Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ARTICLES
PERSONAL ANALYSIS
CASES
Soler vs Chelsey
G.R. No. L 17150 June 20,1922
Art. 1545
Facts:
the sale void or claim damages for breach of contiguous to the farm owned by Songco.
Any affirmation of fact or any promise by the warranty. It is a promise that a particular fact Both farms were sugar cane plantations.
seller relating to the thing is an express about the object of sale is true.
Sellner bought Songcos canes and as a
warranty if the natural tendency of such
consideration thereof, he executed three
affirmation or promise is to induce the buyer Article 1546 speaks about an Express promissory notes covering the collective
to purchase the same, and if the buyer warranty. As the term itself implies, it is any amount of 12,000 pesos. Two of the
purchase the thing relying thereon. No expressed affirmation of fact concerning the promissory notes were paid however the
affirmation of the value of the thing, nor any condition, quality, or character of the object third remained unpaid, hence the action for
statement purporting to be a statement of sold.
recovery was brought by Songco. Sellner for
the seller's opinion only, shall be construed
his part claims that Songco is guilty of
as a warranty, unless the seller made such
misrepresentation when he promised that
affirmation or statement as an expert and it
there are 3,000 piculs of cane in the field
was relied upon by the buyer. (n)
where in reality there were only 2,011 piculs.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a breach of
warranty.
Held:
No. While Article 1546 speaks of an expert
opinion relied upon by the buyer, the fact
that Songco was an experienced farmer does
not put this case in the ambit of the
contemplated expert opinion. The statement
was a mere matter of opinion. It is not a
sufficient ground for avoiding the contract.
Assertions concerning a property in regard to
its qualities and characteristics are usual and
ordinary means of a seller to obtain a high
price. They are always understood as to
afford the buyer to make inquiries. A man
fraudulent
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that Jaime
Guinhawa is guilty of other deceits. The Court
pointed out that the crime could be
commited by omission. If, in a contract of
sale, the vendor knowingly allowed the
vendee to be deceived as to the thing sold in
a material matter by failing to disclose an
intrinsic circumstance that is vital to the
professing to sell by virtue of authority in fact purchaser has been deprived of whole or part
or law, for the sale of a thing in which a third of the thing sold; (b) by final judgment; (c)
person has a legal or equitable interest. (n)
based on a right prior to the sale made by
the vendor; (d) the vendor has been
summoned and made co-defendant in the
suit for eviction.
The last paragraph of the provision states an
exception to the general rule. There implied
warranties above stated does not apply when
the sale is made by a sheriff, auctioneer,
mortgagee,
pledge,
or
other
person
profession to sell by virtue of authority
conferred by law.
Art. 1548
Eviction shall take place whenever by a final
judgment based on a right prior to the sale or
an act imputable to the vendor, the vendee is
deprived of the whole or of a part of the thing
purchased.
The vendor shall answer for the eviction even
though nothing has been said in the contract
on the subject.
The contracting parties, however, may
increase, diminish, or suppress this legal
obligation of the vendor. (1475a)
Art. 1549
Art. 1550
eviction. (n)
Art. 1551
If the property is judicially sold due to the
fact of (a) non-payment of taxes and (b) such
fact is not made known to the vendee before
If the property is sold for non-payment of the sale, the vendor is not excused from
taxes due and not made known to the liability arising from breach of warranty.
vendee before the sale, the vendor is liable
for eviction. (n)
Land
Development
Corporation
(SLDC)
bought from PNB one of the properties
subject of the abovestated litigation. SLDC
intervened in the case of Quisumbing versus
PNB. Quisumbing opposed the intervention
arguing that SLDCs interest in the property is
based on mere expectancy but such
opposition
was
denied.
SLDC
served
interrogatories upon private respondents
because they wanted to know if the
respondents had any documents to support
their claim that they are the owners of the
land. Private respondents for their part filed a
motion to quash interrogatories but the same
was denied. Interrogatories were issued to
the private parties. But they recoursed to the
CA which reversed and set aside the decision
made by the trial court.
Issue:
Whether or not SLDC as transferee pendent
lite of the property in litigation has a right to
intervene.
Held:
No. There was already a transfer of interest
by PNB to SLDC effectively making SLDC a
party to the suit. SLDC subrogated the rights
of PNB in the suit however he may not
intervene based on an entirely different
ground originally raised by PNB. While SLDC
Art. 1553
Art. 1554
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1555
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1556
Should the vendee lose, by reason of the
eviction, a part of the thing sold of such
importance, in relation to the whole, that he
would not have bought it without said part,
he may demand the rescission of the Rules
contract; but with the obligation to return the
thing without other encumbrances that those
which it had when he acquired it.
a.
He may exercise this right of action, instead
of enforcing the vendor's liability for eviction.
The same rule shall be observed when two or
more things have been jointly sold for a lump
sum, or for a separate price for each of them,
if it should clearly appear that the vendee
would not have purchased one without the
other. (1479a)
b. Enforcement of Warranty
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1557
Art. 1558
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1559
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1560
SUBSECTION 2: WARRATY AGAINST HIDDEN DEFECTS OF OR ENCUMBRANCES UPON THE THING SOLD
Art. 1561
The vendor shall be responsible for warranty Generally, vendor is responsible for warranty
against the hidden defects which the thing against the hidden defects which the thing
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Issues:
Held:
Implied warrant or condition as to the quality Pacific Commercial Company vs. Ermita
or fitness of the goods is present (a) where
Market & Cold Stores, Inc.
the buyer made known to the seller the
particular purpose for which the goods are
G.R. No. L-34727 March 9, 1932
acquired
and
the
buyer
relies
on
the
sellers
In a sale of goods, there is an implied
warranty or condition as to the quality or skill or judgment; or (b) where the goods are
brought by description from a seller who
fitness of the goods, as follows:
deals in goods of that description.
Facts:
Art. 1562
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1563
In the case of contract of sale of a specified
article under its patent or other trade name,
there is no warranty as to its fitness for any
particular purpose, unless there is a
stipulation to the contrary. (n)
Art. 1564
Art. 1565
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1566
Facts:
Art. 1567
Facts:
La Fuerza, a winemaker engaged Associated
Engineering to manufacture and install a flat
belt conveyor system for La Fuerza wine
bottles.La Fuerza discovered that the
conveyor system, when operated caused
contract several bottles to collide with each other.
When Associated Engineering billed La Fuerza
for thebalance of the contract price, La
2. Demanding a proportionate reduction Fuerza refused to payas the conveyor system
of the price (accionquantiminoris)
installed did not serve the purpose for which
it was manufactured and installed.Associated
Engineering filed a court action to collect
thebalance.
Issue:
Whether or not Associated Engineering is
liable.
Held:
No . The Court, while finding that the seller
failed to live up its representations, found
that the action to rescind the contract was
barred by the Statute of Limitations under
Art. 1568
Art. 1569
Art. 1570
Art. 1571
Moles vs IAC
169 SCRA 777 (1989)
Prescription period: 6 months
Facts:
Art. 1572
Art. 1573
Art. 1574
There is no warranty against hidden defects Such animals are bought not because of their
of animals sold at fairs or at public auctions, quality or capacity for work.
or of live stock sold as condemned. (1493a)
Art. 1575
Sale of Animals are considered void in the
following instances:
1. when animals suffer from contagious
Art. 1576
Art. 1577
Art. 1578
Art. 1579
Art. 1580
action. (1499)
Art. 1581
The form of sale of large cattle shall be The sale must be in a public instrument.
governed by special laws. (n)
Art. 1594
Actions available for breach of the contract of
sale of goods are the following:
Actions for breach of the contract of sale of
goods shall be governed particularly by the
provisions of this Chapter, and as to matters
not specifically provided for herein, by other
applicable provisions of this Title. (n)
for
specific
Art. 1595
Held:
Art. 1596
Facts:
If there is NO available market in which the Whether or not Jao Pi and Kenshia liable for
goods can be sold at the time, the seller is damages.
entitled to the full amount of damage.
Held:
Proximate damages of greater amount are
allowed when the same may be reasonably
attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation.
Art. 1597
Facts:
1. when the buyer has repudiated the
contract of sale
Private respondent as plaintiff had entered
into two written contracts with petitioner
Legarda Hermanos as defendant subdivision
2. when the buyer has manifested his owner, whereby the latter agreed to sell to
inability to perform his obligations him Lots Nos. 7 and 8 of block No. 5N of the
thereunder
subdivision with an area of 150 square
meters each, for the sum of P1,500.00 per
lot, payable over the span of ten years
divided into 120 equal monthly installments
3. when he buyer has committed a breach of P19.83 with 10% interest per annum, to
of the contract of sale
commence on May 26, 1948, date of
execution of the contracts. Subsequently,
Legarda
Hermanos
partitioned
the
subdivision among the brothers and sisters,
and the two lots were among those allotted
to co-petitioner Jose Legarda who was then
included as co-defendant in the action.
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
Facts:
Petitioner
Ayala
Corporation
was
the
registered owner of a parcel of land located
in Alfaro Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City
with an area of 840 square meters, more or
less and covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 233435 of the Register of
Deeds of Rizal. On April 20, 1976, Ayala sold
the lot to Manuel Sy married to Vilma Po
and Sy Ka Kieng married to Rosa Chan. The
Deed of Sale executed between Ayala and
the buyers contained Special Conditions of
Restrictions. The
Deed
Issue:
Held:
Art. 1598
Art. 1599
diminution
price;
or
extinction
of
the
Issue:
(3) Refuse to accept the goods, and
maintain an action against the
Whether or not the defendants-appellees are
seller for damages for the breach of Rights and Obligations of the Buyer in Case still bound to pay the plaintiff-appellant the
warranty;
of Rescission:
unpaid balance of the purchase price of the
certificate of public convenience to operate
(4) Rescind the contract of sale and
1. in case of rescission, the buyer shall the fifteen units of taxicabs sold to them by
cease to be liable for the price, his only plaintiff-appellant
refuse to receive the goods or if the
obligation being to return the goods
goods have already been received,
Held:
return them or offer to return them
2.
if
he
has
paid
the
price
OR
any
part
to the seller and recover the price
thereof, he may recover it from the Yes. It appears in the contract that the
or any part thereof which has been
seller
payment of the balance of P41,250.00 is
paid.
subject to the condition that the contract of
sale is finally approved by the Public Service
When the buyer has claimed and
Commission. In refusing to pay the balance of
been granted a remedy in anyone
3. he also has the right to hold the goods P41,250.00 defendants-appellees claim that
of these ways, no other remedy can
as bailee for the seller should the latter they are not bound to pay the amount
thereafter be granted, without
refuse the return of the goods AND to because the deed of sale in question has not
prejudice to the provisions of the
have a lien thereon for any portion of been approved yet by the Public Service
second paragraph of Article 1191.
the price already paid which lien he Commission Their
refusal
to
pay
the
may enforce as if he were an unpaid remaining
balance
of
the
agreed
Where the goods have been
seller
consideration (P41,250.00) on the alleged