THE FILIPINO NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AH SING, defendant and appellant.

GR No. L-46419 February 20, 1940

FACTS:

The plaintiff brought the action to obtain the nullity of the contract concluded between him
and the defendant on April 4, 1934. The plaintiff claims that the contract is a promise of sale of real
estate and that being forbidden by the Constitution the transfer of agricultural land to a foreigner, the
promised sale is no longer feasible and it must be annulled, both parts being reintegrated the land
and the price, with their legal interests. The defendant contends that the contract is an absolute
sale; That it fulfilled all the conditions stipulated, paying the agreed terms, and that the prohibition of
the Constitution is not applicable because it has no retroactive effect and because, in addition,
already had acquired a right that the same Constitution protects. The plaintiff appealed the part of
the decision issued by the Davao Court of First Instance that he ordered him to pay the defendant
the sum of P2,877.50 as value of the useful and necessary expenses made by the latter on the land,
,Because the defendant was not condemned to pay him the value of the fruits of the lands that
perceived. The defendant's appeal of the part of the same judgment that declared that the contract is
a promise of sale; That the improvements which he has introduced into the land may be acquired by
the plaintiff through payment by him of his value; That the contract is null and void; And that the
parties must reciprocally return the land and the amortizations paid, with legal interests over the
latter since

ISSUE:

Whether or not the contract is a promise of sale or an absolute sale with the stipulation that the rest of
the price would be paid within the time limits set.

HELD:

The contract clearly demonstrate that it is a promise of sale because it expressly stipulates
that after payment of the last term is when the definitive deed of sale will be granted, and cites in its
support article 1451 of the Civil Code Which provides, in part, that the promise to sell or buy, having
conformity in the thing and the price, will entitle the contractors to claim reciprocally the fulfillment of
the contract. In our opinion the contract concluded by the parties is the actual sale of the properties
that were the subject of the contract. According to their terms the parties agreed on both the land
that was the object of the contract and the price and the way in which the latter was to be paid. Not
only this, But the parties agreed that the land would be delivered to the defendant and that the
landowner actually took possession of the land, introduced improvements thereto and benefited from
its fruits, and also paid the agreed installments as they expired. Article 1450 of the Civil Code is
strictly applicable to the case, which provides that the sale is perfected between buyer and seller and
is mandatory for both, since they have agreed on the thing object of the contract and the price,
although neither the one nor the Another have been delivered. Moreover, the sale was also
consummated from the moment the lands were delivered to the defendant and the latter entered into
possession and enjoyment of them (article 1462 of the Civil Code). Introduced improvements in
them and benefited from their fruits, paying, in addition, the agreed terms as they expire. Article
1450 of the Civil Code is strictly applicable to the case, which provides that the sale is perfected
between buyer and seller and is mandatory for both, since they have agreed on the thing object of
the contract and the price, although neither the one nor the Another have been delivered. Moreover,
the sale was also consummated from the moment the lands were delivered to the defendant and the
latter entered into possession and enjoyment of them (article 1462 of the Civil Code).
 CASES IN SALES
Part 1
Case Digests
( 1 - 50 )

Submitted By:

JARADIL, SHERVILYN A.
(LLB-2B)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GAITE vs. FONACIER 2 SCRA 830

2. KERR & CO. vs. LINGAD 38 SCRA 524
3. SCHMID & OBERLY vs. RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORP., 166 SCRA 493
4. FILINVEST CREDIT CORP. vs. CA, 178 SCRA 188
5. LUZON BROKERAGE CO. MARITIME BLDG. 43 SCRA 93
6. DIGNOS vs. CA, 158 SCRA 375
7. MARTIN vs. REYES ET. AL., G.R. No. L-4402, July 20, 1952
8. MINDANAO ACADEMY vs. YAP, 13 SCRA 190
9. ESTOQUE vs. PAJIMULA, 24 SCRA 59
10. SEGURA vs. SEGURA, 165 SCRA 368
11. REPUBLIC vs. CA, 148 SCRA 480
12. TEODORO vs. CA, 170 SCRA 620
13. YU TEK & CO. vs. GONZALES, 29 PHIL 384
14. ONG JANG CHUAN vs. WISE & CO., 33 PHIL 339
15. BUNGE CORP., ET AL., vs. ELENA CAMENFORTE & CO. 48 OFF. GAZ. 3377
16. PATERNO vs. SALUD, 9 SCRA 81
17. SANTA ANA vs. HERNANDEZ, 18 SCRA 973
18. SIBAL vs. VALDEZ, 50 PHIL. 512
19. PICKEL vs. ALONZO, 111 SCRA 341
20. BUCTON vs. GABAR, 55 SCRA 499
21. REPUBLIC vs. LICHAUCO, 46 SCRA 305
22. DEL ROSARIO vs. SANTOS, 108 SCRA 43
23. LUTERO vs. SIULIONG & CO. 54 PHIL. 272
24. KERR & CO. vs. LINGAD, 38 SCRA 524
25. INCHAUSTI & CO. vs. CROMWELL, 20 PHIL. 345
26. MAJARABAS vs. LEONARDO, 11 PHIL 272
27. MITSUI BUSSAN KAISHA vs. MANILA E. R. & L CO., 39 PHIL. 624
28. MCCULLOUGH vs. AENLLE & CO., 3 PHIL. 285
29. ROBLES vs. LIZARRAGA, 50 PHIL. 387
30. ASKAY vs. COSALAN, 46 PHIL. 179
31. WARNER BARNES & CO. vs. SANTOS, 14 PHIL 446
32. NATIONAL BANK vs. GONZALES, 45 PHIL 693
33. DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. ABARCA, 61 PHIL 70
34. DE LEON vs. SALVADOR, 36 SCRA 567
35. BORROMEO vs. BORROMEO ET. AL., 52 OFF. GAZ. 1932
36. CRUZADO vs. BUSTOS AND ESCALER, 34 PHIL. 17
37. GADNER vs. CA., 131 SCRA 585
38. ODEGAR vs. ZUICO, 180 SCRA 372
39. CASTILLO vs. SALVAN, 85 SCRA 526
40. DE BELEN vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, 46 PHIL. 241
41. GOYENA vs. TAMBUNTING, 1 PHIL., 490
42. FILIPINAS COLLEGES INC. vs. TIMBANG, ET. AL., CA 52 OFF. GAZ 3624
43. BARRETTO vs. SANTA MARINA, 26 PHIL. 200
44. NATIONAL BANK vs. AH SING, 69 PHIL 611
45. OBARIA vs. CA, 135 SCRA 557
46. CAMPILLO vs. CA, 129 SCRA 513
47. KERR & CO. LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
48. SORONGAN, ET. AL. vs. PARRENAS ET.AL., (CA) 54 OFF. GAZ. 1860
49. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE vs. CA., 133 SCRA 777
50. ANG vs. CA., 170 SCRA 286