You are on page 1of 13


 Sotero Dionisio Jr (heir and administrator of Rosenda Abutan) > Sotero III for
P75,000 > William Go for P80,000
 Sotero III and Spouses Lao entered into a Mutual Agreement of Promise to Sell
 Respondent Nuqui: Motion for Annulment / Revocation of the Deeds of Absolute
Sale- sale and subsequent transfer were made in violation of court order and that
consideration of two sales were grossly inadequate (many are willing to buy
property at P400,000)
 Sotero Jr: actual consideration is P200,000
 Respondent Nuqui: 2 sales were but a single transaction simultaneously hatched
and consummated in one occasion (Sotero III is without means or income and so has
no capacity to buy); transaction is to defraud the estate and his co-heirs
 Petitioner Lao spouses: Manifestation in Intervention of Interest to Purchase
Property – respondent-admin, without revealing that the property had already been
sold to Go, entered into a Mutual Agreement of Promise to sell to petitioners for the
amount of P220,000; upon execution of agreement, petitioners paid the earnest
money in the amount of P70,000
 After hearing, respondent judge allowed all interested parties to bid. William Go
appeared to be the highest bidder.
FICTITIOUS SALE BY ADMINISTRATOR – Sotero Jr is the administrator of the estate of his
deceased mother. As suchm he occupies a position of the highest trust and confidence. He is
required to exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire good faith in the performance of
that trust.
In the case at bar, the sale was made necessary “in order to settle other existing obligations
of estate”. Sale is fictitious, made to his very son Sotero III and for grossly low price.
 6 parcels of land were owned by deceased Julio Catolos
 Some of the legal heirs (Francisca Catolos, Agnes catolos, Alfonso Fornilda, Asuncion
Pasamba) were represented by Atty. Sergio Amonoy
 Jan 12, 1965: Project of Partition approved
 August 6, 1969: estate declared closed and terminated
 Jan 20, 1965: Fornilda and Pasamba executed a Contract of Mortgage in favour of
Atty. Amonoy as security for payment of attorney/s fees
 Pasamba and Fornilda died
 Mortgage indebtedness was not paid, Atty. Amonoy instituted foreclosure
proceedings; Atty. Amonoy as highest bidder
INVALID PURCHASE BY A LAWYER (Art 1491(5)) – A lawyer is prohibited from acquiring
either by purchase or by assignment the property or rights involved which are the object of
litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their profession. At the time the mortgage
was executed, the relationship of lawyer and client still existed. Mortgage was executes

Alberto Fernandez was the counsel of Maximo Abarquez in a civil case for annulment of contract of sale and for recovery of land  During its appeal. contrary to constitution. instead offered to sell the whole parcels to Spouses Juan Larrazabal and Marta de Larrazabal  Atty. To secure a loan of P2000. Sagay. evidencing respondent’s intention to protect his own interests and ride roughshod over that of his clients.  Luy and Nicomedes sold Lot 4465 to Carlos Eijansantos and Lot 4467 Lino Bangayan . Camiguin. executed a deed of General Power of attorney.Sale to Ong King Po was void and inexistent. Fernandez filed an affidavit of adverse claim. Respondent is the rightful owner! HERRERA V LUY KIM GUAN  Natividad Herrera. a deed of mortgage to Zamboanga Mutaul Building and Loan Assoc. Unable to pay his lawyer. Abarquez. legitimate daughter of Luis Herrera.  Petitioner refused to comply with his obligation. Misamis Oriental  Leodica Balisado > Spouses Patricio Barsobia and Epifania Sarosa > Ong King Po (Chinese) > Victoriano Cuenco (naturalized Filipino)  Epifania usurped the property and sold ½ to Pacita Vallar  Respondent Cuenco: forcible entry case against Epifania and complaint for recovery and ownership of land against Epifani and Patricia SPECIAL INCAPACITY: SALE TO ALIEN . He also executed deed of sale on favour of Lino Bangayan. now deceased  Luis Herrera. SAROSA VDA DE BARSOBIA V CUENCO  Lot in controversy: one half portion of 2 adjoining parcels of coconut land @ Barrio Mancapagao. Abarquez engaged in the services of atty. executed a document (contract of contingent fee) obliging himself to give his lawyer ½ of whatever he might recover from Lots 5600 and 5602 should the appeal prosper. Notwithstanding such. Fernandez. DIRECTOR OF LANDS V ABABA  Atty. owner of 3 parcels of land and their improvements  Before leaving for China. an interest in the assets realized by the litigation. A contract for a contingent fee is not covered by Art 1491 because the transfer or assignment of the property in litigation takes effect only after the finality of favourable judgment. authorizing Luy Kim Guan to administer and sell his properties  Lot 1740 was sold by Luy Kim Guan in his capacity as attorney-in-fact to Luy Chay. The case was resolved. But the litigated property is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino.  Luy Kim Guan sold to Nicomedes Salazar his one half participation in two lots  Luy and Nicomedes executed a deed of mortgage in favour of BPI to secure a loan. petitioner spouses conveyed by deed of absolute sale 2/3 of the lands to Larrazabal spouses CONTRACT OF CONTINGENT FEE NOT PROHIBITED – Art 1491 prohibition does not apply to “cases where after completion of litigation the lawyer accepts on account of his fee. was executed.only 8 days after` the approval of Project of Partition.

also an alien. It expressly allows foreigners to acquire condo units and shares in condo corporations up to not more than 40% of the total and outstanding capital stock of a Filipino-owned or controlled corporation. during marriage of parents. who conveyed and sold the land to Trinidad Navate. aliens may not acquire private or agricultural lands”. LEGALITY OF TITLES ACQUIRED BY LUY CHAY AND LINO BANGAYAN – Luy Chay as citizen of Philippines. 94) of Jolo townsite in the name of Jose Godinez. or merely prohibited. prescription is unavailing. . Godinez could not legally convey the entire property. Godinez failed to surrender the property despite demands W/N THE HEIRS OF A PERSON WHO SOLD A PARCEL OF LAND TO AN ALIEN MAY RECOVER THE PROPERTY IF IT HAD BEEN CONVEYED TO A FILIPINO CITIZEN – “Under the Constitution. It is enough to stress that in so far as the vendee is concerned. Consequently. illegal per se. we see no necessity from the facts to pass upon the nature of the contract of sale executed by Jose Godinez and Fong Pak Luen – whether void. However. inasmuch as he acquired his one-half share in Lot 4467 in 1931. While Luy Kim Guan is a Chinese citizen. prescription may never be invoked to defend that which Constitution prohibits. Fong has not acquired any title  Petitioner: since ½ of the conjugal property inherited by plaintiff. their mother dies leaving plaintiffs as sole surviving heirs  Without knowledge of plaintiffs. GODINEZ V PAK LUEN  Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that they are heirs of Jose Godinez. with full knowledge that Fong is a Chinese. buyer will not get atransfer certificate of titile but merely a condominium certificate of title) RA 4726 (CONDOMINIUM ACT) – foreign nationals can own Philippine real estate through the purchase of condo units or town houses. HULST V PR BUILDERS  Petitioner Hulst: Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Contract to sell involving a condominium unit did not violate the Constitutional proscription agaimst ownership of land by aliens. Plaintiff Nativida filed a complaint for recovery. But. it does not necessarily follow that the applicants may be allowed to recover the property sold to an alien. said parents acquired a parcel of land (Lot No. who later sold it to a Filipino citizen. Land sold to Chinese. Bangayan had sufficiently established his Philippine citizenship. (all transactions mentioned are fraudulent and were executed after the death of Luis Herrera and when power of attorney was no longer operative. Chinese  Fong executed a power of attorney in favour of Kwan Pun Ming. who was married to Martina Alvarez Godinez. long before the Constitution was adopted. Jose Godinez sold the land to Fong Pak Luen. the sale to the latter cannot be impugned. neither can the vendor or his heirs rely on an argument based on imprescriptibility because the land sold in 1941 is now in the hands of a Filipino citizen against whom the constitutional prescriptiom was never intended to apply. From the fact that prescription may not be used to defend a contract which the Consti prohibits. nevertheless.

when in truth no such conveyances were ever intended by them. It is trough tradition or delivery that the buyer acquires the real right of ownership over the things sold. Capitol was no longer the owner thereof. and that improvements made by lessee shall belong to the lessor  Capitol purchased on credit from Jalwindor Manufacturers glass and wooden jalousies which were delivered and installed in the leased premises  Jalwindor: action for collection of sum of money for its failure to pay. The contract.  Sampaguita filed a third part complaint alleging that it is the owner SAMPAGUITA AS THE OWNER. however. Ownership is transferred by delivery. Juan and his sisters. SAMPAGUITA PICTURES V JALWINDOR MANUFACTURERS  Sampaguita Pictures is the owner of the Sampaguita Pictures Building. Entered into a compromise agreement  Capitol also failed to pay rentals to Sampaguita  Sampaguita filed complaint for ejectment and for coillection of sum of money  Capitol failed to comply with compromise agreement. When levy was made on said items. Rosolfo was not the owner of the land he delivered to petitioner. . Thus. Florencio Juan to take care of the documents of his parents’ properties  After death of Atty. Juan. to Atty. actual or constructive. Having entered into lease contract with Sampaguita. It is during the delivery that the law requires vthe seller to have right to transfer ownership of the thinbg sold. SELLER’S OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY – During perfection stage.  They discovered that land in question was sold by Rodolfo de Leon to Aurora Alcantara. creates an obligation on the part of the seller to transfer ownershiop and to deliver the subject matter. which Hermoso de Leon inherited from his father Marcelino de Leon *( Deed of Extrajudicial Partition)  Hermoso de Leon engaged in the services of late Atty. some documents revealed that their properties had been conveyed by sale or quitclaim to Hermoso’s brothers and sisters. latter became the owner. Sheriff made alevy on the glass and wooden jalousies. INVALID LEVY – When jalousies were delivered snd installed to leased premises. seller’s ownership of the thing sold is not an element. leased to Capitol 300. with the agreement that it shall be used for social purposes exclusively. Capitol became the owner thereof. the consummation of contract and the consequent transfer of ownership would depend whether he subsequently acquired ownership of land (1434).Ownership of the land is legally separated from the unit itself. DELIVERY ALCANTARA-DAUS V DE LEON  Parcel of land @ San Manuel.

000 from NB. executed a power of attorney in favour of Sy Tit. quantity and cost of the thing sold and has been considered not a bill of sale. goods and native. obtained a credit of P20.  AY Kelam applied for and obtained a loan of P8000 from National Bank. PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED IN PARTNERSHIP ASSETS – Partnership property described in the mortgage no longer existed at the time of the filing of the complaint nor has its existence been proven. renewed several times  AY Kelam as attorney-in-fact executed a chattel mortagage in fabor of NB as security for a loan  AY Kelam and Tai Sing & Co executed another chattel mortgage  Yap Seng. NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS V CA  Norkis Distributors is the distributor of Yamaha motorcycles in Negros Occidental  Alberto Nepales bought brand new Yamaha Wonderbike motorcycle (P7500). . nor was the person who subscribed said contract authorized to make the same. Severo Eugenio Lo.The issuance of a sales invoice does not prove the transfer of ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. nor was it offered to the plaintiff for sale. was not a general partnership. Therefore. executing a chattel mortgage on certain personal property belonging to Tai Sing & Co. Sy Tit. AY Kelam and Ng Khey Ling. and by a person authorized to use it. allegedly agend of Alberto but latter denies it  The motorcycle met an accident ACTUAL INTENTION OF VENDOR TO DELIVER AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE VENDEE. as well as Chinese and Japanese products  JA Say Lian Ping was appointed general manager of partnership.NATIONAL BANK V LO  Severo Eugenio Lo and Ng Khey Ling ( with JA Say Lian Ping. representing Tai Sing & Co. An invoice is nothing more than a detailed statement of the nature. commercial credit in current account which tai Sing & Co obtained from the NB had not been authorized by board of directors. with the purpose to do business in Iloilo for the purchase and sale of merchandise. On Yem Ke Lam and Co Sieng Peng) fromed a commercial partnership – “Tai Sing & Co. Pineda Tayenko. under the signature of the latter. appellants shall be personally and solidarily liable with all their property.”  Partnership was to last for five years. Ko Tiao Hun. executed a power of attorney in favour of AY Kelam. payable by means of a Letter of Guaranty from DBO  As a security of loan.  Defendant Eugenio: Tai Sing & Co. under articles of co-partnership. latter represented by M. authorizing him to act in his stead as manager and administrator of Tai Sing & Co. for the results of transactions made in the name and for the account of the partnership. Nepales executed chattel mortgage on motorcycle  Branch Manager of Norkis issued Sales Invoice showing that contract of sale had been perfected  Motorcycle was registered in Land Transportation Commission in the name of Alberto nepales  Motorcycle was delivered to certain Julian Nepales.

Until deed of absolute sale has been actually registered. EXECUTION EQUIVALENT TO DELIVERY. claiming that it ceased to be the owner of the land in question upon the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale  Respondent: Presumptive delivery of the property under Art 1498 does not apply because of the requirement in the contract that the sale shall be first approved by Auditor General. represented real tax from 1961  Petitioner: paid under protest.Act of delivery whether actual or constructive must be coupled with intention of delivering the thing. Rizal or Bacoor.5M  Board of Directors of PHHC passed Reso No 700 aouthorizing the purchase of the unoccupied portion of the Spang Palay at P0. Felix paid at the time of execution of the deed P3000 and bound herself to pay the remainder in installment within ten years from the date of certificate of title. REGISTRATION NOT REQUIRED – When tha sale of real property is made in a public instrument.79 from purchase price to be paid by it to PHHC. for actual notice is equivalent to registration. Bulacan for relocating the squatters who desire to settle north of Manila and of another area in Las Pnas or Paranaque. as between the parties to the contract. The registration is intended to protect the buyer against clains of third persons arising from subsequeny alienations by the vendor. not necessary to give effect to the deed of sale. Norkis did not intend yet to transfer the title of ownership to Nepales. the vendor remains as the owner of said property. Registration is not necessary to make it valid and effective. P10 each for each coconut tree in bearing and P5 for each tree not bearing . Cavite. PHIL SUBURBAN DEV CORP V THE AUDITOR GENERAL  President of Phils approved the acquisition by the People’s Homesite and Housing Corporation of the unoccupied portion of Sapang Palay Estate in Sta. ADDISON V FELIX AND TIOCO  Addison sold to Marciana Felix. Not registered in The Office of the Register of deeds. The project was to be financed through the floatation of bonds under the character of PHHC in the amount of P4. the execution thereof is equivalent to the delivery of the thing object of the contract. Naria. with consent of her husband. When the motorcycle was registered by Norkis in the name of private respondent.  Prior to the signing of deed by the parties.099. Auditor General expressed objection.45 per square meter  Phil Suburban as the owner of the unoccupied portion of Sapang` Palay and PHHC entyered into a contract embodied in a public instrument “Deed of Absolute Sale” whereby the former conveyed to latter two parcels of land. even before the date of the sale. but only to facilitate the execution of a chattel mortgage in favour of DBP for the release of buyer’s motorcycle loan. 4 parcels of land. PHHC acquired possession of the property with the consent of petitioner  Provincial Treasurer of Bulacan requested PHHC to withhold the amount of P30. Vendor has actually placed the vendee in possession and control over the thing sold.

. HEIRS OF ARTURO REYES V SOCCO-BELTRAN  Parcel of land (Lot No 6-B) @ Zamora St. and that from such non-fulfillment arises the purchasers right to demand. who immediately occupied the said property. 1998. Petitioner did not occupy the property from the time it was allegedly sold to in on December 5. Miguel Socco in favour of their father. which represented adverse claim over the unregistered property. having acquired the same from Barbara Galino by virtue of Deed of Sale  Petitioner came to know that Galino sold the same property to Cruz. Arturo. Elena). Petitioner should have likewise been put on guard by respondent’s declaration of property for purposes of tax on April 23. who paid for the same with Japanese money. Isabel. Such presumption is destroyed when delivery is not affected because of legal impediment. Defendant answered that the plaintiff failed to deliver the lands notwithstanding the demands  After execution of deed of sale. Miguel Socco. Addison went to Lucena for the purpose of designating and delivering the lands sold. upon Constancia’s death. NECESSARY THAT VENDOR HAS SUCH CONTROL OVER THE THING SOLD AT THE MOMENT OF SALE – Mere execution was not a fulfilment of the vendee’s obligation to deliver. Dinalupihan. which was tolerated by petitioner  Ten Forty filed a case for unlawful detainer against Cruz PRESUMPTION OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP UPON EXUCUTION DESTROYED BY NONDELIVERY – Execution of public instrument gives rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery. TEN FORTY REALTY AND DEVT CORP V CRUZ  Complaint for ejectment filed by Ten Forty against Marina Cruz  Ten Forty is the true and absolute owner of a parcel of lot and residential house @ Olongapo City.  When Marcelo died. filed protest on the ground that subject property was sold (contract to sell) by respondent’s brother. rescinded the contract IN EXECUTION = DELIVERY. left the land to Constancia. the rescission of the sale and the return of the price. and as she demanded. left with her heirs (siblings: Filomena.. was possession held on its behalf and had the effect of delivery under the law. RTC and Ca disagreed to petitioner’s claim that Galino’s continued stay in the premises from the time of sale up to the time respondent’s occupation of the same on April 24. 1996 or at any time thereafter. heirs of Arturo. 1998. Stipulated that` the purchaser was to deliver to the vendor 25% of the value of products she might obtain form the parcels “from the moment she takes possession until the Torrens cert of title be issued in her favour”  Addison filed suit to compel Felix to make payment of the first instalment. allocated to Spuses Laquian (marcelo and Constancia). they took physical possession of property in 194 and had been uninterrupted in their possession. Able to designate only 2 out of 4 parcels and more than 2/3 of these were found in the possession of one Juan Villafuerte  TC: in favour of Felix. parcel was partitioned  Elena filed an application for purchase of Lot No 6-B  Petitioners.

Port Barton. it is the boundaries indicated in a deed of sale. Inc the same parcel of land for P30. 14687. San Vicente. Thus. involving 1 hectare of Buriol’s property for period of 25 years. (RSLAI). provided he pays for the additional area. Inc. De Leon and Ong executed a notarized deed of absolute sale with assumption of maortgage . No valid sale.000  Petitioner discovered that Buriol owned only 4 hectares and with one more hectare covered by lease. they allowed petitioner and co-heirs to occupy and build a house on a 627 sqm portion of land on the condition that they would voluntarily and immediately remove the house and vacate the land should they need the land  Petitioner: owner of 628 sqm CONTRACT OF SALE OF LAND IN A MASS – The specific boundaries sated in the contract with respect to the area contained within the boundaries. Palawan  Buriol enetered into alease agreement with Flavia Turatello and respondent Turatello and Sani (Italian). renewable for another 25 years  Buriol sold to Rudolf Lietz. with superficial area of 300. SALINAS V FAUSTINO  Bienvinido Faustino. DE LEON V ONG  Raymond De Leon sold 3 parcels of land with improvements @ Antipolo Rizal to Benita Ong  As these properties were mortgaged to Real Savings and Loan Association. by Deed of Sale.VENDOR’S OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY (FUTURE INHERITANCE) – Miguel Socco was not yet the owner of the subject property and was merely expecting to inherit the same as his share as co-heir of Constancia’s estate. RUDOLF LIETZ. INC V CA  Agapito Buriol previously owned a parcel of unregistered lsnd @ Capsalay Island.375 sqm more or less  Faustino joined by his wife filed a complaint for recovery of possession alleging that the parcel of land he bought via Deed of Sale from his co-heirs consisted of 1381 sqm. purchased from his co-heirs their respective shares to a parcel of land coverd by Tax Declaration No.  Petitioner sought for annulment of lease with recovery of possession with injuction and damages – evident bad faith and malice DELIVERY OF VENDOR LESS THAN THE AREA AGREED – vendee may oblige the vendor to deliver all that may be stated in the contract or demand for the proportionate reduction of the purchase price if the delivery is not possible. the vendee hsd the option to accept only the amount agreed upon or to accept the whole area. only three hectares were actually delivered to petitioner. not the area in sqm mentioned therein that control in the determination of which portion of the land the vendee acquires. If the vendor delivers more than the area stated in the contract. It was a conditional sale –sale of property in favour of Arturo was conditioned upon the event that Miguel Socco would actually inherit and become the owner.

only 9 items were pulled out  Responded filed a complaint for specific performance NO CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY – Presumption that execution of deed of sale is equivalent to delivery is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of a legal impediment. stored at Golden City compound. BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS V FLORO. Assets were being sold on an as-is where-is basis. Totality of petitioner’s acts (execution. turn over of keys. demanded delivery. to provisionally manage and to dispose assets of the government institutions) acquired from DBP assets consisting of machinery and refrigeration equipment. ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST V TJ ENTERPRISES  Asset Privatization Trust (government entity created for the purpose to conserve. aperson who does not have actual possession of the thing sold cannot transfer constructive possessionby execution and delivery of public instrument. its material delivery could have been made. It was a contract of sale. Ong gave De Leon P415. paid in full P84000  After 2 days. authorization to RSLAI) indicates that he had unqualifiedly delivered and transferred ownership of the properties to respondent. The depiction does not alter petitioner’s liability to deliver the property to respondent. It is merely descriptive of the state of the thing sold. During hauling of Lot 2. 2. 3. La Union and Batangas  Malabanan was to commence operations within 30 days from execution of said contract. extendible for a total period of not more than 6 months  Malabanan requested for an extension of one year for salvage in waters of Mindoro and batangas. Inc. petitioner issued Gate Pass 4955  Respondent was able to pull out from the compound properties (Lots 3 and 5). AS-IS WHERE-IS BASIS – Pertains solely to the physical condition of the thing sold. 5). at the moment of sale. consisting 16 items.AL  Melencio Malabanan entered into an agreement with the Board of Liquidators for the salvage of surplus properties sunk in territorial water off the provinces of Mindoro. ET. de leon handed the keys and wrote a letter to RSLAI of the sale and authorizing it to accept payment from Ong and release certificates of title  Ong undertook repairs and made improvements on the properties  Ong learned that de Leon again sold the same properties to Leona Viloria and changed the locks. Pasay City (which was leased to and in the physical possession of Creative Lines. Thsu.500 as partial payment. Board extended the contract . It is necessary that the vendor shall have control over the thing sold that.  Asset Privatization and TJ Enterprises entered into absolute deed of sale over certain machinery and refrigeration equipment (Lot Nos. not its legal situation. which was to be effective for a period of one year from the start of operations. informed by RSLAi that De Leon already paid the amount due and had taken back the certificates of title  Ong filed complaint for specific performance and declaration of nullity SELLER’S OBLIGATION TOTRANSFER TITLE AND DELIVER – Art 1498 provides that execution of notarized deed of sale is equivalent to delivery.

and while the execution of public instrument amounts to delivery only when from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred. the steel mattings in question as soon as they were brought up from the bottom of the sea. SAN LORENZO DEVT CORP V CA  Miguel Lu and`Pacita Zavalla (Spouse Lu) owned 2 parcels of land @ Sta. Rosa. Notified spouses Lu about having knowledge of second sale to another and such be cancelled  Lu: reminded Babasanta that when balance of purchase price became due. The agreement between Babasanta and Spouses Lu. Floro was authorized to sell whatever steel mattings in his possession in an amount sufficient to satisfy the advances  Malabanan unable to pay. 047 pieces of steel mattings to Eulalio Legaspi  17 days later. Malabanan entered into an agreement with Exequiel Floro that Floro would advance to Malabanan certain sums of money. Malabanan filed a petition for voluntary insolvency  Board claiming to be the owner of steel mattings. the latter and Babasanta had verbally agreed to transform the transaction to contract to sell the 2 parcels to Babasanta with downpayment of P50. TRADITIO LONGA MANU (1499) – There was no physical tradition. . or ownershipof. not to exceed P25000. or until fulfilment of condition (1505).000  SLDC filed motion for intervention: owner of the parcels by Deed of Absolute Sale with Mortgage. Upon default. Malabanan requested second extension of one more year for the waters of Occidental Mindoro. purchaser in good faith WHO HAS BETTER RIGHT BETWEEN SLDC AND BABASANTA? – Babasanta did not acquire ownership by the mere execution of the receipt by Pacita Lu acknowledging receipt of partial payment for the property. Floro sold 11.000 to Babasanta through Eugenia Oya  Babasanta filed before RTC a complaint for specific performance  Spouses Lu: Pacita obtained loans from Babasanta and when total advances of Pacita reached P50. While there can be reservation of title in the seller until full payment of price (1478). Several other payments (totalling P200. repayment being secured by quantities of steel mattings which Malabanan would consign to Floro. She returned P50. Laguna  Spouses Lu sold to Pablo Babasanta for P15 per sqm. Babasanta backed out the sale. Babasanta made a downpayment of P50000. he required for a reduction of price and when she refused. There was one by agreement. Board extended the contract  4 moths previously.000. filed a petition to exclude them from the inventory RESERVATION OF TITLE – The contract between Malabanan and the Board had the effect of vesting Malabanan with title to.000) were made by Babasanta  Babasanta wrote to Pacita Lu demanding the execution of a final deed of sale so that he could effect full payment. there is nothing in the said contract which may be deemed a reservation of title. or from which it may clearly be inferred that delivery was not intended.

JR. without consideration  Subsequently settled amicably (defendants paid P500 as partial payment. SLDC registered the sale with registry of Property. At time of execution. Plaintiffs instituted present action for legal redemption  Defendants: Motion to dismiss. both were mortgaged to Libra as security loan. Hence. stronger in right). As early as Feb 11. SLDC has better right. Spouses Lu executed Option to Buy in favour of SLDC upon receiving of Absolute Sale in favour of SLDC. Babasanta had not taken possession of the property at any time after the perfection of the sale in his favour or exercised acts of dominion over it despite his assertions that he was the rightful owner of the lands.  Wilfredo Dy purchased a truck and a farm tractor through financing extended by Libra Finance and Investment Corp. subject tractor was in the possession of Libra Finance due to Wilfredo’s failure to pay amortizations  Libra refused to release the tractor despite petitioner’s offer to pay in full because it also insisted for the payment of truck .  Petitioner Perfecto wanted to Buy the tractor from his brother.though valid. 1989. potior jure (first in time. NO delivery to Babasanta. ABUAN V GARCIA  Acquired by Laurencio Abuan. DOUBLE SALE (1544) – Principle of primus tempore. no constructive delivery has been effected. both made in good faith. promised to pay balance of P1500 on or before April 30. was not embodied in a public instrument. Law speaks of “five year period upon conveyance” It ia apparent that five years had elapsed since the execution of the deed of absolute sale at the time plaintiffs filed the action for redemption. shall be deemed the owner. the homestead passed afterbhis death to his legal heirs (plaintiffs)  Plaintiffs sold the parcel of land to defendants (Deed of Abosolute Sale)  Plaintiffs: action to recover the land. he wrote a letter to Libra requesting that he be allowed to purchase and assume the mortgage. alleging that deed of sale had been executed through fraud. V CA  Perfecto Dy and Wilfredo Dy are brothers. DY. Upon learning. 1955. Thus. approved  Wilfredo executed a deed of absolute sale  At this time. actual or constructive. plaintiff’s right of action already barred because 5year redemption period had already expired WHEN DID THE 5-YR PERIOD BEGIN TO RUN? UPON EXECUTION OF DEED OF SALE? UPON ENTERING INTO COMPROMISE AGREEMENT? UPON FULL PAYMENT? – It is counted from either of the first two dates. SLDC has no knowledge of prior transaction wih Babasanta. The one who acquires and first records it in the Registry of Property. with grace period of 30 days)  Full payment effected only sometime in May 1955.

 Wilfredo convinced her sister Carol Dy-Seno to purchase the truck. tractor was sold in public auction where Gelac Trading was the lone bidder. seepage was reduced. a member of the Soriano Group of Companies. Neither could it be said that Libra was the owner of the subject tractor because the mortgagee cannot become the owner of or convert and appropriate to himself the property mortgaged (Art 2208).123. Toledo.80 . Panganiban agreed to use the plastic cement bags. Four purchases were issued. Ugarte and two other officials of Industrial followed the 180 bags to Plant of Atlas in Sangi. to test 50 pieces of plastic cement bags. Luzon Cement Corp in Norzagaray. second trial was likewise a failure. his right of ownership was not divested from him upon its default. a collection case to recover sum of money “Gelac Trading v Wilfredo Dy” was pending. (Note: Art 1498 and 1499) Actual delivery of the subject tractor could not be made.  Cesar Campos (VP of Industrial Textile) asked Lauro Panganiban Jr (President of LPJ) if he would like to cooperate in an experiment to develop plastic cement bags. unsuccessful. leaving a balance of P84. Bulacan. respondent remitted the payments.  Finally. there was a constructive delivery already upon the execution of the public document (1498) and upon the consent or agreement of the parties when the thing sold cannot be immediately transferred to the possession of the vendee. Campos. provincial sheriff was able to seize and and levy on tractor which was on the premises of Libra.While it is true that Wilfredo was not in actual possession and control of the subject tractor. issued a check. Cebu where they professed satisfaction at the performance of their own plastic bags  Campos sent Panganiban a letter proclaiming drastic results in the experiment. The only remedy of the mortgagee is to have the said property sold at public auction and the proceeds of the sale applied to the payment of obligation secured by the mortgagee. with 300 “improved bags”. which later sold to Antonio Gonzales  When check was cleared. Panganiban acquiesced.000 bags of cement per year to Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation. INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF THE PHILS V LPJ ENTERPRISES  LPJ enterprises had a contract to supply 300. Libra insisted it should be cleared first before the release  Meanwhile. However. petitioner learned about the Gelac having taken custody of the tractor  Wilfredo filed an action to recover CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY – Art 1496 states that the ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in any of the ways specified in Arts 1497-1501 or in any other manner signifying agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. Industrial delivered. MORTGAGEE CANNOT BECOME THE OWNER . Said property continues to belong to the mortgagor.  Panganiban accompanied Paulino Ugarte (another VP of Industrial) to the factory of respondent’s supplier.  Ugarte asked Panganiban to send 180 bags of cement to Atlas via commercial shipping.

 No other payments were made.  Petitioner: respondent’s obligation to return the bags to them. SALE OR RETURN / SALE ON APPROVAL – Art 1502 inapplicable because to make sales contract either a ‘sale or return” or a “sale on approval”. Petitioner was asked to take back the unused plastic bags. it clearly requires a written agreement. If the purchaser desired to incorporate a stipulation securing him the right to return. but denied second. Parol or extrinsic testimony could not be admitted for the the purpose of showing that an invoice or bill of sale that was complete in every aspect and purporting to embody a sale without condition or restriction constituted a contract of sale or return. On the other hand. fourth purchase orders. workers of Luzon Cement objected to the use thereof due to serious health hazards. petitioner demanded payment. third. petitioner sent demand letters to respondent corporation. . Failure to do so. As for the remaining 47. he should have done so at the time the contract was made. the buyer cannot accept part and reject the rest of the goods since this falls outside the normal intent of the parties in the “on approval” situation.  Respondent: admitted liability in first purchase order.000 bags.