You are on page 1of 1

DEFINITION OF SALE

Polytechnic University vs. CA (G.R. No. 143513 November 14, 2001)


All three (3) essential elements of a valid sale, without which there can be no sale, were attendant in the disposition and
transfer of the property from NDC to PUP consent of the parties, determinate subject matter, and consideration therefor.
The defendants-appellants interpretation that there was a mere transfer, and not a sale, apart from being specious sophistry
and a mere play of words, is too strained and hairsplitting. For it is axiomatic that every sale imposes upon the vendor the
obligation to transfer ownership as an essential element of the contract. Transfer of title or an agreement to transfer title for a
price paid, or promised to be paid, is the very essence of sale (Kerr & Co. v. Lingad, 38 SCRA 524; Schmid & Oberly, Inc., v. RJL
Martinez Fishing Corp., 166 SCRA 493). At whatever legal angle we view it, therefore, the inescapable fact remains that all the
requisites of a valid sale were attendant in the transaction between co-defendants-appellants NDC and PUP concerning the
realities subject of the present suit.
Acap

vs.

CA

(G.R.

No.

118114

December

7,

1995)

In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate
thing,
and
the
other
party
to
pay
a
price
certain
in
money
or
its
equivalent.
Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes, namely, the
original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and thederivative mode (i.e.,
through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or
mutuum).
Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes
the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. The second is, technically speaking, a mode of extinction of
ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existence and
intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession. Private respondent, being then a stranger
to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver
document which neither recites the elements of either a sale, or a donation, or any other derivative mode of acquiring
ownership.
A notice of adverse claim, by its nature, does not however prove private respondents ownership over the tenanted lot. A
notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be
established in court at some future date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already
pending in court.
Velarde

vs.

CA

(G.R.

No.

108346

July

11,

2001)

In a contract of sale, the seller obligates itself to transfer the ownership of and deliver adeterminate things, and the buyer to
pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.
Private respondents had already performed their obligation through the execution of the Deed of Sale, which effectively
transferred ownership of the property to petitioner through constructive delivery. Prior physical delivery or possession is not
legally required, and the execution of the Deed of Sale is deemed equivalent to delivery.
Petitioners, on the other hand, did not perform their correlative obligation of paying the contract price in the manner agreed
upon. Worse, they wanted private respondents to perform obligations beyond those stipulated in the contract before fulfilling
their own obligation to pay the full purchase price.
Gomez

vs.

CA

(G.R.

No.

120747

September

21,

2000)

Cancellation of the award of Lot 4, Block 1, through the expediency of Resolution No. 015-86, was proper.
Primarily, it must be stressed that the contract entered into between the City of Manila and awardee Luisa Gomez was not one
of sale but a contract to sell, which, under both statutory and case law, has its own attributes, peculiarities and effects.
For a contract, like a contract to sell, involves a meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with
respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. Contracts, in general, are perfected by mere consent, which
is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute.
The provisions of Article 777 of the Civil Code notwithstanding, we hold that the surviving children of awardee Luisa Gomez are
not qualified transferees of Lot 4, Block 1 for failure to conform with the prerequisites set by Resolution 16-A, to wit, Filipino
citizenship and actual occupancy, which in the present case, are basic criteria for the award of the lot, pursuant to the Land
for the Landless Program of the City of Manila.