You are on page 1of 7

Sales week 2 Labagala v Santiago GR 132305 12/4/2001 Facts: labagala claims to be the daughter of jose Santiago (nangangkon!).

Respondents are the sisters of Santiago. Jose owns a parcel of land registered in his name. Santiago sisters claimed that the same is fraudulently registered in his name alone, and sued for the recovery of 2/3 shares. They won the case and their name was added to the certificate of title. In 1984, jose died intestate. He purportedly transferred the whole property to labagala. Santiago sisters filed for recovery of title in 1987, claiming forgery in the purpoted sale by jose to labagala sometime 1979, especially since labagalas deed was registered only in 1987. Trial court awarded prop to Labagala but CA reversed. Issue and ruling: SC established that labagala is not the child of jose. There is also no valid sale. Plenty of intrinsic defects and questions. Also, Jose did not own the property. Thus, he could not have transferred the 2/3 share of his sisters. Sale is void because 1. at the time it was purportedly executed, Labagala was only 15 yrs old thus not have given her consent (may gatas ka pa sa labi!) and 2. Labagala admitted for not paying anything for the property. Simulated price makes sale void, although it may have been shown to be a donation or any other contract. The sale cannot also be a donation since labagala is only 15. It should have been shown that her parents accepted but there is no showing to that effect 2. Domingo v CA and Rigonan GR 127540 10/17/2001 Facts:

Paulina Rigonan owned three parcels of land. Respondent Rigonan claimed to be her relatives. Domingo claimed to be her closest surviving relative. Rigonan alleged that Paulina sold to them the property and that Domingo allegedly took the property by force,stealth and intimidation and refused to vacate the same. However, Domingos witness, the owner of the adjacent lot, testified that he knew Domingo lived with Paulina and continued to live there after her death and that contrary to Rigonans assertion, he received no notice of sale of Paulinas land and knew no such sale. Issue and ruling: Whether or not there was a deed of sle duly executed. No. Rigonan presented only a carbon copy of the deed without the original. Said deed also contained filled-in blanks and alterations. There was no proof paulina ever executed the deed she only affixed thumbmark and witness testimony was contradictory. The copies of the document bore different dates of entry and the same parcels of land sold were part of the will of Paulina subsequently executed. It also appears that the alleged vendor was never asked to vacate the premises after the alleged sale. (alcos v IAC) the buyers immediate possession and occupation is corroborative of the truthfulness of the sale. There is a reverse implication thus casting doubt on the deed of sale. Price is also suspicious since there is proof of absence of apperent and compelling reason for Paulina to sell the house, land and warehouse for only 850php and it was also testified that Paulina was already of advance age and senile. SPS. Guiang vs CA and Copuz gr 125172 12/26/98 Facts:

Sps Corpuz owned a parcel of land. They sold half to Sps Guiang and they built their house and occupied the other half. Wife Corpuz tried to work overseas but ended up staying a while in Manila. Her daughter informed her that husband Corpuz wanted to sell the other half to the Guiangs but wife Corpuz refused. Nevertheless, husband executed a deed of transfer of rights favor of wife Guiang, selling the other half. 4 dyas later, wife Guiang executed another agreement with original vendor (whom corpus purchased). The original vendor signed as vendor in this agreement. Wife Corpuz returned and learned Husband loves another woman. Collecting her children, they lived together in the disputed lot. Guiang wanted to eject her. Matter went to an amicable settlement where corpus signed to vacate. She later sought to nullify agreement. Issue-ruling: 1) WON Deed of transfer of rights was validly executed No. a) art 124 family code sole powers of administrator does not include powers of disposition or encumbrances w/c must have consent of other spouse B) fraud or intimidation Corpuz alleged during trial that brgy officials made her sign through misrepresentation and coercion. HENCE NO CONSENT 2) WON the amicable settlement ratified the void(able) contract of sale. No. a void contract cannot be ratified. Art 1422- a contract which is the result of a previous illegal contract is also void and inexistent. 4. Abalos vs Macatangay GR 155043 09/30/04 Facts: Sps. Abalos owned a parcel of land. Due to a squabble, husband Arturo executed an SPA purportedly by wife and sold

property to Macatangay evidenced by Receipt and Memo of agreement. Wife Esther, on her part, executed an SPA to enable her sister to sell the same parcel of land to Macatangay who paid earnest money and also annotated his claim on the sps title. When Macatangay was ready to pay the full price, He informed the spouses asked them to turn over the property. When they failed to do so at the second time, Macatangay annotated his claim and filed complaint for specific performance. Issue and ruling: Contracts must be perfected before they can be an independent source of obligation, and serve as binding juridical relations. Contract of sale: 1. consent, determinate thing, price certain 2. perfected at the moment there is meeting of the minds 3. ownership transferred only upon actual/constructive delivery Contract of option: 1. unilateral promise specify thing and price 2. valuable consideration distinct from price 3. distinct option from that w/c parties may enter into consummation In the present case, RMOA must be construed as an option. It merely shows a promise and does not impose obligation on MAcatangay to buy. In fact, it does not bear his signature nor is there an agreement to transfer ownership w/s is essential in sale. The option is a consideration distinct from price hence not binding. Assuming however that valid acceptance is made w/ period, there is still no sale as it is not bilateral. Tender of payment must be in legal tender and check is not legal tender Assuming there is sale, void for wifes lack of consent, want of consideration and no Macatangays signature. Esters offer to sell is void therefore cannot be ratified. 5. Modina v CA et al Gr 109355 10/29/99

Facts: It is alleged that Merlinda sold parcel of land to husband Ramon, who sold it to Modina who then brought a complaint for recovery of property against respondents. Merlinda filed complaint in intervention and questioned validity of sale between ramon and modina alleging that titles to land were never validly transferred to ramon however she confirmed validity of lease w/ respondent. The Lands were part of the estate of her first husband of which she is administratix. Probate court gave her authority to sell. Trial and CA found deed null for lack of consideration. Issue and ruling: 1. WON purpoted sale between merlinda and ramon is void. Sale is void for lack of consideration. Merlinda did not just seek nullification but even denied its existence. 2. WON modina if good faith purchaser. Good faith 1) purchase w/out notice that some other person has right or interest in such property 2) payment of full & fair price 3) at time of purchase before notice of claim or interest of onther person in property. He cannot be Good faith since he investigated and found out origin and the purpoted sale between merlinda and ramon. 3. WON merlinda recovery of properties void since will defeat her authority to sell No. order to sell is not judgement to sell. Court can rescind sale and does not constitute interference. 6. Calimlim-canullas v fortune l-57499 12/22/84 Facts: Mercedes and Fernando Canullas are husband and wife living together in a house in Fernandos land which is his exclusive property. 1978, Fernando abandoned his family and lived with

another woman Daguines. Both are convicted of concubinage. It was discovered that Fernando sold the property to Daguines in 1980. Daguines filed quieting of title and damages against Mercedes who claimed that the house and coconuts are conjugal funds and assailed sale as it was without consent. Issue and ruling: 1. WON lot is conjugal Yes. At the time operative law was still art 158 buildings constructed at expense of partnership during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouses also pertain to the partnership with reimbursement to spouse-owner 2. WON sale is valid No. 1. prop is conjugal and wife did not give consent 2. art 1409 contracts w/c cause, object or purpose are void and inexistent from the beginning and art 1352 contracts w/out cause or unlawful cause produce no effect Law prohibiting selling or donating between spouses should also apply to peope living w/out marriage. Reason and morality alike demand that such disabilities attached to marriage should also attach to concubines. 7. Cruz v Ca Suzara and Visconde gr 120122 11/6/97 Cruz and Suzara are common law spouses. Because of love and affection (char! Sugarmommy si cruz!) cruz executed deed of sale of her property to Suzara w/out consideration. Land became subject of mortgage. Suzara was unable to pay and bank was about to foreclose and then cruz negotiated restructuring of loan and extension. In the meantime, w/out cruz knowledge, Suzara redeemed the land and registered now in his name and on 1989 sold land to visconde. 1990 cruz annotated her claim. In feb 22 1990 cruz filed suit for quieting

of title and nullity of sale between her and Suzara (bitter si sugarmommy!) Issue and ruling: Sale between spouses is prohibited under art 1490 and must likewise apply to common-law spouses hence technically void but visconde was buyer in good faith and for value buyer and now registered owner. 1989 sale might be nullified but immaterial since good faith buyer is present. Petitioner even admitted original sale accomplished in 1989 consensual and perfect hence sale to visconde valid. Olaguer v Purugganan Jr. and Locsin gr 158907 2/12/2007 Facts: Olaguer is an executive and shareholder at Businessday. However he is also a part of the political opposition of marcos. Fearing arrested, detained or forced to go underground, he executed SPA in favor of 3 persons, including locsin, to sell his shares in such event and to use proceeds to support his family. According to him, but not Locsin, businessday will continue to pay him salary while he is gone. When Olaguer was indeed arrested, his SPAs sought for purchasers but found none. Locsin borrowed corporate funds and used the same to purchase share of Olaguer at par value, even though the value has gone down. Thus, 10k was deposited to the funds until it reached 600k, amount of olaguers shares After Olaguer was released, he discovered the sale and demanded to be restored to full ownership. When denied he sued for declaration of illegality of sale. Issue and ruling: 1. WON there is valid sale and additionally WON locsin exceeded powers granted

No ultra vires act (huh?) terms of SPA should be construed in its ordinary sense OW it will not take effect. 2. WON Olaguer can be considered to have given his consent. Yes. He received 600k and only questioned after 4yrs. Does not matter if no instruction as 1. SPA authorized locsin terms and conditions of sale and 2. art 1882 provides that limits of agents authority will not be considered exceeded if it had been performed in a manner more advantageous to the principal than that specified by him. 3. If there is a sale, who is the real party, locsin or businessday? Locsin even if payor in checks is Businessday because locsin obtained advances for Businessday to be able to buy olaguers share and also company stocks and transfer books do not reveal new issuance of shares but rather locsins shares was a result of cancellation of Olaguers shares in favor of Locsin. 4. WON sale was a violation of Art 1491 w/c prohibits agents from acquiring prop of principal that is entrusted to them Generally not allowed except when principal gives consent. There was consent since did not cancel and even accepted payments through his wife and Wife and Son issued receipts 9 Rubias V Batiller L-35702 5/29/73 Facts: Atty Rubias and Batiller contest over a parcel of land. Rubias Father-in-law Militante owned the parcel and tried to register to RTC but was denied. Pending appeal, he sold it to Rubias (1960). Sale recorded in Register of Deeds. As per deed, however, what was sold was parcel of untitled land w/c Militante admitted to pertain to other oppositors and application over w/c he withdrew. Rubias began paying taxes of the land.

Batiller, however, also began paying taxes on the same land w/c he claimed his own and was surveyed and approved by Dir of lands in 1956 (A) demontao yap pongco Militante Rubias (b) Felipe basilio batiller isaias batiller free patent approved Later defendats raised motion to dismiss as Rubias is counsel of petitioner thus violating art 1409 & 1491 w/c declared void, among others, acquisitions made by prosecuting atty and others connected to admin of justice during litigations Issue and Ruling 1) WON sale void lis pendentia Yes sale is void. Ultimately though, Militante di not have right or title as he was rejected by court 2) WON sale void as between lawyer and client Yes void this prohibition is anchored on public policy. Lawyer is presumed to know the law. 10. Phil Trust Co v Roldan et al L-8477 5/31/56 Facts While Roldan was guardian to minor Bernardo, she sold 17 parcels of land belonging to bernardo w/ judicial approval to ramos and one week later brought them back. Of these 17, she sold 4 to Cruz. Philtrust Co came into guardianship of Bernardo, they sought to annul it through art 1409 Issue and ruling: Sale Roldan to ramos then Ramos to Roldan void for being indirect contravention of Art 1409 and Roldan to Cruz void for Roldans lack of title Sale was 14700 while Roldan willing to repurchase 15000 her argument that it was best price available was not entirely truthful temptation xxx necessitates

annulment of transaction even if there is no actual collusion between guardian and inteemediate purchaser this will uphold a sound principle of equity and justice. 11 Macariola v Judge Asuncion AM 133-j 5/31/82 Facts: Judge Asuncion heard and decided a case of pertition between heirs reyes and macariola. Case decided in 63 became final for lack of appeal. Lott 1184, one half thereof was subdivided by reyes into 5. 5th part conveyed to Asuncions Stenographer and 4th sold to Dr. Galapon (in 1964) who in turn sold a part of it to Judge (in 1965) Judge conveyed their share in the lot to Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries (1966). Judge is president and wife Secretary. August 1968, Macariola filed complaint against judhe and November 1968 filed civil case seeking annulment of partition and orders of judge approving them as well as subsequent conveyances. * Accdng to CFI who investigated Judge, absolved. Issue and Ruling WON there wa violation of Art 1491 (5) prohibiting acquisition of properties by certain persons No. it must take during pendency of litigation. Also, judge purchased not directly from plaintiffs but Dr. Galapon and no evidence Dr. Galapon acted as dummy. Nevertheless despite legality, it was unethical for macariola pursuant to Canon 3. Chastise judge (nge! Cassava cake ra?!) 12. Valenca v Atty Cabanting AM 1302,1391, 1543 4/26/91 Facts:

2 sets of admin cases involving three lawyers (one is now mtc judge) a) admin 1302 and 1391 land belongs to Pedro Raymundo and passed to Serapia after death. Sps Valencia claimed to have purchased land from Serapia. Deed of sale in Ilocano. Serapia said it covered a different property. (tried to settle in house of Atty Jovellanos) Serapia and atty Cabanting filed for recovery of possession and damages. Valencias engaged Atty Antiniw, who advised presentation of notarized deed in lieu of Ilocana one- Atty Antiniw caused falsification of said deed. CFI ruled for Serapia. Paulino Valencia filed certiorari pending that however, trial court issued order of execution stating finality of decision. Serapia sold land to Atty Jovellanas and Atty Cabanting. Paulino filed disbarment for Cabanting for violation of Art 1491 cc and art 11 canons. His daughter Constancia filed disbarment for Antiniw for forgery and Jovellanos and Cabanting for violation Art 1491. B admin 1543 Felicidad Bernal-duzon filed falsification against antiniw. Grandparents of Lydia Bernal wanted to make donation propter nuptias in favor of Lydias parents but deed was lost during war. Grandmother then executed deed of confirmation and later deed of sale for confirmation. Antiniw prepared and notarized deed of sale in Lydias grandfathers name w/ grandma approval. Grandpa already dead at that time. Lydia complained antiniw for illegal acts and bad advice. Issue Ruling A) WON sales to Cabanting and Jovellanos Violate Art 1491 CC

Cabanting Yes, while purchased was done after finality, there was certiorari proceedings.Public Policy prohibits transaction in view of fiduciary relation involved. Jovellanos No. No atty-client relationship between Serapia and Jovellanos, who was not her counsel Antoniw-disbarred Jovellanos- not disbarred 13 Municipal Council of Iloilo v Evangelista and Vda. De tan toco L-32977 11/17/30 Facts: Civil Case 3514 was between Vda de tan toco and petitioner involving strip of land of Vda expropriated by petitioner for road widening.Judgment favor of Vda for 42,966.40 Now come Atty Evangelist seeking compensation for 15% fixed w/ consent of Vda; PNB claims subject land has mortgage and Soriano who said decision was assigned to him and by him to Mauricio Cruz and Co. After trial, Atty Soriano and Evangelista paid 6k each evangelista waiving remainder. Liability of Iloilo is now 30966.40 and adjudicated to Mauricio Cruz and Co. Sorinos claim is alleged to have been assigned by Tan Boon Tiong, Vdass atty-in fact as payment for professional services rendered. Issue: Existence of Mauricios claim from Atty Soriano and in turn validity of Tan Boon Tiong to Soriano Ruling: Assignment to Soriano is valid. It was really payment for services rendered. No Violation of 1451(5) of cold civil code w/c prohibits among others lawyers from acquiring lands during litigation. Atty Soriano was not counsel. When

assignment was given to Soriano (1928) case already final (1924) 14 Director of Lands v Ababa et al L-26092 02/27/79 Facts Atty Fernandez represented Sps Abarquez in action to annul contract of sale w/ right to repurchase. There is written agreement that in case they won fernendez will get of what they may recover Case was won but agreement was not honored by Abarquez. When TCT ws issued, sold land to Larrazabal. Upon learning of this, Atty Fernandez annotated and later filed adverse claim. Sale to LArazzabal pushed through while adverse claim was annotated. Issue: WON contingent free agreement violates Art 1491 bec involves assignment of property. Ruling No. For Art 1491 to operate, litigation must be pending. Contract for contingent fee not covered by Art 1491 bec transfer and assignment of property takes effect only after finality of favorable judgement