Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OTHER BENEFITS
ROMAN V GRIMALT
Facts: Grimalt purchased from Roman a
schooner. The sale was predicted upon
the condition that it was seaworthy and
that Roman will perfect his title thre-to
the same being being registered to
Paulina Giron. Roman did not perfected
his title and due to severe storm the
vessel sank. Roman now sues Grimalt for
the purchase price of the vessel.
Issue: W/N Grimalt is liable for the loss
Held: No. There was yet to be perfected
contract between them for failure of
Roamn to perfect his title.
LAWYERS
COOPERATIVE
PUBLISHING V TABORA
Facts: Tabora purchased AmJur from
Lawyers Coop.the agreement was the
ownership remains with Lawyer Coop
until paid in full. The books were
delivered in his office, the same night his
office was razed by fire. Tabora failed to
pay the full price. Layers Copp sues him
for the balance Tabora invokes force
majeure.
REMEDIES
FOR
CONTRACT OF SALE
LEVY V GERVACIO
BREACH
OF
Facts: Tajanlangit brought 2 tractors
from Southern Motors. Tajanlangit paid
to pay any of the installement. Southern
Motors sued him. Sheriff levied upon the
SERVICEWIDE
MANAGEMENT
between
was
perfected
LIM V. CA
Facts: Orlinos mortgaged a parcel of land
to Progressive Commercial Bank as a
security of a loan. They failed to pay and
the mortgage was foreclosed. The bank
transferred its rights to Pacifico Banking
Corp.
Orlinos
who
remained
in
possession filed to redeem the property.
After the negotiation PBC sold the land to
Lim. Orlinos filed a complaint for
annulment of the deed of sale between
PBC and Lim.
Issue: W/N the transaction between PBC
and Orlinos is a contract to sell or a
contract of sale.
Held: Contract to sell. There as no
immediate transfer of title to the Orlinos
as would have happened if there had
been a sale. Thus, the property was
legally unencumbered and still belonged
to PBC when it was sold to Lim.
AFP MUTAL BENEFIT ASSN INC V CA
Facts: Investco inc and solid homes
entered into a contract to sel. During this
time the titles has not been transferred.
Thus, Investco merely agreed to sell.
Solid Homes Inc. reneged or defaulted on
its obligation. Thus Investco rescinded.
Issue: W/N Investo properly rescinded its
contract to sell and but with Solid.
Held: YES. Upon the failure of Solid to
comply there was no need to judicially
rescind the contract.
CONDITIOS AND WARRANTIES
LA FORTEZA V MACHUCA
Facts: Under a SPA given by the heirs of
Laforteza
to
Robert
and
Gonzalo
Laforteza
they
entered
into
a
Memorandum
of
agreement
with
AND
were
fraudulent
ANG V CA
Facts: Under a car swapping scheme
Soledad sold his car to Ang by Deed of
Absolute Sale. Ang later offered the sale
of the car, Bugash bought the car, but
before registration in Bugash name the
vehicle was seize by writ of replevin on
account of failure of Panes the owner of
the car prior to Soledad to pay the
mortgaged. Ang paid the BA finanace,
Soledad refuse to reimburse.
Issue: W/N the complaint had prescribed
hinges on a determination of what kind
of warranty is provided in the deed of
absolute sale
Held: YES. A warranty is a statement or
representation made by the seller of
goods, contemporaneously and as part of
the contract of sale having reference of
the character quality or title of the goods
and by which he promises or undertakes
to insure that certain facts are or shall be
as he them represents.
NUTRIMIX FEEDS CORP VS CA
Facts: Evangelista spouses purchased
feeds from Nutrimix. They refuse to pay
their unsettled debt claiming that their
livesotcks were poisoned by Nutrimix
feeds. Nutrimix filed for collection of sum
of money evangelista counted the suit.
Issue: W/N Nutrimix should he held
liable for the death of the livestocks.
Held: NO. in alleging that there was a
violation of warranty against hidden
defects, the spouses assumed the burden
of proof. However they failed to
overcome. Under the law the defect must
exist at the time of the sale was made
and at the time the product left the
hands of the seller which the spouses
failed to prove. Therefore, the spouses
are liable for their debt.
EXTINGUISMENT OF SALE
ROBERTS V PAPIO
SOLID HOMES INC VS CA
Facts: Spouses Papio they executed a
real estat mortgage. Upon failure to pay
the loan, the corporation filed a petition
for the extra judicial foreclosure of the
mortgage. They subsequently executed a
deed of absolute sale over the property
in favor of Amelia Roberts. A new TCT
was issued to Roberts as owner. Papio
paid the rentals for a year but later on
failed to pay but still remained in
possession of the property. Roberts
demanded payment and eviction.
Issue: W/N the deed of absolute sale and
contract of lease executed is an equitable
mortgage over the property.
Held: NO. An equitable mortgage is one
that although lacking in some formality,
form or words or other requisites
demanded by the statute nevertheless
revels the intention of the parties to
change a real property as security for a
debt and contain nothing impossible or
contrary to law.
MISTERIO V CEBU STATE COLLEGE
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Facts: Asuncion sold to SAHS a parcel of
land reserving the right to repurchase in
case the school, cease to exist or transfer
location. SAHS merged with Cebu State
College. The heirs of Asuncion sought to
exercise their right to redeem, claiming
the school has ceased to exist.
Issue: W/N the heirs of Asuncion may
still redeem
Held: NO. Their right has already
prescribed considering that no period for
redemption was agreed upon, the law
imposes a 4-year limitation. However
ABILLA V GOBONSENG
Facts:
Abilla
institured
against
Gobonseng
an
action
for
specific
performance, recovery of sum of money
and damages, reimbursement of the
expenses they incurred for the 2
instrument deed of sale and option to
buy. Gobonseng contended that such
transaction was covered in a mortgage.
Issue: W/N Gobonseng may exercise the
right to repurchase
may
buy
the
FRANCISCO V BOISER
ASSIGNMENT
Facts:
Nyco
extended
a
credit
accommodation
to
the
Fernandez
brothers. Francisco brothers acting in
behalf of Sanshell Corp discounted a BPI
check for 60k with Nyco which was
indorsed to BA finance. BPI check was
dishonored. BA finance goes after Nyco.
Issue: W/N Nyco is liable fro breach of
warranties.
Held: YES. Nyco warrants
existence and legality of the
well as the solvency of the
there is a breach of any
both the
credit, as
debtor. If
of the 2
Facts:
Pioneer Glass Manuc
Corp
purchased from Yu. However Pioneer
failed or refused to pay upon demand.
Without informing Yu, Pioneer Glass
transferred all its assets to DBP. DBP sold
these assets to Union Glass. Yu instituted
an action against PG, DBP, UG.
Issue: W/N the Bulk Sales Law covers
the conveyance in question
Held: NO. Under the Bulk Sales Law, the
term goods and merchandise have
acquired a fixed meaning, refer to things
and articles, which are kept for sale by a
merchant. Pioneer Glass manufactured
glass only on specific orders thus it is not
a merchandiser. Pioneer Glass should pay
Yu.
RETAIL TRADE LIBERALIZATION ACT
OF 2000 AND RELATED PROVISIONS
OF THE ANTI DUMMY LAW
KING V HERNAEZ
Facts: King owned a grocery store. He
sought the permission of the President to
retain the services but was denied under
Retail Trade Law and Anti Dummy Law.
Issue: W/N the employment of the 3
chinamen is covered under Anti Dummy
law
Held: YES. The prohibition covers the
entire range of employment, regardless
of whether they are control of non
control positions.
BALMACEDA V UNION CARBIDE PHIL
Facts: Union was a manufacturer having
divisions: the Consumer products and
Industrial products.
Issue: W/N th industrial
engaged in retail business
product
is