ÐÏࡱá>þÿ ‹ þÿÿÿ ‰Šÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿì¥Á[€ ð¿š¹bjbj¬ú¬ú 4 4ºÎ   Î Y“ÿÿÿÿÿÿ·² ² õõõõõÿÿÿÿ $-L §! fyyyyyTTT!!!!!!!$ #¢¯%2(!9õTTTTT(!õõyyÛa!¾¾¾TØõyõy!¾T!¾¾¾yÿÿÿÿˆç‚Í ,Ò¾î w!0§!¾á%þÀá %¾¾á%õÎ TT¾TTTTT(!(!¾TTT§! TTTTÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿá%TTTTTTTTT²

» »: Conditional Sale vs. Absolute Sale (1997) Distinguish between a conditional sale, on the one hand, andan absolute sale, on the other hand. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A CONDITIONAL SALE is one where the vendor isgranted the right to unilaterally rescind the contract predicatedon the fulfillment or non-fulfillment, as the case may be, of the prescribed condition. An ABSOLUTE SALE is one where the title to the property is not reserved to the vendor orif the vendor is not granted the right to rescind the contractbased on the fulfillment or nonfulfillment, as the case may be,of the prescribed condition. Contract of Sale vs. Agency to Sell (1999) A granted B the exclusive right to sell his brand of Maong pants in Isabela, the price for his merchandise payable within60 days from delivery, and promising B a commission of 20%on all sales. After the delivery of the merchandise to B butbefore he coul d sell any of them, B’s store in Isabela was completely burned without his fault, together with all of A'spants. Must B pay A for his lost pants? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The contract between A and B is a sale not an agency to sellbecause the price is payable by B upon 60 days from delivery even if B is unable to resell it. If B were an agent, he is notbound to pay the price if he is unable to resell it. As a buyer, ownership passed to B upon delivery and, under Art. 1504 of the Civil Code, the thing perishes for the owner.Hence, B must still pay the price. Contract of Sale; Marital Community Property; Formalities(2006) Spouses Biong and Linda wanted to sell their house. They found a prospective buyer, Ray. Linda negotiated with Ray forthe sale of the property. They agreed on a fair price of P2Million. Ray sent Linda a letter confirming his intention tobuy the property. Later, another couple, Bernie and Elena,offered a similar house at a lower price of P 1.5 Million. ButRay insisted on buying the house of Biong and Linda forsentimental reasons. Ray prepared a deed of sale to be signedby the couple and a manager's check for P2 Million. Afterreceiving the P2 Million, Biong signed the deed of sale.However, Linda was not able to sign it because she wasabroad. On her return, she refused to sign the documentsaying she changed her mind. Linda filed suit for nullificationof the deed of sale and for moral and exemplary damagesagainst Ray. Will the suit prosper? Explain. (2.5%) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER No, the suit will not prosper. The contract of sale was In a CONT RACT OF SALE, ownership is transferred toperfected when Linda and

Ray agreed on the object of thesale and the price [Art. 1475, New Civil Code]. The consentof Linda has already been given, as shown by her agreementto the price of the sale. There is therefore consent on her partas the consent need not be given in any specific form. Hence,her consent may be given by implication, especially since she was aware of, and participated in the sale of the property (Pelayo v. CA, G.R. No. 141323, June 8, 2005). Her action formoral and exemplary damages will also not prosper becausethe case does not fall under any of those mentioned in Art.2219 and 2232 of the Civil Code. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The suit will prosper. Sale of community property requires written consent of both spouses. The failure or refusal of Linda to affix her signature on the deed of sale, coupled withher express declaration of opposing the sale negates any validconsent on her part. The consent of Biong by himself isinsufficient to effect a valid sale of community property (Art.96, Family Code; Abalos v. Macatangay, G.R. No. 155043,September 30, 2004). Does Ray have any cause of action against Biong andLinda? Can he also recover damages from the spouses?Explain. (2.5%) Considering that the contract has already been perfected andtaken out of the operation of the statute of frauds, Ray cancompel Linda and Biong to observe the form required by law in order for the property to be registered in the name of Ray which can be filed together with the action for the recovery of house [Art. 1357 New Civil Code]. In the alternative, hecan recover the amount of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00)that he paid. Otherwise, it would result in solutio indebiti orunjust enrichment.Ray can recover moral damages on the ground that the actionfiled by Linda is clearly an unfounded civil suit which fallsunder malicious prosecution {Ponce v. Legaspi, G.R. No.79184, May 6,1992). Contract to Sell (2001) Arturo gave Richard a receipt which states: Receipt Received from Richard as down payment for my 1995 Toyota Corolla with plate No. XYZ-1 23..............P50.000.00Balance payable: 12/30/01........ P50 0 00.00September 15, 2001.(Sgd.) Arturo Does this receipt evidence acontract to sell? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: It is a contract of sale because the seller did not reserveownership until he was fully paid. Contract to Sell vs. Contract of Sale (1997) State the basic difference (only in their legal effects) Betweena contract to sell, on the one hand, and a contract of sale, onthe

there is only one contractexecuted between the seller and the buyer. There is no showing that B manifested heracceptance to Y at any time before the death of A and beforethe sale. there are two contracts. A died. Is she correct? SUGGESTED ANSWER: B is not correct. the finaldeed of sale or the principal contract which is executed afterfull payment of the purchase price.other. In a contract to sell. 1995. Hence. to occupy it. Jesus sold a parcel of registered land toaime. 1995. Why? (3%) b) the second sale isregistered ahead of the first sale. Article 1311requires that the third person intended to be benefited mustcommunicate his acceptance to the obligor before therevocation. Y sold theproperty to the Visorro Realty Corp. Right of First Refusal (1991) A is the lessee of an apartment owned by Y.delivery of the object does not confer ownership upon thebuyer. with knowledge of the latter. whose husband works inKuwait. B cannot enforce any right under the allegedstipulation pour atrui. Since he has no reason at all to eject A. They furtheragreed that the lease will expire two (2) years later and that inthe event that Y would sell the property. he sold the same land to Jose. secured from the latter anorder for the demolition of the building. A immediately filedan action in the Regional Trial Court to annul the order andto enjoin its enforcement. without notifying B. On June 30. first the contract to sell (whichis a conditional or preparatory sale) and a second. B then filed an action to rescind the sale in favor of thecorporation and to compel Y to sell the property to her sinceunder the Compromise Agreement. she maintains is a stipulation pour atruiunder Article 1311 of the Civil Code. A allowed hismarried but employed daughter B. while in a contractto sell. TheCompromise Agreement was approved by the court. The relationship between Y and Asoured. Whohas a better right if: a) the first sale is registered ahead of thesecond sale. inconnivance with the City Engineer. Her action cannot prosper. ownership is retained by the selleruntil the purchase price is fully paid. SUGGESTED ANSWER: the buyer upon delivery of the object to him while in aCONTRACT TO SELL. with knowledge of the latter? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: . Acceptance. either A or hisdaughter B shall have the right of first refusal. Double Sales (2001) On June 15. Contract to Sell. she was given the rightof first refusal which. Y. Six (6)months before the expiration of the lease. Y and A were able to forge acompromise agreement under which A agreed to a twenty percent (20%) increase in the monthly rentals. In a contract of sale.

even though the first buyer knew of the secondsale. Domingo v. as security therefore. But the deed of sale was not registered.RR or PP? Why? Explain the legal basis for your answer. sold it to PP. where the second(2) years. owner of a parcel of land. On this date. acted in bad faith. (Sec.000. The consideration indicated is P7. This is because the second buyer.000from Romeo.(5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: It depends on whether or not RR is an innocent purchaserfor value. SCRA 301.Persons dealing with property covered by Torrens title arenot required to go beyond what appears on its face. CA 386. Romeo caused thepreparation of a deed of absolute sale of the above property.(a) The first buyer has the better right if his sale was first tobe registered. borrowed fromRomeo P4. RR acquired a good and a clean title to the property asagainst PP. 1544. Shethought that this document was similar to the first .00.00 and. [2002]. P. or until 3 June 1973.000. (Art.) Double Sales (2004) V. it is a wellsettled rulethat the buyer who first registers the sale in good faithacquires a better right to the land.to which Juliet affixed her signature without first reading thedocument. The fact that he knew of the second sale at the time of his registration does not make him as acting in bad faithbecause the sale to him was ahead in time. hence. It is the registration of the deed or theinstrument that is the operative act that conveys or affectsthe land. or ought to have known the prior sale of the land toPP or that he acted in bad faith. (Article 1544.On 2 June 1971. Thus. absent any showing that RR knew about. What creates bad faith in the case of doublesale of land is knowledge of a previous sale. The document andthe certificate of title of the property were delivered toRomeo.In cases of double sale of titled land. One year later. Under the Torrens System. Juliet obtained an additional sum of P3. who succeeded to register the deed and toobtain a transfer certificate of title over the property in hisown name. a deed or instrumentoperated only as a contract between the parties and asevidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make theregistration. has apriority in right.00.D. Equitable Mortgage(1991) On 20 December 1970. and being first to register thesale. however. b) The first buyer is still to be preferred. [2003]). No. Who has a better right over the parcel of land. Juliet. 51. It is further stated thereinsale is registered ahead of the first sale but with knowledge of the latter. C. who at the timehe registered his sale knew that the property had already beensold to someone else. she executed adeed of mortgage over one of her two (2) registered lots which has a market value of P15. Races 401SCRA 197. 1529).C. (Orquiola v. JV sold the parcelagain to RR. a widow.000. Civil Code).

Upon learning of the sale. the sale was one with the right of repurchase. 3 June 1971. Romeo did not takepossession of the property. . after reading theduplicate copy of the deed. When she reached home. The facts of the case state thatthe right to repurchase was granted after the absolute deed of sale was executed. Juliet. under the ruling inspouses Claravall v. 1602. CA (190 SCRA 439). given thecircumstances expressed in Art. Since the contract cannot be upheld as acontract of sale with the right to repurchase. Art. Following the rule in Cruzo vs. informed her that what she signed was not a mortgage but a deed of absolute sale.B.Romeo and Y maintain that there was a valid absolute saleand that the document signed by the former on 3 June 1973 was merely a promise to sell. he obligated and boundhimself to resell the land to Juliet or her heirs and successorsfor the same consideration as reflected in the deed of sale(P7. In 1975. as vendee in thedeed of sale above mentioned. Carriaga(174 SCRA 330). the right of repurchase would amount only to one option granted by thebuyer to the seller. I will not uphold the theory of X for the nullification of the sale and for the recovery of the property on the groundthat the so-called sale was only an equitable mortgage. The reserved right torepurchase is then deemed an original intention. her son X.the contract may stillbe sustained as an equitable mortgage. If I were to decide in favor of Romeo and Y. her son X.uliet died in January I973 without having repurchased theproperty. 1602 of theCivil Code on equitable mortgage will not apply. Anequitable mortgage may arise only if. He did not pay the taxes thereon. Romeoprepared and signed a document wherein. a) If you were the Judge. I would notuphold the validity of the promise to sell.Romeo sold the property to Y for P50. so as to enforce itby an action for specific performance. wentback to Romeo and demanded the reformation it. in truth.000. would youuphold the validity of the promise to sell? SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. accompanied by X. wouldyou uphold the theory of X? b) If you decide in favor of Romeo and Y. failed torepurchase the property on or before 3 June 1973. On thefollowing day.she signed.00. a deed of repurchase executed independently of the deed of sale where the two stipulations are found intwo instruments instead of one document. The rulecould have been different if both deeds were executed on thesame occasion or date. the conveyance shall bedeemed absolute and irrevocable. X filed an action for the nullification of the saleand for the recovery of the property on the ground that theso-called deed of absolute sale executed by his mother wasmerely an equitable mortgage. Her only surviving heir. taking into account theinadequacy of the price and the failure of Romeo to takepossession of the property and to pay the taxes thereon. therefore. The promise to sell would only amount to a mere offer and.000) within a period of twothat should the Vendor (Juliet) fail to exercise her right toredeem within the said period. in which case.

The enumerated in contract shall be the following When the price of a sale with right to repurchase isunusually inadequate:2 When the vendor remains in possession as lessee orotherwise. However.6 . Resolve the case with reasons. and Pedro. Juan. Pedroretained the owner's duplicate of said title. 2004.Even assuming the facts given at the end of the case. in any of cases:1 dismissed. Sale (2005) On July 14.4 When the purchaser retains for himself a part of thepurchase price. Thereafter. paymentfrom Juan P120. The presumed to be an equitablemortgage. alleging that thetransaction covered by the deed was an equitable mortgage. Pedro.000. Juan alleged that theproperty was sold to him under the Deed of Absolute Sale. (6%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complaint of Pedro against Juan should be instances when a contract — regardless of its nomenclature — may be presumed to be an equitablemortgage are Article 1602 of the Civil Code:"Art.3 When upon or after the expiration of the right torepurchase another instrument extending the period of redemptionor granting a new period is executed.00 as purchase price.and interposed counterclaims to recover possession of theproperty and to compel Pedro to turn over to him theowner's duplicate of title.Subsequently. executed a contract of leaseover the property for a period of one (1) year with a monthly rental of Pl. 6245. was also obligated to pay the realty taxes on the property during the period of lease.it is notenforceable unless it was sought to be exercised before a withdrawal or denial thereof. as lessee. Pedro executed in favor of Juan a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. Equitable Mortgage vs.5 When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on thething sold.00. as lessee. Pedro filed a complaint against Juan for thereformation of the Deed of Absolute Sale.as lessor.In his verified answer to the complaint.000. there would have been no separate consideration for such promiseto sell. The contract would at most amount to an option which again may not be the basis for an action for specificperformance. 1602. It appears in the Deed of Sale that Pedro received X sold a parcel of land to Y on 01 January 2002.

as in this case. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: . that uponfailure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescissionof the contract shall of right take place. although Pedro retained possession of theproperty as lessee after the execution of the Deed of Sale. eventhough it may have been stipulated." Article 1604 states that "the provisions of article 1602 shallalso apply to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale. In the sale of immovable property.In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that thereal intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure thepayment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation. and 2) their intention was to secure anexisting debt by way of mortgage. (Heirs of Balite v. 152168. No. the vendee may pay. Instead. the sale between the parties wouldautomatically be rescinded. Lim. The seller has two alternativeremedies: (1) specific performance."For Articles 1602 and 1604 to apply. damages are due because of default. X is not correct.even after the expiration of the period. New Civil code). 2004) In the given case. Article 1595 of the New Civil Code applies. In bothremedies. or otherbenefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwiseshall be considered as interest which shall be subject to theusury laws.there is no showing that the intention of the parties was tosecure an existing debt by way of mortgage. December 10. Y failed to pay on 01 February 2002. two requisites mustconcur: 1) the parties entered into a contract denominated asa contract of sale. ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: This is a contract to sell and not a contract of absolute sale.R.G. Article 1592 of the New Civil code is not applicable.since as there has been no delivery of the land. thecomplaint of Pedro should be dismissed. Hence. as long as no demandfor rescission of the contract has been made upon him eitherjudicially or by a notarial act (Article 1592. eitherjudicially or by a notarial act. fruits. Immovable Property. any money."In any of the foregoing cases. which payment X refused to accept.Since no demand for rescission was made on Y. Is X’s contention correct? Why? 5% SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. but offered to pay three days later. It wasstipulated that if payment were not to be made by Y on 01February 2002. Rescission of Contract (2003) and delivery to be made on 01 February 2002. claiming that their contract of sale had already been rescinded. X cannot refuse to accept thepayment offered by Y three (3) days after the expiration of the period. or (2) rescission orresolution under Article 1191 of the New Civil code.

and demanded that she vacate the premises. 304 SCRA 155 . . the seller on installment may not rescind thecontract till after the lapse of the mandatory grace period of 30 days for every one year of installment payments. she failed to pay. she tried to pay the installments due but the vendorrefused to receive the payments tendered by her. the vendor sent her a notice that it wasrescinding the Deed of Conditional Sale pursuant to thestipulation for automatic rescission. Under the Maceda Law. In Valarao v. (Article 1191. Besides. the vendor cannot rescind the contract under thecircumstances. SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) No. v. a) Is Article 1592 applicable? (3%) b) Can the vendor rescind the contract? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Article 1592 of the Civil Code does not apply to aconditional sale.333. the notice of rescission served by the selleron the buyer was not effective because the notice was not by a notarial act. Suria v. there is no need for X to make a demand in orderfor rescission to take place. For 46months. theSupreme Court held that Article 1592 applies only to acontract of sale and not to a Deed of Conditional Sale wherethe seller has reserved title to the property until full paymentof the purchase price. de los Angeles 35 SCRA 102 [1970]). They executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in which it is stipulated that should the vendee fail to pay three(3) successive installments. She replied that the contract cannot berescinded without judicial demand or notarial act pursuant to Article 1592 of the Civil Code. IAC 151 SCRA 661 [1987].33. the refusal of theseller to accept payment from the buyer on the 49th month was not justified because the buyer was entitled to 60 daysgrace period and the payment was tendered within thatperiod. In this case. Moreover.Yes.P. CA. the sale shall be deemedautomatically rescinded without the necessity of judicial actionand all payments made by the vendee shall be forfeited infavor of the vendor by way of rental for the use andoccupancy of the unit and as liquidated damages. buton the 47th and 48th months. Thefollowing month. payableP3 Million down and the balance with interest thereon at 14%per annum payable in sixty (60) equal monthly installments of P198. Priscilla paid the monthly installments religiously. By the express terms of thecontract. On the 49thmonth. which is the law applicable. the contract was automatically rescinded upon Y’s failure to pay on 01 February 2002. U. Maceda Law (2000) Priscilla purchased a condominium unit in Makati City fromthe Citiland Corporation for a price of P10 Million. and only after 30 days from notice of cancellation or demand forrescission by a notarial act. The law applicable is the Maceda Law. New Civil Code.

one of its acquired assets. Maceda Law. The most importantfeatures are (Rillo v. 247 SCRA 461): (1) After having paid installments for at least two years. the seller shall refund to thebuyer the cash surrender value equivalent to fifty percent(50%) of the total payments made. The RECTO LAW (Art. 655) is applicable to sales of immovable property on installments. to one of three remedies: a) exactfulfillment. Hence. Option Contract (2002) Explain the nature of an option contract.000. Itmust be supported by a consideration distinct from the price.000. The amount offered wasPl. Earnest Money (1993) LT applied with BPI to purchase a house and lot in QuezonCity. to pay theunpaid installments without interest. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: An OPTION CONTRACT is one granting a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price. in caseof default by the buyer. NCC) Option Contract. CA.(2) In case the installments paid were less than 2 years. an additional five percent (5%) every year butnot to exceed ninety percent (90%) of the total paymentsmade.00 . All these requirements for a valid rescission were notcomplied with by the seller. theseller shall give the buyer a grace period of not less than 60days.(Art. 1484} refers to sale of movablespayable in installments and limiting the right of seller. If the buyer fails to pay the installments due at theexpiration of the grace period.also in case of default of two or more installments. thebuyer is entitled to a mandatory grace period of one monthfor every year of installment payments made.A. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The MACEDA LAW (R. Recto Law (1999) What are the so-called "Maceda" and "Recto" laws inconnection with sales on installments? Give the mostimportant features of each law. and after five years of installments. the rescission is invalid. the seller may cancel thecontract after 30 days from receipt by the buyer of the noticeof cancellation or demand for rescission by notarial act.the seller may still pay within 30 daysfrom such notarial notice before rescission may be effected.If the contract is cancelled. 1479 and 1482. with nofurther action against the purchaser. b) cancel the sale if two or more installmentshave notbeen paid.c) foreclose the chattel mortgage on the things sold.

1985. de Leon. R No. when Bert tenderspayment of the balance and ask Simeon for the deed for absolute sale. 1985. BPI cancelled its agreement with LT andoffered to return to him the amount of P200. 1985. Is BPI legally correct incanceling its contract with LT? SUGGESTED ANSWER: BPI is not correct in canceling the contract with LT. BPI accepted the offer.00 that LThad paid to it.00 from his US financier.claiming that the deal is disadvantageous to him as he hasfound out that . 211 SCRA 291) the Supreme Court heldthat the earnest money is part of the purchase price and isproof of the perfection of the contract. On October 5.the court may refuse the rescission if there is a just cause forthe fixing of a period.00. On October 20. 1985 within whichto pay the balance. LT wrote BPIrequesting a last extension until October 30.00 payable within 90 days from June1. to which BPI agreed.due to the expected delay in the remittance of the neededamount by his financier from the United States. LT offered topay the amount by tendering a cashier's check therefor but which BPI refused to accept. notarial orjudicial rescission under Art. as follows: P200.000. Acceptance of Earnest Money (2002) Bert offers to buy Simeon’ s property under the following terms and conditions: P1 million purchase price. 821). Hawaiian Phil Co. Civil Code) is aground to rescind. 1985.000. In Linaopacio v Court of Appeals and BPI Investment (G. and mere notice of rescission is insufficient if it is resisted. LT wroteBPI requesting extension until October 10. 132 SCRA 722. the balance payable in cash upon the clearance of theproperty of all illegal occupants. whereupon LT drew a check for P200.000. Delay in thefulfillment of the obligation (Art. 1169. Otherwise. LT then filed a complaint againstBPI in the RTC for specific performance and deposited incourt the amount of P800.000.May Adela still exercise her right of redemption? Explain. The law requires a judicial action. within which to pay the balance. The option money ispromptly paid and Simeon clears the property of illegaloccupants in no time at all. Simeon suddenly has a change of heart. BPI denied LTs request becauseanother had offered to buy the same property forP1.000.00 down payment. 1985. 1993. only if time is of the essence. On September 5.payable. Secondly. vs.) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: BPI is correct in canceling its contract with LT but BPI mustdo so by way of judicial rescission under Article 1191 CivilCode. upon receipt of theamount of P800.500. July 3.00.000. However.00 in favor of BPI which the latter thereafterdeposited in its account. The law also providesthat slight breach is not a ground for rescission (Song Fo &Co..the balance of P800.000. 10% optionmoney. 47 Phils.102606. 1592 and 1991 of the Civil Codeis necessary (Taguba v. Perfected Sale.

CA. Betty offered toredeem her share from Emma. Bert’s action for specific performance will prosper because there was a binding agreement of sale. In the present problem.However. the buyer. who promptly notified Adela of the sale and furnished the latter a copy of the deed of absolute sale. 2000. when she paid her real estate tax.Having made a bad bargain is not a legal ground for pulling out a biding contract of sale. 2001. A year later. Adela ignored the notices. the register of deeds also notified Adela of the sale. Redemption. 35 Phil 769 [1916]) . Legal. not just an optioncontract. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. Formalities (2001) Betty and Lydia were co-owners of a parcel of land. the 30-day period for theexercise by Betty of her right of redemption had not evenbegun to run because no notice in writing of the sale appearsto have been given to her by Lydia.the property can fetch three time the agreedpurchase price. and offers to return the option money whichBert refuses to accept. Legal. 211 SCRA 291 [1992]. The sale was perfected upon acceptance by Simeonof 10% of the agreed price. but the latter replied thatBetty's right to redeem has already prescribed. Redemption. (4%)C. Villa. and no such wrong has beencommitted by Bert . 1482. This amount is in really earnest money which. under Art. The following day. C.Bormaheco. Betty can still enforce herright of legal redemption as a co-owner. in the absence of some actionable wrong by the other party (Vales v. Will Bert’s action for specific performance prosper? Explain. Xandrofiled a petition for the partition . May Simeon justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is financially disadvantageous to him?Explain. Villongco Realty v. Betty discovered that Lydia had sold her share to Emma onNovember 10. (Topacio v. 65 SCRA 352 [1975]). Bert seeks specific performance but Simeoncontends that he has merely given Bert an option to buy andnothing more. When Xandro presented the deedfor registration. Formalities (2002) Adela and Beth are co-owners of a parcel of land. Is Emmacorrect or not? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Emma. Beth soldher undivided share of the property to Xandro. B. is not correct. Article 1623 of theCivil Code gives a co-owner 30 days from written notice of the sale by the vendor to exercise his right of legalredemption. Simeon cannot justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is financially disadvantageous to him. enclosing a copy of the deed with the notice. Lastanuary 31. shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.

the notice of the sale was given by the vendee andthe Register of Deeds. 609[1991]) In fact. The law does not prescribe any particularform of written notice. CA. Remigio filed an actionagainst Ubaldo and Santos for cancellation of the sale. will youranswer be the same? Explain. Adela immediately tendered the requisiteamount for the redemption. a) Will the action prosper? Explain.Ubaldo informed Remigio that he was willing to sell thebuilding for P5 Million.of the property. Xandro contends that Adela losther right of redemption after the expiration of 30 days fromher receipt of the notice of the sale given by him. Shecan still avail of that right. So long as the redemptioner was informed in writing.(5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Adela may still exercise her right of redemptionnotwithstanding the lapse of more than 30 days from noticeof the sale given to her because Article 1623 of the New CivilCode requires that the notice in writing of the sale must comefrom the prospective vendor or vendor as the case may be.Ubaldo did not reply. Remigio received aletter from Santos informing him that the building has beensold to him by Ubaldo for P5 Million. in Distrito. Upon receiptof summons. having acted as middleman and being present when the vendor signed the deed of sale. On June 30.based on his right of first refusal. she had only 30 days from the time she received written notice of the sale which in this case took the form of acopy of the deed of sale being given to her (Conejero v. 197 SCRA 606. and tocompel Ubaldo to execute a deed of absolute sale in his favor. Ubaldo has repeatedly assuredRemigio that if he should decide to sell the building. SUGGESTED ANSWER: . Right of First Refusal. Ascoowner. Effect (1996) Ubaldo is the owner of a building which has been leased by Remigio for the past 20 years. 16SCRA 775 [1966]) . b) If Ubaldo had given Remigio an option topurchase thebuilding instead of a right of first refusal. nor any distinctive method fornotifying the redemptioner (Etcuban v. CA.he has no cause to complain (Distrito v. Remigio sent aletter to Ubaldo offering to buy the building at P4. CA. The following day. One week later. 148 SCRA 507[1987]). and that he will notrenew Remigio's lease when it expires. he willgive Remigio the right of first refusal. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Adela can no longer exercise her right of redemption. a written notice was heldunnecessary where the co-owner had actual knowledge of thesale. 1994. The period of 30 days never tolled. Inthis case. Lessee.5 Million.

however. Decidethe case. 1324. Effect (1998) In a 20-year lease contract over a building. According to Ang Yu v. 1319. the lessorsold the property to a third person who knew about the leaseand in fact agreed to respect it. The defendants contend that theplaintiff can neither seek rescission of the sale nor compelspecific performance of a "mere" right of first refusal. vs. In this casethere is no separate consideration. Consequently. the action to compel Ubaldo to execute the deed of absolute sale will not prosper. The lessee's right of firstrefusal does not go so far as to give him the power to dictateon the lessor the price at which the latter should sell his property. which was the same price he got in selling it toSantos. the lessor had sufficiently complied with his commitment to give the lessee a right of first refusal when he offered to sell the property to the lesseefor P5 Million. He certainly had the right to treat the lessee'scounter-offer of a lesser amount as a rejection of his offer tosell at P5 Million. Upon the facts given. the right of first refusal implies that theoffer of the person in whose favor that right was given mustconform with the same terms and conditions as those givento the offeree. the lessee isexpressly granted a right of first refusal should the lessordecide to sell both the land and building. In this case. NCC) Right of First Refusal. Inc. should prosper. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Thus. Mayfair Theater.NCC). for both rescission of theoffending sale and specific performance of the right of firstrefusal which was violated. Therefore. (Art. Secondly.(264 . the option may be withdrawn by Ubaldo at any time. The ruling in Equatorial Realty Development. However. [5%] SUGGESTED ANSWER: The action filed by the lessee. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No. therefore. its violation is predicated onquasi-delict. Inc. the answer will be the same.5 Million instead of P5 Million. Lessee. the lesseebrings an action against both the lessor-seller and the buyer(a) to rescind the sale and (b) to compel specific performanceof his right of first refusal in the sense that the lessor shouldbe ordered to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of thelessee at the same price. The action will not prosperbecause an option must be supported by a considerationseparate and distinct from the purchase price. Court of Appeals (238 SCRA 602) the right of first refusal is notbased on contract but is predicated on the provisions of human relations and. Remigio was offering only P4. the action will not prosper. he was free to find another buyerupon receipt of such unacceptable counter-offer (Art.No.

Before the maturity of the check. (Ang Yu Asuncion vs. no period was agreed uponfor the repurchase of the property.SCRA 483). 1607. 19. Civil Code). A and B entered into a contract whereby A sold to B a parcel of land for and in consideration of P10. 559 applies . et seq. Pablo sued to recover the car from Gabriel alleging that he (Pablo) had been unlawfully deprived of it by reasonof Alfonso's deception. hence in bad faith. Art." Right of Repurchase (1993) On January 2.00. ANOTHER ANSWER: The action to rescind the sale and to compel the right to firstrefusal will not prosper. 1606. Alfonso. A reserving to himself the right to repurchase thesame. CA. Civil Code). SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2} I would advise B to file an action for consolidation of titleand obtain a judicial order of consolidation which must berecorded in the Registry of Property (Art. CivilCode). The Court ruled in a unanimous en banc decision thatthe right of first refusal is not founded upon contract but on aquasidelictual relationship covered by the principles of human relations and unjust enrichment (Art. Non-Payment of the Price (1991) Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a postdated check in full payment therefor. 1) Until when must Aexercise his right of repurchase? 2) If A fails to redeem theproperty within the allowable period. which can be lawfully transferred to Gregorio. the check issued by Alfonso was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that he. Transfer of Ownership. Hence the only action that will prosper according tothe Supreme Court is an "action for damages in a properforum for the purpose. When presented for payment. what would you adviseB to do for his better protection? SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) A can exercise his right of repurchase within four (4) yearsfrom the date of the contract (Art. The suit will not prosper because Pablo was notunlawfully deprived of the car although he was unlawfully deprived of the price. 1980. Because they were friends. Will the suit prosper? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. had already closed his account even before he issuedhis check. sustains both rightsof action because the buyer in the subsequent sale knew theexistence of right of first refusal. Alfonso sold the car to Gregorio who later sold it to Gabriel. The perfection of the sale and thedelivery of the car was enough to allow Alfonso to have aright of ownership over the car. a case with similar facts.000. 238 SCRA 602).

000.00 to D.Non-payment of the price in a contract of sale does notrender ineffective the obligation to deliver. Risk of Loss (1990) D sold a second-hand car to E for P150.and. Alfonso. or P75.000. The car wasdelivered to E.00 shall be paid in five equalmonthly installments of P15. shall be paid upon delivery of the car toE and the balance of P75. EDCA Publishing Co. The obligation todeliver a thing is different from the obligation to pay itsprice.000.00 Theagreement between D and E was that half of the purchaseprice. Santos (1990) Transfer of Ownership. and E paid the amount of P75. hence.only to a person who is in possession in good faith of the property.Less than one month thereafter. the car was stolen from E'sgarage with no fault on E's part and was )Š‹Œ  V W X ‚ . Gabriel acquired the title to the car. in the problem.00 each. v. was the owner. and not tothe owner thereof.000.00.000.

‚ .

‚ .

1 .

º » ¼ û ü ^_`rRSTgMNOf‘’£/¹º»Í D####„$…$†$™$ç%è%é%ú%) ) )) €*  *åκÎåκÎåκÎåκÎå£ÎºÎåκÎåκÎåκÎåκÎåκÎåκÎåκÎåκÎåκÎåκ Îåκ-h¦~Ð5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJph'h¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJphh¦~Ðh¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph3h¦~Ðh¦~Ð5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJph@*‹ŒžW X ƒ ‚ ¯ .

¯ .

1 .

N>O>P>r>˜B™BšB«BCCºI»I¼IíIwKxKyKŠKôMõMöMN«O¬OOÀOüPýPþPQVVV#V~W W€W‘W@[A[B[_[ë[ì[í[þ[‹aŒaa£aÒaÓaÔaåa®b¯b°bÕbè gèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèºèºèÎèºèÎèºèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎ èºèÎèºèÎè'h¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph3h¦~Ðh¦~Ð5B*CJOJPJQJ\^JaJphh¦~Ðh¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJphI+CîCðC<D>D}DDEE`EbE¥E§EnHªH»I¼IîI=KxKyK ‹KõMöMN¬OOÁOííííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~ÐÁOPPýPþPQVV$VnV‹VW€W’WA[B[_[ì[í[ÿ[\w\”\ü_ `Œaaííííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~Ða¤aÓaÔaæa¯b°bÖbégêgüg5h“hni‘i’i¦iÑj kákl/lœmJo‚opp+pí íííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~Ðègégêgûgi‘i’i¥iáklppp*p8u9u.E bears the risk of the loss of the thing under the doctrine of res perit domino.i7j7k7| 799A.‚.uauÄvÅv×v–x—x½x|{}{{Q}R}f}E~i~å~ Z„ííííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~ЄH€I€w€P„Q„c„¨†©†½†]‰^‰p ‰’Š“ŠÁŠ§¨ºlŽ¹Ž\]mÇïd‘‘ííííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~Б@“A“S“É“Ê“Ü“””•”Ì”Û–Ü–î– ¡™Æ™Ç™ò™e¸f¸x¸™¹š¹ííííííííííííííííííííègd¦~Ðdð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~Ð@“A“R“È“É“Ê“Û““”””•”Ë”Ú–Û–Ü–í– Å™Æ™Ç™ñ™¥›¸d¸e¸f¸w¸™¹š¹èÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎèºèÎè¸èºèÎè§ h¦~Ðh¦~ÐCJOJQJ^JaJU'h¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph3h¦~Ðh¦~Ð5B*CJOJPJQJ \^JaJph-h¦~Ðh¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJphnever recovered.j.» ¼ ü ý 7_`s°SThÍííííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~ЕNOg”œ‘’¤0º»Í E###…$†$š$è%é %ííííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤-DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~Ðé%û%”' ) ))*‚*”*0-~i. Civil Code). Theownership of the car sold was acquired by E from themoment it was delivered to him.u`uÃvÄvÅvÖv•x–x—x¼x{{|{} {Ž{P}Q}R}e}G€H€I€v€O„P„Q„b„ƄDŽׄ؄ñ„ò„§†¨†©†¼†n‡o‡\‰]‰^‰o ‰‘Š’Š“ŠÀŠ¦        § ¨ ¹ [ \ ] l d‘~‘?“@“ëÔºÔëÔºÔºÔëÔºÔëÔºÔëÔºÔëÔºÔë ÔºÔëÔºÔëÔºÔëÔºÔëÔëÔëÔëÔºÔëÔëÔºÔëÔºÔëÔºÔëÔºÔºÔë3h¦~Ðh¦~Ð5B*CJOJP JQJ\^JaJphh¦~Ðh¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph'h¦~ÐB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJphI+pjpqòr¢sæt u9u.000.00?Explain your answer.000. E is legally bound to pay the balance of P75.j7k7}7O>P>s>ç>™BšB¬BCC'C+Cííííííííííííííííííííííííííídð¤DMÆ ÿÿÿÿgd¦~Ð*‚*“*h. 21h:pÒS°Ð/ °à=!° "° # $ %°°Ð°Ð . Is Elegally bound to pay the said unpaid balance of P75.i. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. 1497. Having acquired ownership.ƒ. [Articles 1496.00.j.B.

Ð Ðj ˜žžžžžžžž6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 vvvvvvvvv6 6 6 6 6 6 >6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ¨6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ¸6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 hH6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 °6 2 ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð2 (Øè 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð À À À À 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€ÀÐàð 0@P`p€8XøV~ OJPJQJ_HmH À À À nH sH tH J`ñÿJ

ÒS

Normal

d¤ÈCJ_HaJmH

sH

tH

DA`òÿ¡D

Default Paragraph FontRióÿ³R .

0 .

T Table Normalö4Ö l l4Ö aö (k ôÿÁ( 0 No List .

þo¢ñ .

¦~ÐaBþo¢B .

¦~Ðapple-converted-spaceþo¢ .

¦~Ðl7þo¢! .

¦~Ðl6þo¢1 .

¦~Ðl8R™@BR .

¦~Ð0 .

Balloon Text .

dð¤CJOJQJ^JaJNþo¢QN .

¦~Ð0 Balloon Text CharCJOJQJ^JaJþo¢a .

¦~Ðlþo¢q .

¦~Ðl10þo¢ .

¦~Ðl12þo¢‘ .

¦~Ðl11D³@¢D .

¦~Ð List Paragraph „ „Ð^„Ðm$PK !‚Š¼ú[Content_Types].Òä±j„4 Éßwì¸Pº-t#bΙ{U®ã “óTéU^h…d}㨫ôûî)»×*1Pƒ'¬ô “^××Wåî0)™¦Též9<“l#¤Ü $yi}å.À~@‡æ¶(îŒõÄHœñÄÐuù* D× zƒÈ/0ŠÇ° ðûù .xml¬‘ËjÃ0E÷…þƒÐ¶Ørº(¥Ø΢Iw}.

rels„ÏjÃ0 [ج¶Géâ\Ä!ý- ..°D0 j~è3߶Îbãí~i>ƒØÍ3¿ Bar Questions (Sale) | Rescission | Lease

õ?ê/ç ÛRk.—·´aæ¿?ÿÿPK !¥Ö§çÀ6 ? _rels/.“sþÔ».$€˜ X«Ç3aZ¢ÒÂà.

xml .‡ï…½ƒÑ}QÒÃ%v/¥C/£}á(h"ÛëÛOÇ »„¤ï÷©=þ®‹ùá”ç šª ÃâC?Ëháv=¿‚É…¤§%[xp†£ {Ûµ_¼PÑ£<Í1¥H¶0•ˆÙO¼R®BdÑÉÒJEÛ4b$§‘q_טžà6LÓõR×7`®¨Éÿ³Ã0ÌžOÁ¯ .åEn7”Liäb¡¨/ãS½¨eªÔе¸ùÖýÿÿPK !ky– n ƒŠtheme/theme/themeManager.

œ ŠeÍ.ˆ·ð|.láÇæéxÉ´ßIÈsQ}#Õ…µÝ Öµ+Õ!ï.§¨ÚHÅ.ÌM à @á}¡wÙ7c»(Eb²Ë®»öCœAÇ ÒŸÛ×åãƒ7ÎßÕ›K Y.Ý^¹$j=‹GWèÓ÷)âEë+& 8 8ýÿÿPK !–µâ– Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlìYOoÛ6¿Øw toc'v uŠØ±›-MÄn‡i ‰–ØP¢@ÒI}Úã€Ãºa‡Øm‡a[Ø¥û4Ù:lЯ°GR’ÅX^’6ØŠ>$ùãûÿ©«×îÇ .

!)OÚ^ýrÍC$ñy@“°íÝö/yH*œ˜ñ„´½)‘Þµ÷ß»Š×UDb‚`}"×qÛ‹”J×—– ¤ÃX^æ)I`nÌEŒ¼Šp)øèÆli¹V[]Š1M<”àÈÞ©OÐP“ô6râ= ¯‰’zÀgb Ig…Á u SÙebÖö€OÀ†ä¾òÃRÁDÛ«™Ÿ·´qu ¯g‹˜Z°¶´®o~ÙºlAp°lxŠpT0÷+ [}`j×ëõº½zAϰV–2ÍFÞÉi–@öqžv·Ö¬5\|‰þÊœÌN§Óle²X¢ dsøµÚjcsÙÁÅ7çðÎf·»êà ÈâWçðý+Õ†‹7 ˆÑä`ÚïgÔ È˜³íJøÀ×j|†‚h(¢K³óD-Šµß㢠dXÑ©iJÆ؇(îâx$(Ö .

ä˹!Í I_ÐTµ½S .ð:Á¥.

EL+M2¤#'šf‹¶i .1£÷êù÷¯ž?EÇž?øéøáÃã ?ZBΪmœ„åU/¿ýìÏÇ£? ž~óòÑÕxYÆÿúÃ'¿üüy5Òg&΋/ŸüöìÉ‹¯>ýý»GðMGeøÆD¢›äíó3Vq %'#q¾ÃÓòŠÍ$”8ÁšKýžŠôÍ)f™w9:ĵàå£ x}rÏx‰‰¢œw¢ØîrÎ:\TZaGó*™y8IÂjæbRÆíc|XÅ»‹Ç¿½I u3KGñnD1÷NIBÒsü€ íîRêØu—ú‚K>Vè.

~™Vé .

þvl³{ u8«Òz‹ºHÈ Ì*„æ˜ñ:ž(W‘☕ ~«¨JÈÁTøe\O*ðtHG½€HYµæ–}KNßÁP±*ݾ˦±‹ŠTѼ9/#·øA7ÂqZ…Ð$*c? ¢íqUßån†èwðNºû%Ž»O¯ ·ièˆ4 =3Ú—Pª ÓäïÊ1£Pm .

\9†øâëÇ‘õ¶âMØ“ª2aûDù]„.Yt»\ôí¯¹[x’ìóùç]É}Wr½ÿ|É]”Ïg-´³Ú eW÷ ¶)6-r¼°CSÆ jÊÈ išd ûDЇA½ÎœIqbJ#xÌ꺃 6kàê#ª¢A„Sh°ëž&ÊŒt(QÊ%ìÌp %m‡&]ÙcaSl=XíòÀ¯èáü\P1»MhŸ9£Mà¬ÌV®dDAí×aV×B™[݈fJÃP|8¯ .

AGm¯Õ\nzÈÇiÛÙã¼.Ö„ AÛV^…ó¹f ÌH ín÷ÞÜ-Æ é"á€d>ÒzÏû¨nœ”ÇŠ¹ €Ø©ð‘>äbµ·–&û ÜÎâ¤2»Æv¹÷ÞÄKyϼ¤óöD:²¤œœ.º®%ã1ñUÙÙ¥m.Ñœ¬üËM0ëE)`#ý5¤XYƒ`øפ.uχYC¾6ìOMf“å3o¶rÅÜ$¨Ã 5…µûœÂNH…T[XF64ÌT.ûš•R>QD .

K’e„LD•Ä•©{D 긪÷vEꦚdeÀàNÆŸûžeÐ(ÔMN9ßœRì½6 þéÎÇ&3(åÖaÓÐäö/D¬ØUíz³<ß{ËŠè ‰Y›Õȳ˜•¶‚V–ö¯)Â9·Z[±æ4^næÂç5†Á¢!Já¾ é?°ÿQá3ûeBo¨C¾µÁ‡ M .¢àØDìcp¿UÐ' ®&LEÐ/p¦ m¦Üâœ%]ùöÊàì8fi„³r«S4Ïd 7y\È`ÞJân•²åίŠIù R¥Æÿ3Uô~7+ö€×¸#¯m q¨BiDý¾€ÆÁÔˆ¸‹…i*¸L6ÿ9ÔÿmÎY&áÀ§öiˆ…ýHE‚=(K&úN!VÏö.

Ã[i]QT Ã[i]U.1˜r'J“œÐŠTù€®8£Vä"£¦AÈ»ÐH÷u} ñ›|Å$½b{Õ– Pšÿ³ý8‰g/]þQAsÙ…(¢ÆÌà#›ªLÊ[ººÄßÿÿPK.xml.xml.. ¢ú’m<.rels„M Â0„÷‚wooÓº‘&݈ÐÔ„ä5 6?$Qìí ®.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/>Y“ ºÿÿÿÿ*èg@“š¹NRVZé%+CÁOa+p„‘š¹OPQSTUWXYð8 ð@ñÿÿÿ€€€÷ð’ðð0ð( ð ððB ðS ð ð¿Ëÿ ? ðwCxCôEõE«G¬GüHýHNN$N$N~OO@SAS^S^SëSìS‹YŒYÒYÓY®Z¯Zè_é_a‘aœeœeh hRkSkÝlÞl¯n°n•q–qjsksavbvizjzÁ|Â|vw«€¬€ÀƒÁƒu…v…Y‰Z‰m‰m‰p‰p‰â‰ã ‰ä‰ä‰Š®ŠôŒõŒßà#’$’X“[“ Š wCxCôEõE«G¬GüHýHNN$N$N~OO@SAS^S^SëSìS‹YŒYÒYÓY®Z¯Zè_é_a‘aœeœehh RkSkÝlÞl¯n°n•q–qjsksavbvizjzÁ|Â|vw«€¬€ÀƒÁƒu…v…Y‰Z‰m‰m‰p‰p‰â‰ã ‰ä‰ä‰Š Š®ŠôŒõŒßà#’$’[“«G¬GüHýHNN$N$N~OO@SAS^S^SëSìS‹YŒYÒYÓY®Z¯Zè_é_ a‘aœeœehhRkSkÝlÞl¯n°n•q–qjsksavbvizjzÁ|Â|vw«€¬€ÀƒÁƒu…v…Y‰Z‰m‰m ‰p‰p‰â‰ã‰ä‰ä‰Š®ŠôŒõŒßà#’$’X“[“ XœX"–# Š k5jõÃ[i]å@8–# kø<’–# kI|¬–# kEËÃ[i] `? ¹ –# k˜.relsPK.! ÑŸ¶'› theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.!–µâ– PÑtheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.relsPK ]– <?xml version="1.d°`‚Žo7íg‘K(M&$R(.Ê KÉ©Ã[i]º `? .vp“´Á¤IYÓf“¶Z¾Y_p§[ð=alÙYü}NcÍ™ËÎÉÅ‹4vfaÇÖvl¡©Á³'S†ÆùAÆ8Æ|Ò*uâ£{àè¸ ¸ßŸ0%M0Á7%¡õ˜<€ä·ÍÒ¿ÿÿPK ! ÑŸ¶'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.!ky–ƒŠtheme/theme/themeManager.‡a¾™i»—Éc2Þ1hª:é•qšÁm¸ìŽ@RN ‰Ù.!‚Š¼ú[Content_Types].xmlPK.openxmlformats.xmlPK!¥Ö§çÀ6 +_rels/.

‡‡~.8–# k '–# k‘2H–# kw=Ã[i]Ï\NÃ[i]DlU–# k3jUÃ[i]Æ[–# kÔ–# k"y ¶P®!–# k@U .

D¶SÃ[i]¯WmV–# k2j³V–# kG`WÃ[i]ôrzY `? .ç}Í7–# kMÝ7Ã[i]äFÀ9Ã[i]Ãnï.¶@–# k}øA–# kùB–# k >ZEÃ[i]¥JE–# k pF–# ký)HŽ25IÃ[i]Ê K?vj]tDíM–# k×8 NÊ Ký4^NÃ[i]«¿OÃ[i]çlœRï ÒR–# k.–# k1 @Ã[i]d."Ã[i]ö%–# kG%¼&Ã[i]Áq[+Ã[i]ãIˆ+–# k [-ºŽN_-Ã[i]Y “1–# k¦!s2–# k¨`{2–# kW â3–# kÂ0M4Ã[i]Suu6–# k#Ve7U.

‡‡Ç(]Ã[i]Ã[i]2w?vj] `? .

‡‡n`Ã[i]ÍcXgÃ[i]îMõh–# kÁèjÃ[i]–# k×8 N…k–# k% lÃ[i]"YnÃ[i]ô Çn–# kJLÚo–# k„ Ïp×4.ÿáÿ¬@ ŸCalibri5. ÿ*àCxÀ ÿ ÿArial7.á[`À)ÿTahomaA ÿàÿ$BŸCambria Math"1ˆðÐhéŧðŧ þ[} K þ[} K !ð ´´0““2ƒQðüýHP ðÿ$Päÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ¦~Ð2!xx 2 ÿÿIKIKþÿ à…ŸòùOh«‘+'³Ù0 px „” ¬ Ì .qœR‰q–# k‚2w–# k2w [-ttyÃ[i]0 ·zÃ[i]ôÑzÃ[i]mn {6|U|–# ks~„}–# kåÒS¦~ÐY“[“ÿ@€˜4ij¿‘Y“X@XrXè@Xp@ÿÿ Unknownÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ G G ÿ*àAxÀ ÿTimes New Roman5 €Symbol3. Ÿ ÿ ÿ.

ù®0è .Ø ä äðøäIKNormalIK1Microsoft Office Word@êVú@Î@Ü‚Í@¸—Ö‚Í þ[}þÿ ÕÍÕœ.“—+.

hp| „Œ” œ¤¬´ ¼ .

É Éä K“ .

K .

Title .

-./0123456789:.Document.!"#$%&'()*+.8ô9²q .<=>? @ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]þÿÿÿ_`abcdeþÿÿÿghijklmnopqrstuvwxþÿ ÿÿz{|}~€þÿÿÿ‚ƒ„… †‡ˆþÿÿÿýÿÿÿýÿÿÿŒþÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿRoot Entryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÀF ç‚ÍŽ€Data ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ^1Table ÿÿÿÿfá %WordDocumentÿÿÿÿ4ºSummaryInformation(ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿyDocumentSummar yInformation8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCompObjÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿyÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿþÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÀF'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.

###BOT_TEXT###