued stating that “The deposit of P725. the Special Assets Management Department (SAMD) had prepared a statement of account. there is none. No.00 from Manila Metal.931. (3) Cause of the obligation which is established. there is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties. A contract is a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself. with respect to the other. Page | 14 December 20. Under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code.660.389 in cash.000.
A contract of sale is consensual in nature and is perfected upon mere meeting of the minds. culminating in the extinguishment thereof. When there is merely an offer by one party without acceptance of the other. and (3) consummation. a rejection of the original offer and an attempt to end the negotiation between the parties on a different basis. A qualified acceptance or one that involves a new proposal constitutes a counter-offer and a rejection of the original offer. serve as a binding juridical relation between the parties.Sales Case Digests Atty.Y. A counter-offer is considered in law. it cannot. The absence of any of the essential elements will negate the existence of a perfected contract of sale.5M. as an independent source of obligation. (2) perfection.9M. When the contract of sale is not perfected. Page | 15 . one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and deliver a determinate thing. the Court ruled that the stages of a contract of sale are as follows: (1) negotiation. A contract of sale was never perfected. This was never approved by the PNB for they demanded 1.5M. There was never an acceptance to speak off in the first place. which begins when the parties perform their respective undertakings under the contract of sale. Manuel Casiño 2B S. It then offered the down payment of 700K+ as partial payment of the 1. 2011-2012 By the contract of sale. NOTE: In San Miguel Properties Philippines. MMCC insisted on the 1. which takes place upon the concurrence of the essential elements of the sale which are the meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object of the contract and upon the price. covering the period from the time the prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract is perfected. Inc. But again. In the instant case. there is no contract. What happened is that MMCC offered to repurchase which PNB rejected. and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. Huang. v. the parties involved did not even get pass the negotiation stage.
Arturo executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) in favor of the respondent binding himself to sell the subject property to the latter and not to offer the same to other party within 30 days from date. the agreement does not even bear the respondent's signature. On November 16. The P5.Sales Case Digests Atty. respondent sent a letter to the spouses informing the latter of his willingness to pay the agreed purchase price and thereafter. armed with purportedly Special Power of Attorney (SPA) issued by his wife. On June 2. 155043.R. Manuel Casiño Topic: Elements of the Contract of Sale Abalos v. the seller must consent to transfer the ownership in exchange for the price.000. 1988. it is crystal clear that the intent of Arturo was to only to grant the respondent a privilege to buy the property within the specified period. Sept. the spouses failed o deliver the land causing the respondent to file a complaint for specific performance. There is nothing in the Page | 16 . a marital squabble was brewing between the spouses. An option merely grants a privilege to buy or sell within the agreed time and purchase price. the subject matter must be determinate. assuming that it was void. Esther executed a SPA appointing her sister to act in her behalf in connection the transfer of the property to the respondent.000 paid by respondent is viewed not as earnest money but merely an option money.300. This ruling by the RTC was reversed by the CA. as in fact. Macatangay Jr. However. The RTC dismissed the case and ruled that the SPA ostensibly issued by Esther in favor of his husband was void. and the price must be certain in money or its equivalent. Thus. Issue: WON there was a perfected contract of sale executed between the petitioner and respondent. 1989 informing the spouses that he had already prepared a check to cover the remaining unpaid balance of the purchase price and reiterated his demand to the latter to fulfil their obligation. there was no contract of sale rather a perfected contract of option was entered into by Arturo and respondent. Seemingly. Respondent sent a letter dated December 7. Further. A perfected contract of option does not result in the perfection of the sale. Held: No. In this case. Esther executed a Contract to Sell to the extent of her conjugal interest and obligated herself to surrender the possession of the property and to execute a deed of absolute sale upon full payment. cannot affect the transaction between Ester and respondent. 30. G. 2004 Tinga. RMOA signifies a unilateral offer of Arturo to sell the property to respondent and does not impose the respondent an obligation to buy the said property. In a contract of sale. It is only when the option is exercised may a sale be perfected. It was by virtue of the SPA executed by Esther appointing her sister in her behalf which binds Esther to sell the property to the respondent. which will be deducted from the total agreed price of the subject property amounting to P1. the latter has no authority to sell the property. The appellate court ruled that the SPA in favor of Arturo. On that very same day. as it was falsified. 2B S.000. No. 2011-2012 Facts: Spouses Arturo and Esther Abalos are registered owners of a parcel of land in Makati City. 1989.Y. Arturo acknowledged the receipt of P5. J.
2011-2012 RMOA which indicates that Arturo agreed to transfer the ownership of the land which is an essential element in the contract of sale. Manuel Casiño 2B S.Y.Sales Case Digests Atty. Page | 17 .
1904. 2011-2012 Pedro Roman. even though neither has been actually delivered.Sales Case Digests Atty. Page | 18 . since the vessel sank before the date of its delivery. April 11. A sale shall be considered perfected and binding as between vendor and vendee when they have agreed as to the thing which is the object of the contract and as to the price. Ownership is not considered transmitted until the property is actually delivered and the purchaser has taken possession of the value and paid the price agreed upon. 1904. Roman filed this complaint in the CFI of Manila. the vessel sank in the Manila harbor during a severe storm. even before Roman was able to produce for Grimalt the proper papers showing that the former was in fact the owner of the vessel in question and not Paulina Giron. 1904. in which case the sale is considered perfected. Even promising to perfect his title to the vessel. 96. the petitioner-owner and Andres Grimalt. Grimalt refused to pay the purchase price when Roman made a demand on June 30. the respondent-purchaser. Grimalt agreed to buy the vessel and offered to pay in three installments of P500 each on July 15. the title of the vessel was in the name of one Paulina Giron and not in the name of Roman as the alleged owner. On July 2. Grimalt 6 Phil. 1906 Torres. Issue: Held: Was there a valid Contract of Sale? The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the complaint since no actual contract of sale existed. Also. verbally agreed upon the sale of the schooner Santa Marina in between the 13th to the 23d of June. the alleged owner. provided that the title papers to the vessel were in proper form. The conversations between the parties and the letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff did not establish a contract sufficient in itself to create reciprocal rights between the parties. As a result. On June 25. which found that the parties had not arrived at a definite understanding.Y. However. When the sale is made by means of a public instrument the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract.: Facts: 2B S. the defendant was under no obligation to pay the price of the vessel because the purchase of which had not been concluded. J. The papers he presented did not show that he was the owner of the vessel. 1904. Roman failed to do so. Manuel Casiño Elements of the Contract of Sale Roman v. and November 15. In his letter on June 23. September 15. The sale of the schooner was not perfected and the purchaser did not consent to the execution of the deed of transfer for the reason that the title of the vessel was in the name of another instead that of Pedro Roman. respectively.
122544 Jan. There was no valid consent by the petitionerson the supposed sale entered into by Alice A. OEL did not purchased the property and there was only an implicit renewal of the Contract of Lease. During this period. There was no perfected contract of sale between petitioners and private respondent.Y. involving a land in Diliman. Under Article 1475 of the New Civil Code. and price in money or its equivalent. private respondent had acquired the rights of a vendee in a contract of sale. lessors. 2003 (dismissal of the ejectment case) *Continuation of cases with same G. Ponente: Justice Martinez (1999). Issue: Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties Held:Petitioners have established a right to evict private respondent from the subject premises for nonpayment of rentals. No. subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. 1974 to May 15. and Motion to Suspend Procedural Rules in the Higher Interest of Substantial Justice filed by private respondent (Overland Express Land).R.R. lessee. After the expiration of the contract.R. Nos. OEL failed to pay the increased rental of P8. From that moment. Page | 19 . On appeal OEL claimed that they have expressed their intention to buy the property by paying P300. effective June 1976. G.00 /mo.000.Sales Case Digests Atty.00 as partial payment to Alice Dizon as an alleged agent of petitioners. cases for 2003 are only about the Second Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners filed an action for ejectment to MTC of QC which was granted by the latter.000.000. It bears stressing that the absence of any of these essential elements negates the existence of a perfected contract of sale. 124741. CA rendered a decision concluding that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties on the leased premises and that pursuant to the option to buy agreement. entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with petitioners. 1999. and private respondent. No. 28. Private respondent's right to exercise the option to purchase expired with the termination of the original contract of lease for one year. Sale is a consensual contract and he who alleges it must show its existence by competent proof. 1975) with a monthly renal of P3. for a term of one (1) year (May 16. the parties may reciprocally demand performance. OEL was granted an option to purchase the land for P3. Manuel Casiño Topic:Elements of the Contract of Sale 2B S. object. 2003 (ejectment case). and ordered the petitioners to execute a deed of absolute sale of the land in favor of OEL. Inc. the elements of a contract of sale are consent.00/sq.00. m.000. (OEL). dated Jan. Subsequently. "the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.C. And that the payment made to Alice was the operative act that gave rise to a perfected contract of sale." Thus. 1670) because it is alien to the possession of the lessee. Q. 2011-2012 Dizonvs CA* G. An implied new lease does not ipso facto carry with it any implied revival of private respondent's option to purchase (as lessee thereof) the leased premises (Art. January 28. as petitioners' alleged agent. 28. Dizon. Justice Ynares-Santiago (2003) Facts:Overland Express Lines.
The next day. This is so because the agreement as to the manner of payment goes into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price. At the most. The provision on the downpayment of P100. 928. where he would celebrate his birthday on the 19th of June. the VSP may be considered as part of the initial phase of the generation or negotiation stage of a contract of sale. Manuel Casiño Elements of the Contract of Sale 2B S. Toyota then gave Sosa the option to purchase the unit by paying the full purchase price in cash but Sosa refused. But nothing was mentioned about the full purchase price and the manner the installments were to be paid. 2 on which Gilbert signed under the subheading CONFORME. Inc. There is no perfected contract of sale. Issue: WON Sosa can rightfully claim for damages and attorney’s fees. Sosa emphasized to Bernardo that he needed the Lite Ace not later than 17 June 1989 because he.A. on behalf of his father. He met Popong Bernardo. as the VSP executed the following day confirmed.Sales Case Digests Atty. G. If it was intended for a contract of sale.. three parties are thus involved: the buyer who executes a note or notes for the unpaid balance of the price of the thing purchased on installment. The vehicle was not delivered at the date promised since the B. Accordingly. Finance. Toyota did so on the very same day. vs. This Court had already ruled that a definite agreement on the manner of payment of the price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. COURT OF APPEALS and LUNA L. Held: No. and (c) consummation or death. Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Lite Ace. Bernardo then signed the aforequoted "Agreements Between Mr.A. Sosa and Gilbert went to Toyota to deliver the downpayment of P100.m. Sosa subsequently filed a case claiming for damages.: FACTS: Luna L. in a sale on installment basis which is financed by a financing company. and a balikbayan guest would use it on 18 June 1989 to go to Marinduque. After it became clear that the Lite Ace would not be delivered to him. There are three stages in the contract of sale. JR. L-116650 May 23. 1458 – …price certain) No obligation on the part of Toyota to transfer ownership of a determinate thing to Sosa and no correlative obligation on the part of the latter to pay therefor a price certain appears therein. 1995 DAVIDE. a sales representative of Toyota. They met Bernardo who then accomplished a printed Vehicle Sales Proposal (VSP) No..R. or generation. signed the documents of Toyota and B. his family. Definiteness as to the price is an essential element of a binding agreement to sell personal property.000. He added that if he does not arrive in his hometown with the new car.A.Y." It was also agreed upon by the parties that the balance of the purchase price would be paid by credit financing through B. on 17 June 1989. petitioner.000. Finance of the credit financing application of Sosa was not approved. (b) perfection or birth of the contract. respondents." Bernardo assured Sosa that a unit would be ready for pick up at 10:00 a. (Art. Sosa asked that his downpayment be refunded. 2011-2012 TOYOTA SHAW. SOSA. he would become a "laughing stock. No.00. 15 June 1989. Sosa & Popong Bernardo of Toyota Shaw. Finance pertaining to the application for financing.00 made no specific reference to a sale of a vehicle. namely: (a) preparation. J. the seller who assigns the notes or discounts Page | 20 . conception. INC. his home province. it could only refer to a sale on installment basis. and for this Gilbert.
Finance did not approve Sosa's application. 24 Since B.A.Sales Case Digests Atty. 2011-2012 them with a financing company. as the creditor of the installment buyer. and the financing company which is subrogated in the place of the seller.Y. and its non-delivery did not cause any legally indemnifiable injury. The VSP was a mere proposal which was aborted in lieu of subsequent events. there was then no meeting of minds on the sale on installment basis (ART. Manuel Casiño 2B S. It follows that the VSP created no demandable right in favor of Sosa for the delivery of the vehicle to him. 1475). Page | 21 .
The spouses Raet and spouses Mitra had earlier filed complaints against PVDHC with the Regional Trial Court for the recovery of the supplemental costs they paid to PVDHC. PVDHC filed ejectment cases against them before the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan.00 and P35. PVDHC would process the applications for purchase of the units upon the approval by the GSIS of petitioners’ loan applications. Bulacan and it was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals.000. Petitioners’ elevated the case to the Office of the President which sustained the ruling of HLURB. September 17. It appears that GSIS disapproved the loan applications of both spouse.Sales Case Digests Atty. Spouses Raet and spouses Mitra filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against Amparo Gatus and PVDHC with the HLURB which gave judgment in petitioners’ favor. 2011-2012 CASE: Raet v.653. thus asking them to vacate the units but they refused to do so. Court of Appeals G. Bulacan. the spouses Raet and spouses Mitra were allowed to occupy certain units.000. The case was elevated to the CA by PVDHC. This subdivision was developed by Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corp. The decision was set Page | 22 . J Cesar & Elvira Raet (Sps.Y. Spouses Raet and spouses Mitra applied for loan as they were not GSIS members. On appeal. (PVDHC) primarily for parties qualified to obtain loans from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).00 respectively with official receipts issued by Gatus in her own name. However the petitioners failed to raise money. 128016.00 respectively on the understanding that these amounts would be credited to the purchase prices of the units which will be determined after the approval of their loan applications with the GSIS. In the meantime.00 and P27. Niño Subdivision in Meycauayan. No.1998 295 SCRA 677 PONENTE: FACTS: Mendoza. Manuel Casiño Elements of A Contract of Sale 2B S. The spouses Raet and spouses Mitra paid to PVDHC the amount of P32. The spouses Raet and spouses Mitra paid Gatus the total amounts of P40. However it was dismissed because RTC did not have jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between subdivision buyers and developers which fall within the exclusive competence of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). For this reason they were advised to seek other sources of financing. Meanwhile.R. the Board of Commissioners of the HLURB reversed the judgment. they were allowed to remain in the subject premises. Raet) and Rex and Edna Mitra negotiated with Amparo Gatus concerning the possibility of buying the rights of the latter to certain units at the Las Villas de Sto.000.
there was no contract of sale perfected between the private parties over the said property. The figures referred to by the private respondent PVDHC were mere estimates given to them by Amparo Gatus.Y. the petition is dismissed.Sales Case Digests Atty. lacked the requisite essential for the perfection of contracts. especially on the price thereof. The Civil Code requires for the validity of a sale involving land that agent should have an authorization in writing. this petition for certiorari by the spouses Raet and the spouses Mitra. Third. 2011-2012 aside by the CA without prejudice to the right to proceed against Amparo Gatus. the criminal case for estafa against her was dismissed because it was found that she never represented herself to be an agent of PVDHC. Manuel Casiño 2B S. But Gatus was not the agent of private respondent PVDHC. Second. ISSUE: HELD: Whether there were perfected contracts of sale between petitioners and private respondent PVDHC involving the units in question. which Gatus did not possess. it could not have ratified the same at the time the latter applied for the purchase of the units. First. there being no meeting of minds as to terms. petitioners dealt with Gatus. there was no written contracts to evidence the alleged sales. As the Court of Appeals held. Page | 23 . since PVDHC had no knowledge of the figures Gatus gave to petitioners as estimates of the costs of the units. Hence. The parties’ transactions. therefore. Indeed. The Supreme Court held that the parties had not reached any agreement with regard to the sale of the units in question. Fourth. Wherefore. the records do not show the total costs of the units and the payment schemes therefore.
HELD: There was no perfected sale of Lot 4. J. subject to the law governing the form of contracts. The first proposed consolidation subdivision plan was disapproved by the city council. to the Mendozas which they can enforce against the PHHC by an action for specific performance. 1964. It was then revised and finally approved on Feb. They made the initial deposit and subsequently deeds of sale were executed in their favor. the parties may reciprocally demand performance. 1475 of the Civil Code states that a contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.: 2B S. In the case at bar. Since there was no payment made and the valuation committee and higher authorities have not approved the award. there was not meeting of the minds and thus the contract was not perfected. Page | 24 . 25. The Mendozas asked for reconsideration of the withdrawal and later filed an instant action for specific performance and damages. herein respondents-appellees and that this award shall be subject to the approval of the PHHC valuation committee and higher authorities. The subdivision of Lot 4 into five lots was approved by the city council and the Bureau of Lands.Sales Case Digests Atty. No. The trial court sustained the withdrawal but the CA reversed the decision and declared void the re-award and directed PHHC to sell the disputed lot to the Mendozas. L-61623 December 26. On April 26. Manuel Casiño Elements of the Contract of Sale G. the lot was conditionally awarded to the Mendozas subject to the approval by the city council of the proposed consolidation subdivision plan and the approval of the award by the valuation committee and higher authorities. the PHHC board of directors passed a resolution recalling all award of lots to persons who did not pay deposit or down payment.Y. 1965. the spouses never paid the price of the lot nor made the 20% initial deposit as required. From that moment. Since the Mendozas did not pay any. the PHHC withdrew the lot from them and re-awarded it jointly and equally to another five awardees.R. 2011-2012 FACTS: A resolution was passed by the PHHC board of directors stating that lot 4. Nevertheless. subject to the approval of QC Council shall be awarded to spouses Mendozas. ISSUE: Whether there was a perfected sale of Lot 4. 1984 PEOPLE'S HOMESITE vs CA AQUINO. Art. with the reduced area.
or satisfied out of. and it was sold at public auction to satisfy the civil liability of appellant Lino Artates to Daniel Urbi. supposedly for the sum of Php 2. the possession of the land should be returned to the owners. the purchaser herein has not acquired an absolute ownership or title in fee over the land that would necessitate a deed of reconveyance to revert ownership back to the appellant spouses. the herein appellants. 2011-2012 Spouses Lino Artate and Manuela Pojas sought the annulment of execution sale of their homestead which was issued to them by proper land authorities on 23 September 1952. G.R. Consequently. it is evident that it can not be enforced against. The execution sale in this case being null and void. Manuel Casiño Topic: Elements of the Contract of Sale Case: Artates and Pojas v. No. under which he derived no definite title or right until the period for redemption has expired. Issue: Whether or not the public sale of homestead to satisfy civil liability is valid. For purposes of complying with the law. Page | 25 . or issuance of a final deed or certificate of sale. Cagayan. The public sale was held on 2 June 1962 in order to satisfy a judgment by awarding the amount of Php 1. Meanwhile. such as that effected through levy on the property and consequent sale at public auction.Sales Case Digests Atty. The spouses argue that the public sale of the homestead in order to satisfy civil liability was in violation of Sec. 30. it is immaterial that the satisfaction of the debt by the encumbrancing or alienation of the land grant made voluntarily.676. Jan. or involuntarily. adjudged in the 14 March 1956 decision of the Justice of the Peace Court of Camalaniugan. the homestead patent covering the land in question (No. as in the case of an ordinary sale. an indebtedness.Y. There can be no doubt that the award of damages to Urbi created for Artates a civil obligation. In both instances.476. Urbi. it is not. It appears that what was issued here to the judgment creditor/purchaser was only the sheriff's provisional certificate. defendant Daniel Urbi sold the assailed homestead to Crisanto Soliven. Held: No. the sale of the homestead lot acquired by appellants less than 5 years before the obligation accrued. V-12775) was issued to appellants on 23 September 1952. that commenced from the date such obligation was decreed on 14 March 1956. a minor.35 to Daniel Urbi. And this is true even if the sale involved here is not voluntary. L-29421. In other words.In the case at bar.35 on 26 June 1961. 1971 Ponente: Justice JBL Reyes Facts: 2B S. 118 of the Public Land Law exempting said property from execution for any debt contracted within five years from the date of the issuance of the patent. without a redemption having been made. who suffered physical injuries inflicted by Lino Artate in an earlier case dated 14 March 1956. the spirit of the law would have been violated. There would even be no need to order appellee Urbi to execute a deed of reconveyance thereof to the owners.
2011-2012 Page | 26 .Sales Case Digests Atty.Y. Manuel Casiño 2B S.
2011-2012 Page | 27 . Manuel Casiño 2B S.Y.Sales Case Digests Atty.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.