SALES

AGUILAR, ANNE JOHNETTE V.

Annjie is married to Howard. In which of the following cases will a sale between the two be valid?
a. When a separation of property has been agreed upon in the marriage settlements or when
there has been a juridical separation of property.
b. When the price of the sale is a moderate amount.
c. When the object of the sale is a necessary such as food or clothing.
d. When the spouses are living separately.

ANSWER: A. When a separation of property has been agreed upon in the marriage settlements
or when there has been a juridical separation of property.

LEGAL BASIS: According to Article 1490 of the Civil Code. The husband and the wife cannot sell
property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements; or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation or property under Article 191. (1458a)

APPLICATION: Even if the price of the sale is in moderate amount, or the object of the sale is a
necessary such as food or clothing, or the spouses are living separately, the sale of married couple
between themselves is not valid.

CONCLUSION: If Annjie is married to Howard, no transaction of sale is valid between them except
when a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements; or when there has
been a judicial separation or property under Article 191.

ANILAO, ELIJAH JOYCE M.

Bernice sells to Krizzia at 50.00 per gallon, 300 gallons of gasoline stored in his truck's tank, which
unknown to the partiez, contains 500 gallons of gasoline. What is the status of the contract of
sale between Bernice and Krizzia?

A. The sale is void because the quantity available is more than the quantity sold.
B. The sale is valid up to 500 gallons of gasoline. Krizzia must pay for the additional 200 gallons
of gasoline.
C. The sale is valid up to 300 gallons of gasoline. Krizzia becomes the owner of 3/5 of the whole
stock, while Bernice becomes the owner of 2/5 thereof.
D. The sale is rescissible because Bernice will suffer lesion of more than 1/4 of the value of the
whole stock.

C. The contract of sale is valid up to 300 gallons of gasoline. Krizzia becomes the owner of 3/5 of
the whole stock, while Bernice becomes the owner of 2/5 thereof.
Pursuant to Article 1464 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "In the case of fungible goods, there
may be a sale of an undivided share of a specific mass, though the seller purports to sell and the
buyer to buy a definite number, weight or measure of the goods in the mass, and though the
number, weight or measure of the goods in the mass, and though the number, weight or measure
of the goods in the mass is undetermined. By such a sale the buyer becomes owner in common
of such a share of the mass as the number, weight or measure bought bears to the number,
weight or measure of the mass."

In compliance with the law, there may be sale of undivided share of fungible goods even though
the seller sold, or the buyer bought, a definite number, weight or measure rendering the sale
valid. If the quantity is more than the quantity sold, both parties shall become co-owners of the
mass. Thus, Krizzia and Bernice become co-owners of the whole mass. As such, Krizzia becomes
the co-owner of 3/5 of the stocks which is equivalent to 300 gallons while Bernice share the
remaining 2/5.
SALES

Henceforth, the contract of sale is valid and both parties became the co-owners of the whole
mass.

AQUINO, ERIKA JOY L.

Ced orally offered to sell a certain diamond ring to Wink for P50,000. Wink accepted the offer
and to prove that he was in earnest, he gave Ced P1000. The parties agreed that delivery of the
ring and the payment of the price would be made 30 days later. On due date:
A. Ced may collect from Wink P50,000
B. Ced may collect from Wink P49,000
C. Ced cannot enforce payment because the contract was not reduced to writing.
D. Ced cannot enforce payment because there was no contact of sale yet.

The answer is B where Ced may collect from Wink P49,000.

In accordance with Article 1482 of the Republict Act No. 386, Whenever earnest money is given
in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as
part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract. (1454a)

As Wink gave Ced P1000 upon the execution of their agreement which amount Ced accepts, this
shows that there has a perfected contract of sale between them. Accordingly, Ced can enforce
payment against Wink despite of the fact that the contract was not reduced to writing.

Thus, on the due date for the payment of the price, Wink will have to pay Ced the amount of
P49,000 only because the amount paid by Wink as earnest money is part of the purchase price.

ARANILLA, CAREN JOY D.

The price in a contract of sale is certain, except:
a. When the parties have fixed or agreed upon a definite amount.
b. If the price is certain with reference to another thing certain.
c. If fixing of the price is left to the discretion of one of the contracting parties and the price
fixed is not accepted by the other party.
d. If the price fixed is that which the thing sold would have on a definite day or in a particular
exchange or market.
The answer is C, if fixing of the price is left to the discretion of one of the contracting parties and
the price fixed is not accepted by the other party.

According to Article 1469 of the Civil Code, "In order that the price may be considered certain, it shall be
sufficient that it be so with reference to another thing certain, or that the determination thereof be left
to the judgment of a special person or persons.
Should such person or persons be unable or unwilling to fix it, the contract shall be inefficacious, unless
the parties subsequently agree upon the price.
If the third person or persons acted in bad faith or by mistake, the courts may fix the price. Where such
third person or persons are prevented from fixing the price or terms by fault of the seller or the buyer,
the party not in fault may have such remedies against the party in fault as are allowed the seller or the
buyer, as the case may be.

So, a price is not certain when it is left to the discretion of one of the parties because it follow the rule
that it cannot be left to the will of one of the contracting parties. However, if the offer of the other party
is accepted by the other party then the price is certain because the acceptance of the other party is
necessary to constitiute the price.

Thus, the price cannot be left to the will of one of the parties but can be left to a third person.
SALES

BASE, CRISSA MAE A.

On October 1, 2019 Jin agreed to purchase the Lenovo Legion Y740 laptop of Jimin, his bestfriend,
for P22,000. It was scheduled to be delivered to his residence on November 25, 2019 but on that
day, Jin is still on a tour and no one is available receive the thing he bought so Jimin wasn’t able
to deliver the object of the sale. On November 27, 2019 Jimin’s house was robbed and included
in the things stolen was the laptop. Who bears the loss of the thing?
Jimin, because it was lost in his residence.
Jin, because he wasn’t able to receive the laptop on November 25, the date of actual delivery.
Jimin, because he didn’t just leave the laptop on Jin’s frontdoor on the delivery date.
The thief because he stole the thing.

A: The answer is letter B Jin, because he wasn’t able to receive the laptop on November 25, the
date of actual delivery.
L: Pursuant to Article 1504 (2),”Where actual delivery has been delayed through the fault of
either the buyer or seller the goods are at the risk of the party in fault”, Jin should bear the loss.
A: The parties agreed the delivery of the thing to be on November 25, because Jin wasn’t available
on that time and no one could receive the object in part of him, the delivery was not made. Had
it been otherwise, the thief won’t be able to steal the laptop in Jimin’s residence because it would
not be in his care anymore. Here, Jin is the one at fault because he didn’t even assign anyone to
receive the thing so it caused delay to the delivery of the laptop to him.
C: Therefore, Jin should bear the loss of the laptop and he cannot force Jimin to pay back the sum
he paid for the transaction because he is the one at fault.

COMISO, JR., RICARDO B.

Mama Ver purchased from Santiago Farms four horses with different looks: a white, a gray, a
black, and a brown, which Mama Ver intended to use in a movie to be starred in by four movie
actors each one of whom represents one of the colors. Each horse was certified to be fit by the
veterinarian who was hired by the parties to examine them. Mama Ver paid a separate price for
each of the horses. During the filming of the movie, the brown horse was always sick and could
not function as the three others. It was subsequently discovered that it was suffering from an
incurable heart ailment.
A. Mama Ver may ask for the rescission of the sale of the brown horse only since she paid a
separate price for each of the horses.
B. Mama Ver may ask for the rescission of the sale of all the horses.
C. Mama Ver may not ask for rescission of the sale of any horse because she freely entered into
the contract of sale.
D. Mama Ver is bound by the sale of all the four horses and must honor such contract because
the veterinarian certified that all the horses were fit.
(A) B. Mother Ver may ask for the rescission of the sale of all the horses.
(L) ART. 1472 If two or more animals are sold together, whether for a lump sum or for a separate
price for each of them, the redhibitory defect of one shall only give rise to its redhibition, and not
that of the others; unless it should appear that the vendee would not have purchased the sound
animal or animals without the defective one. The general rule is that only redhibitory of one shall
give rise to its redhibition and not that of the others but exception is the redhibitory defect of
one shall give rise to the redhibition of all animals sold, including the sounds ones, if the vendee
would not have bought the sound animals without the defective one.
(A)Where the four horses are sold together, whether for a lump sum or for a separate price for
each, the redhibitory defect of one horse shall only result in its redhibition, and not that of the
other horses; unless it appears that the seller would not have bought the sound horse without t
he defective one.The general rule is that only one redhibitor would give rise to its redhibition an
d not that of the others, except that the redhibitory fault of one would give rise to the redhibiti
on of all horses sold, including the sound ones, if the vendee had not bought the sound animals
without the defective one.
SALES

(C)In the case above, it was clearly manifested that the intention of the buyer is to buy the horses
as a whole or as a team, and then the sale of all the horses can be rescinded.
DAVILA, JOHN BRAIN A.

Ayessa told Claire, a car dealer, that she wanted to purchase a car’ suitable for touring purposes.
Claire suggested a Nissan NV350 Van would be fit for the purpose. Relying upon this statement,
Ayessa bought a Nissan NV350 Van which turned out to be fit for touring purposes. The
statement given by Claire is called a:
A. Warranty.
B. Condition.
C. Legal Opinion.
D. Contract.

(A) The answer is A. Warranty.

(L) According to article 1546 of Civil Code of the Philippines. Any affirmation of fact or any promise by the
seller relating to the thing is an express warranty if the natural tendency of such affirmation or promise is
to induce the buyer to purchase the same, and if the buyer purchases the thing relying thereon. No
affirmation of the value of the thing, nor any statement purporting to be a statement of the seller’s
opinion only, shall be construed as a warranty, unless the seller made such affirmation or statement as an
expert and it was relied upon by the buyer. (n )

(A) Warranty is defined as a statement or representation made by the seller about a product or service
that may induce the buyer to continue with the contract of sale or buy the product. Such warranty can be
a reference about character, quality, or title of goods.
In the given situation, Ayessa asked what/which car model would fit best for touring purposes and relied
on the statement given by Claire, which Ayessa agreed with it because she knows that Claire is a car dealer
and an expert about cars. It is considered a warranty also because the statement given induced Ayessa to
buy Nissan NV350 Van.

(C) Therefore, with the definition of warranty given by article 1546, the statement given by Claire
suggesting Ayessa to buy a Nissan NV350 Van for touring purposes is a form of warranty.

DE LEON, THEODORE EBELLO A.

Which of the two statements is/are true?
I. In case where less than two years of installments were paid, the seller shall give the buyer a
grace period of not less than sixty days from the date the installment became due.
II. If the buyer fails to pay the installments due at the expiration of the grace period, the seller
may cancel the contract after thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation
or the demand for rescission of the contract by a notarial act.
A. Only I is true
B. Only II is true
C. Both are true
D. Both are false

Letter C is the correct answer.

Sec. 4 of R.A. 6552 provides that in case where less than two years of installments were paid, the seller
shall give the buyer a grace period of not less than sixty days from the date the installment became due.

If the buyer fails to pay the installments due at the expiration of the grace period, the seller may cancel
the contract after thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for
rescission of the contract by a notarial act.

Thus, making the two statements provided true

SALES

DE ROSAS, JOHN BRIEN F.

. One of the following characteristics of dacion en pago is also a characteristics of a contract of
sale.
A. There is a pre-existing credit
B. Obligations are extinguished
C. There is less freedom in fixing the price
D. Ownership of the object is transferred to the other party

Anwer: letter D. Ownership of the object is transferred to the other party

Legal basis: according to Art. 1459 the vendor must have the right to transfer the ownership of
the thing at the time that it is delivered.
Thus, it is not necessary that the vendor must be the owner at the time of sale.

Application: One can only sell what he owns. In order for the sale to be valid, the vendor must be
the owner of the object of the contract of sale or authorized by the owner to sell the object in
order to transfer the ownership of the thing being sold.

It should be noted however that if at the time of delivery the right to transfer the ownership
exists, then the contract is valid. This means that it is not necessary that the seller has the
ownership of the object of the contract of sale during the formation or perfection of the contract
for as long as the ownership exists during the time of delivery.

This is of course to give way for future goods or goods that depend on contingency to be the
object of the contract of sale.

Conclusion: only those goods that the vendor owns can enter to the contract of sale and transfer
the ownership to another party. Therefore, the answer is letter D.

DIALA, MARY JOY L.

On January 1, Mary orally sold to Joy a specific ring for P450.00. The parties agreed that Mary
shall deliver the ring to Joy on January 5, while Joy shall pay the price on January 7.
A. The contract is perfected on January 1, when the parties had a meeting of minds on the
object and the price.
B. The contract is perfected on January 7, when the price is paid, since both parties would by then
have performed their obligations in the contract.
C. The contract is perfected on January 5, when the ring is delivered by Mary to Joy.
D. There is no perfected contract because the sale was made orally.

The contract is perfected on January 1, when the parties had a meeting of minds on the object
and the price.

LEGAL BASIS:

According to Article 1305 of the Civil Code of the Philippines , a contract is a meeting of minds
between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something
or to render some service. (1254a)

Another provision under Article 1458 , by the contract of sale one of the contracting parties
obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to
pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.
A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (1445a)
SALES

APPLICATION:
In accordance to the law, the sale, being a contract, has the same requisites such as consent,
object or the subject matter, and the cause or the price. The meeting of the minds of Mary and
Joy upon the thing and the cause on January 1 already perfected the contract since the contract
of sale is consensual. The mere agreement of the two parties to the object which is the specific
ring and the price of P450.00 makes the contract perfect.

CONCLUSION:
Hence, on January 1, when they have agreed to the object and the price, the contract of sale is
already perfected.

EBREO, ERICA B.
These statements are presented to you:
I. Emptio rei speretae refers to the sale of hope or expectancy.
II. Emptio spei refers to the sale of a thing having potential existence
In your evaluation of the foregoing statements:
A. Both statements are true
B. Both statements are false
C. Only Statement I is true
D. Only Statement II is true
Answer: B. Both statements are false
Legal Basis: According to Article 1461, Things having a potential existence may be the object of
the contract of sale. The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed subject to
the condition that the thing will come into existence. The sale of vain hope or expectancy is void.
Application : The statements on the given question have the reciprocal meaning, Emptio rei
speratae refers to the sale of a future thing while Emptio spei refers to the sale of hope or
expectation.
Conclusion : Therefor, both statement are false because they have reciprocal meaning.

ECHEVARRIA, WINCEL MAE E.

Sarah sold a registered piece of land to Mary on February 1, 2019 in a public instrument. On
February 3, 2019, Sarah sold in a private instrument the same piece of land to Raine, who took
physical possession of the land. Assume that on February 5, 2019, Sarah sold the land in a public
instrument to Bella who was not aware of the two previous sales. Bella then registered the sale
with the Register of Deeds.

The land belongs to Mary.

The land belongs to Raine.
The land belongs to Bella.
The land will be equally divided among the three buyers.

The answer is letter C. The land belongs to Bella.

According to the second paragraph of article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, “Should it
be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the Registry of Property,” this means that the ownership of the immovable
property sold will belong to the person who register it first in the Registry of Property and in good
faith regardless whether there are other previous sales of the same property happened before
he registered it.
In the facts presented, Sarah is the vendor selling a registered piece of land. She then sold it to
Mary in a public instrument and Raine in a private instrument but the latter took physical
possession of the land. Unaware of the previous sale, Bella after buying the same piece of land
from Sarah registered it with the Register of Deeds. The ownership have been passed to Bella the
moment she register it. Thus, Bella who in good faith has a better right to the land.
SALES

Therefore, as proven by the facts presented under article 1544 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the immovable property which is the object of the sale belongs to Bella.
FORMAREJO, CHRISTINE S.
Jericho,a minor of 17 years, sold his wristwatch for P1 430 to Anson,25 years old.Here,the title of
Anson is viodable by reason of the incapacity of Jericho.Jose guardian of Jericho was not aware
of the sale;Hence no action for annulment has yet been filed. Subsequently, Anson sold the
wristwatch to Tin Tin ,who acquired it in good faith.Did Tin Tin acquire title to the wristwatch?
A.No because the title of Anson was viodable because of Jericho's minority even if Tin tin acquired
the wristwatch in good faith for value,and without notice that the title of Anson was defective.
B.No because the title of Anson was viodable because of Jericho's minority which is sufficient to
make the transaction nonbinding.
C.Yes because although the title of Anson was viodable because of Jericho's minority.Tin tin
acquired the wristwatch in good faith for value,and without notice that the title of Anson was
defective.
D.Yes because although the title of Anson was viodable because of Jericho's minority.All he need
is the consent of his guardian Jose so that it maybe ratified.

Answer: C

Legal Basis:1506 Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto,but his title has not been avoided
at the time of sale,the buyer acquires a good title to the goods,provided he buys them in good faith,for
value,and without notice of the seller's defect of title.

Application:The sale happend between Jericho the minor and Anson who doesn't acquire a valid title over
the wristwatch since it is deemed he knows the seller's incapacity.But the subsequent sell of the
wristwatch give Tin tin a good title as provided by article 1506 as long as she is in good faith and doesn't
know the defect of title.

Conclusion:Therefore a article 1506 give rise to the buyers right against the thing sold whereas the seller
has a voidable title over it and the buyer doesnt know about the impairment

GARBIDA, JANE CARLA C.

On July 1, 2020, Camila sold to Flavio in a private instrument a certain gaming laptop. A week
later, Camila orally sold the same laptop to Elias who immediately took possession of the laptop.
Neither party was aware of the sale made to the other. Who is the owner of the laptop?
Flavio, because he was the first purchaser
Elias, because he took physical possession
Camila, because multiple sale is void
None
The correct answer is b.
Pursuant to the provision of Article 1544 stating that If the same thing should have been sold to
different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken
possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
In line with this, the situation above shows that both buyer acted on good faith however it is Elias
who took possession of the movable property which is the laptop.
Therefore, the gaming laptop belongs to Elias.
GONO, ROUBELYN A.
Jane and Jem entered into a contract whereby Jane transferred to Jem a specific piano for the
price of P90,000.00, while Jem gave cash of P40,000.00 and a diamond ring worth P50,000.00.
What kind of contract was entered into between Jane and Jem?
A. A contract of barter
B. A contract of sale
C. The contract is partly contract of barter and a partly contract of sale.
D. The contract is an innominate contract because the intention of the parties cannot be
determined.
SALES

The answer is letter A. The contract between Jane and Jem is a contract of barter.

Legal Basis: According to Article 1468, If the consideration of the contract consists partly in money, and
partly in another thing, the transaction shall be characterized at manifest intention of the parties. If such
intention does not clearly appear, it shall be considered a barter if the value of the thing given as part of
the consideration exceeds the amount of the money or its equivalent, otherwise, it is a sale. (1446a)

Application: Jane and Jem entered into a contract of barter when Jem gave Jane P40,000.00 and a
diamond ring that costs P50,000.00 in exchange with Jane's specific piano worth P90,000.00. It is clearly
showned that the value of the money given smaller than the thing given.

Conclusion: To conclude, the contract they have made is a contract of barter supported by the facts and
the article given.

HUERTAZUELA, ARA B.
Betty and Lydia were co-owners of a parcel of land. Last January 31, 2001, when she paid her real
estate tax, Betty discovered that Lydia had sold her share to Emma on November 10, 2000. The
following day, Betty offered to redeem her share from Emma, but the latter replied that Betty's
right to redeem has already prescribed. Is Emma correct or not?
A. Yes
B. No
C. Maybe
D. None of the above.

Answer: B. No.
Legal Basis: Under the law (Article 1623 of the Civil Code), the right of legal pre-emption or
redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the
prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in
the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice
thereof to all possible redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners. (1524a)
Application: Emma, the buyer, is not correct. Betty can still enforce her right of legal redemption as a co-
owner. Article 1623 of the Civil Code gives a co-owner 30 days from written notice of the sale by the
vendor to exercise his right of legal redemption. In the present problem, the 30-day period for the exercise
by Betty of her right of redemption had not even begun to run because no notice in writing of the sale
appears to have been given to her by Lydia.
Conclusion: Therefore, Betty can redeem her share in the parcel of land that was sold by Lydia to Emma

LINGCORAN, JAIRA KYLA M.

Margarette stole the ring of Cassandra and sells the same to Romina who does not have any
knowledge that the ring was stolen. Did Romina acquire title to the ring?
A. Yes, because she is in good faith.
B. No, Romina acquires no better title than Margarette had over it.
C. No, because Margarette acquires title to the ring.
D. None of the above.
A: The answer is B. No, Romina acquires no better title than Margarette had over it.

L: According to Article 1505 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, “Subject to the provisions of this
Title, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them
under authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods
than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the
seller's authority to sell.”

Moreover, Article 559 states that, “The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived
SALES

thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same.

If the possessor of a movable lost or which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired
it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price
paid therefor.”

A: With the facts presented above, we can see that the title of Margarette is that of a thief who
is apparently not the owner thereof. Romina, on the other hand, though in good faith, is a
possessor of a movable lost which means that the latter acquires no better title than the former
had over it. The only exception is if the acquisition in good faith had been made in public sale or
auction in which there will be a reimbursement. However, since the sale is only between
Margarette and Romina, Cassandra, the one who has been lawfully deprived, may recover the
movable lost from the person in possession of the same.

C: Henceforth, we can conclude that Cassandra may recover the ring from Romina without any
obligation on her part to reimburse Romina. Neither Romina nor Margarette acquires title to the
ring.
Manage

MAGSOMBOL, RHEALYN R.
An unpaid seller losses his lein on the goods in the following cases, except:
a. when he delivers the goods to a carrier or other bailee for the purpose of transmission to the
buyer without reserving the right of ownership in the the goods.
b. when the buyer or his agent lawfully obtains possession of the goods.
c. When the seller waives his possessory lien
d. When he has obtained judgment for the price of the goods.

Answer: D

Legal Basis: According to Article Art 1529. The unpaid seller of goods loses his lien thereon:
(1) When he delivers the goods to a carrier or other bailee for the purpose of transmission to the buyer
without reserving the ownership in the goods or the right to the possession thereof;
(2) When the buyer or his agent lawfully obtains possession of the goods;
(3) By waiver thereof.
The unpaid seller of goods, having a lien thereon, does not lose his lien by reason only that he
has obtained judgment or decree for the price of the goods. (n)

Application: The unpaid seller’s lien implies that he has a right to retain possession of the goods
until payment or tender of the whole price, unless he agreed to sell on credit. If the unpaid seller
agrees to sell on credit, he may refuse to deliver them if the buyer becomes insolvent, or if the
term of the credit had expired and the price has not been paid.

Conclusion: Therefore, the answer is letter D because obtaining judgement or decree for the price
of the goods does not losses his lien.

MARAÑO, DONITA MAE P.

Justin bought from Century Properties, Inc. a 1,000 square meter lot located beside the Manila
International Airport on which he intended to construct a warehouse condominium. The terms
of the sale provided for the payment of the contract price of P300,000.00 in 60 equal monthly
installments of P5,000.00 each. After having paid 36 installments, Justin defaulted in the payment
of the succeeding installments. As a consequence, Century cancelled the sale. Justin now wants
to claim the return of the cash surrender value of the payments he had made pursuant to the
"Realty Installment Buyer Act", otherwise known as the Maceda Law.
SALES

A. Justin cannot invoke the Maceda Law for the return of any of the payments he had made for
the lot he purchased.
B. Justin is entitled to a cash surrender value of 90% of P180,000.00, or P162,000.00 under the
Maceda Law.
C. Justin is entitled to a cash surrender value of 50% of P180,000.00, or P90,000.00 under the
Maceda Law.
D. Justin is entitled to a cash surrender value of 55% of P180,000.00, or P99,000.00 under the
Maceda Law.

C. Justin is entitled to a cash surrender value of 50% of P180,000.00, or P90,000.00 under the
Maceda Law.
Pursuant to par. 3 under Sec. 3 of the Republic Act No. 6552, If the contract is cancelled, the seller
shall refund to the buyer the cash surrender value of the payments on the property equivalent
to fifty percent of the total payments made and, after five years of installments, an additional
five percent every year but not to exceed ninety percent of the total payments made; provided,
that the actual cancellation or the demand for rescission of the contract by a notarial act and
upon full payment of the cash surrender value to the buyer.
In the facts presented, the contract of sale entered into by Justin and Century Properties, Inc. is
covered by the provisions of the Maceda Law. Since, the sale is later on cancelled by the
corporation, Justin is then entitled to receive the cash surrender value of his total payments
made. Justin have made 36 monthly installments equivalent to three years of installments. Thus,
the buyer has the right to receive 50% of total payments made which is P90,000 (P5,000.00
monthly payments x36months x50%). Since he paid only three years of installments he is not
entitled to an additional 5% for every year.

Therefore, Justin is only entitled to 50% of his total payments made as cash surrender value in
consequence of the cancelation of the contract.
MENDOZA, VINCE MICHAEL L.
Mr Comiso offered in writing to sell his home and lot for P750,000.00 to Mr Davila on July 1 2016.
Mr Davila requested Mr Comiso to give him 60 days within which to raise the P750,000.00. On
August 15, 2016, Mr Comiso informed Mr Davila that the price is raised and now at
P1,000,000.00. Can Mr Davila compel Mr Comiso to sell house and lot at P750,000.00 which was
offered writing by Mr Comiso?
Yes, because Mr Comiso is already in estoppels by his written offer
Yes, because the 60 days offer has not yet expired
No, because Mr Davila has not accepted the offer of Mr Comiso
Yes, because there was already meeting of the minds

( Answer) the answer is Letter C.

(Legal Basis) Article 1475 of the Law on Sales states that, the contract of sale is perfected at the
moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon
the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the
provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.
(Application) In the above situation, the contract between Mr. Davila and Mr. Comiso was
deemed perfected since there is a meeting of mind between them, but due to the absence of
acceptance of the offer, Mr. Davila cannot compel Mr. Comiso to sell his house and lot.

(Conclusion) Therefore on the above case, the offer, not being accepted, does not render the sale
perfect, thus, Mr. CD cannot compel Mr. AB to sell house and lot.

MERCADO, ANGELO T.
SALES

Elio Company, a jewelry manufacturer, shipped five dozen necklaces to Oliver Jewelry Store. The
shipment was made under a written agreement allowing Oliver Jewelry Store to return the
necklaces within a period of one month from delivery. Based on the foregoing facts, which of the
following statement is incorrect?

A. The title to the necklaces passed to Oliver upon delivery.

B. If Oliver does not return the necklaces within one month, the sale to it becomes absolute.
C. If the necklaces are destroyed by fire without the fault of Oliver, he need not pay the price
thereof.
D. If the necklaces are destroyed through the fault of Oliver, he must pay the price thereof to Elio
Company.

If the necklaces are destroyed by fire without the fault of Oliver, he need not pay the price
thereof.

According to the first paragraph of Article 1502, when goods are delivered to the buyer "on sale
or return" to give the buyer an option to return the goods instead of paying the price, the
ownership passes to the buyer of delivery, but he may revest the ownership in the seller by
returning or tendering the goods within the time fixed in the contract, or, if no time has been
fixed, within a reasonable time.

Based on the facts presented, the necklaces was delivered to Oliver Jewelry Store under a "sale
or return" agreement. The title to the necklaces was transferred to Oliver from the moment the
same have been delivered. Hence, upon the delivery, he became the owner of it, so the risk of
loss was with him.

Therefore, Oliver need to pay the price of the thing sold even if it was destroyed through
fortuitous event. The same rule applies, with more reason, if the loss was due to his fault.

MOLLEDA, ALLYZZA MAE S.

On December 12, Kate orally sold to Yvonne a specific ring for P20,000. The parties agreed that
Kate shall deliver the ring to Yvonne on December 23, while Yvonne shall pay the price on
December 28. When does the contract been perfected?
a. The contract is perfected on December 23, when the ring is delivered by Kate to Yvonne.
b. The contract is perfected on December 12, when the parties had a meeting of minds on the
object and price.
c. The contract is perfected on December 28, when the price is paid, since both parties would by
then have performed their obligations in the contract.
d. There is no perfected contract because sale because the sale was made orally.

Answer: The answer is B.

Legal Basis: Base on Art. 1475 “The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting
of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that
moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law
governing the form of contracts” And Article 1483 “Subject to the provisions of the Statue of Frauds and
of any other applicable statue, a contract of sale may be in any way of the following forms; a) in writing,
or b) “by word of mouth,” or c) partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or d) may be inferred from
the conduct of the parties.

Application: Kate and Yvonne had a contract orally and it is perfected on the date when they had their
meeting of minds even though the payment and the things is not yet presented. Also, even though the
SALES

contract is not a written contract it is still valid and both of them must do their obligations as seller and
buyer.

Conclusion: Therefore, the contract is perfected on the date that they had the meeting of minds and
agreed about the thing and the price. And it is a valid contract even though they did it orally.

PAGANA, FIONALYN F.
On October 11, 2019, Matty sold and delivered to Ross a television set for P16,000.00 “on sale or
return” giving Ross up to October 31, 2019 within which to return the television set or pay the
price. On October 26, 2019, the television set was burned through no fault of Ross. Based on the
foregoing, which of the following statements is incorrect?
A. Ross must pay the price of the television set
B. Ross must bear the loss of the television set
C. The ownership of the television set was transferred to Ross upon delivery to him
D. Matty must bear the loss since the time for the return of the television set had not yet
expired

[A] The answer is letter D. Matty must bear the loss since the time for the return of the television
set had not yet expired

[L] According to the first paragraph of article 1502, “When the goods are delivered to the buyer “on sale
or return” to give the buyer an option to return the goods instead of paying the price, the ownership
passes to the buyer on delivery, but he may revest the ownership in the seller by returning or tendering
the goods within the time fixed in the contract, or, if no time has been fixed, within a reasonable time.”

[A] Based on the stated facts, Matty delivered the television set “on sale or return” to Ross, meaning the
ownership of the television set was transferred to Ross upon the delivery of the thing, this is why the
statement in letter C is correct and therefore not the right answer. Since the ownership of the thing was
already transferred to Ross, he is liable for anything that might happen to the television set even if it is
not due to his fault, therefore he must also pay the price of the television set when it was burned.

[C] All the foregoing statements from letters A, B and C were facts and therefore not the correct answer.
This only leaves letter D, which is the only incorrect statement because Matty should not bear the loss of
the thing since the ownership was already transferred to Ross upon the delivery of the television set.
Therefore letter D is the correct answer.

PENTINIO, ANGEL M.
P10,000.00 and promising to pay the balance of P240,000.00 in 20 years in monthly installments
of P1000,00. After paying 72 installments, Castillo defaulted in the payment of the 73rd
installments and subsequent ones. Despite the grace period he had earned, he was not able to
make any further payments. Accordingly, CBA Realty cancelled the sale. How much cash
surrender value is Castillo entitled to receive?
A. P45,100.00
B. P39,600.00
C. P36,000.00
D. P41,000.00
[A] A. P45,100.00
[L] According to the R.A. No. 6552 of the Maceda Law, the Sale of Real Property in Installments,
that if the contract is cancelled, he shall be entitled to the refund of the cash surrender value of
the payments on the property equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the total payments made, and
after five (5) years of installments, an additional five percent (5%) every year but not to exceed
ninety percent (90%) of the total payments made.
[A] Castillo shall be entitled to receive a cash surrender value of P45,100.00 computed as follows:
55%[P10,000.00 + ( P1000,00 x 72 months) ]. Since Castillo has paid more than 5 years of
SALES

installments, he shall be entitled to a cash surrender value equivalent to 50% plus 5% for the sixth
year for a total of 55%.
[C] Therefore, Castillo will receive a total of P45,100.00 as a cash surrender value.
RED, TRISHA MAE D.
This is a kind of constructive delivery where the vendor remains in possession of the property
sold, such as by virtue of lease agreement with the vendee.
a. Traditio longa manu.
b. Traditio brevi manu.
c. Traditio constitutum possessorium.
d. Delivery to common carrier.

The answer is letter C, Traditio constitutum possessorium.

As stated in Article 1500, Traditio constitutum possessorium, is the delivery that takes place when the
vendor continues in possession of the thing sold after the sales but in another capacity such as that of a
lessee or depositary. In which it applies to both movable and immovable property.

Legal possession of real or personal property whereby the original possessor of the property remains in
control but transfers the legal possession to another. Here, the seller, after the sale, retains possession of
the article acting as agent on behalf of the buyer.

Hence, the statement is referring to tradition constitutum possessorium.

RESTITUTO, EVE JEREMY Q.

Kooky promised to sell his life-size Ironman statue for 70,000 pesos to Chimmy, giving the latter
a month to decide, whether to buy it or not. Chimmy accepted the proposal and told Kooky that
he would come to a decision before the time period given to him expires. Chimmy also gave
Kooky 4,000 pesos as consideration for Kooky to keep his promise of holding the statue just for
Chimmy for a month. The contract entered into by the two parties and the consideration given
by Chimmy, are called:

a. Contract of sale and earnest money

b. Contract for a piece of work and advanced payment
c. Option Contract and downpayment
d. Option Contract and option money

ANSWER: D

These are an option contract and option money, respectively.

The legal definition of an option contract is a separate and distinct contract from the principal or
main one. According to Article 1479, "An accepted unilateral promise to buy or sell a determinate
thing for a price is binding upon the promissor if the promise js supported by a considerstion
distint from the price."

The consideration referred to in the option contract entered into by Kooky and Chimmy is the
option money, it is something that is paid to a seller for the purpose of holding one to his promise
to buy or sell a determinate thing for a certain period of time. This consideration given is not a
deduction from the purchase price of the determinate thing, it is a separate and distinct
consideration. And an option money is given when the party who gave this, entered into an
option contract, which is a preparatory contract giving one party the right to decide whether or
not to enter into a principal contract whilst they (sellers) are bind in another contract to: (a) not
to enter into principal contract and not to sell with any other person during the agreed time, (b)
SALES

enter into the principal contract with the party who the option was granted and used within the
agreed period of time.

Therefore, according to the facts presented, the contract entered into by Chimmy and Kooky is
an option contract and the money paid by Chimmy to Kooky is a consideration called an option
money.

SAGARINO, SANDRA F.
Katara sold to Sokka a parcel of land with the stipulation that upon failure of Sokka to pay the
price within 30 days the sale shall be deemed automatically cancelled. May Katara refuse to
accept payment from Sokka after 30 days on the ground that the sale is already rescinded?
A. Yes, Katara may refuse Sokka's payment because she can automatically rescind the contract
of sale
B. No, Katara cannot refuse Sokka's payment at all.
C. It depends upon the situation.
D. None of the above.
The correct answer is letter C. It depends upon the situation.

According to Article 1592 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "In the sale of immovable property, even
though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the
rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the
period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or
by a notarial act. After the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.

Accordingly, on the given question, Katara cannot refuse Sokka's payment if she failed to make a demand
either judicially or by notarial act as there is no existing provision in our laws authorizing the automatic
rescission of contracts for non payment of the purchase price. Thus Sokka may still pay the price even
after expiration of the given period nothwithstanding the stipulation that failure to pay the price on the
due date resolves the sale. On the other hand, Katara can refuse Sokka's payment if the court did not
grant him a new term after her demand.

Therefore, Katara may or may not refuse Sokka's payment depending upon the situation.

URSOLINO, JOHNPOL B.
Anne sold to Vincent a specific car for P200,000. The terms of the sale provide the following:
Down payment of P40,000; Balance payable in 8 equal monthly installments of P20,000 each,
with a real estate mortgage to be executed by Vincent on his lot to secure the said balance. After
paying 3 Installment, Vincent defaulted in the payment of 3 more installment. Based on the
foregoing facts, the following remedies were presented to Vincent.
Exact fulfillment of the obligation.
Cancel the sale
Foreclose the real mortgage on the lot and recover any deficiency in the foreclosure sale
If you were Vincent, the remedy that you may avail yourself of is:
either I or II.
either II or III
either I or III
Any of the three remedies presented.
Answer is D. Any of the three remedies presented.
According to Art. 1484 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. In a contract of sale of personal
property the price of which is payable in installments, the vendor may exercise any of the
following remedies:
(1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail to pay;
(2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments;
(3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, if one has been constituted, should the
vendee's failure to pay cover two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no further
SALES

action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any agreement to the
contrary shall be void. (1454-A-a)
Using the Article 1484 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, if you were Vincent you may avail or
exercise in the case of failing to pay in sale of personal property and the price is payable in
installment in any of the three remedies presented you can avail such as Exact fulfillment of the
obligation, cancelation of sale and lastly the foreclosing the real mortgage on the lot and recover
any deficiency in the foreclosure sale, all of the remedies are applicable or available since its
stated in the law that it should have a vendee’s failure to pay that cover into two or more
installment.
Therefore, I conclude that in accordance with the mentioned articles of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, if you were Vincent you may choose any of the following remedies presented.
VARGAS, FLORLIE MAE B.
Aurea and Catherine entered into a contract for the sale of the car of Aurea to Catherine for
P100,000.00. In reality, however, Catherine did not give any amount to Aurea because the latter
intended to donate the car to Catherine. in this case:

a. The contract between Aurea and Catherine is void because the price is simulated.
b. The contract between Aurea and Catherine is a valid contract of donation.
c. The contract between Aurea and Catherine is a void contract of donation.
d. The contract between Aurea and Catherine a valid contract of sale.
Answer: B. The contract between Aurea and Catherine is a valid contract of donation.

Legal Basis:
Article 1409 states “The following contracts are inexistent and void from the
beginning:
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy;
(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;
(3) Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;
(4) Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
(5) Those which contemplate an impossible service;
(6) Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the
contract cannot be ascertained;
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
These contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of
illegality be waived.”

Application:
Enumerated in Article 1409 the contracts that are considered void and one of those is the contract being
simulated. In the problem given, it is clear that the contract of sale is simulated and therefore, considered
as void but since they still intend to have a contract of donation, that itself is valid as a contract of
donation.

Conclusion:
Nevertheless, since the parties still intended to be bounded by some other contract, the
contract is considered to be a valid contract of donation and the answer is the statement in letter B.

VELASCO, JUAN PAULO MARIE S.

As a rule, this contract of sale involving a piece of land is void,
A. Between a minor and a capacitated person.
B. Between two insane persons who did not act during lucid interval
C. Between first degree cousins
D. Between husband and wife
SALES

The answer to my question is letter D., The contract between husband and wife is void. According
to article 1490, the husband and the wife cannot sell property to eachother. A husband and a
wife's property is considered a conjugal property meaning conjoined property. They cannot sell
their property to themselves. Hence, letter D is the answer.

VILLADIEGO, JIZELLE J.
Jizelle sells to Fionalyn 1000 sacks of rice at P2,000 per sack from the stock then stored in the
warehouse of Jizelle. Unknown to the parties, the warehouse contains only 800 sacks of rice.
What is the status of the contract between Jizelle and Fionalyn?
The sale is valid up to 800 sacks of rice but void as to the deficiency of 200 sacks of rice.
The sale is void since the quantity available is less than the quantity sold.
The sale is valid up to 800 sacks of rice but rescissible as to the deficiency of 200 sacks of rice by
reason of damage suffered by Fionalyn.
The entire sale is valid up to 1000 sacks of rice. Fionalyn becomes the owner of the whole stock
available and Jizelle must deliver the deficiency of 200 sacks of rice.

ANSWER
The answer is letter d, the entire sale is valid up to 1000 sacks of rice. Fionalyn becomes the
owner of the whole stock available and Jizelle must deliver the deficiency of 200 sacks of rice.
LEGAL BASIS
According to Article 1464 of the Law on Sales, in case of fungible goods, there may be a sale of
an undivided share of a specific mass, though the seller purports to sell and the buyer to buy a
definite number, weight or measure of the goods in the mass, and though the number, weight
or measure of the goods in the mass is undetermined. By such a sale the buyer becomes owner
in common of such a share of the mass as the number, weight or measure bought bears to the
number, weight or measure of the mass. IF THE MASS CONTAINS LESS THAN THE NUMBER,
WEIGHT OR MEASURE BOUGHT, THE BUYER BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE WHOLE MASS AND
THE SELLER IS BOUND TO MAKE GOOD THE DEFICIENCY FROM GOODS OF THE SAME KIND AND
QUALITY, UNLESS A CONTRATRY INTENT APPEARS.
APPLICATION
In this case, the sale is valid up to 1000 sacks of rice. There is a deficiency of 200 sacks of rice
which is unknown to Jizelle and Fionalyn that the warehouse contains only 800 sacks of rice.
Fionalyn becomes the owner of the whole stock available because it is less than what was sold
and Jizelle shall supply whatever is lacking from goods of the same kind and quality.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, if the mass contains less than the number, weight or measure bought, the buyer
becomes the owner of the whole mass and the seller is bound to make good the deficiency from
goods of the same kind and quality.