GOLDENROD INC. v.

CA
ISSUE:WON respondent should return the earnest money of the petitioner.

HELD:
Earnest money is a part of payment of a sale. Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which
were the object of the contract together with their fruits and interest. Since the respondent did not oppose
the extra-judicial rescission, they should return the earnest money of the petitioner. It would be most
inequitable if respondentBarretto Realty would be allowed to retain petitioner’s payment of P1,000,000.00
and at the same time appropriate the proceeds of the second sale made to another.

People’s Homesite & Housing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, Rizalino L. Mendoza, Adelaida R. Mendoza

ISSUE:
Was there a perfected contract of sale by the plaintiff with respondent spouses which bounds the former to
sell subject Lot 4?

HELD:
NO, there was no perfected sale of Lot 4. It was conditionally or contingently awarded to the Mendozas
subject to the approval by the city council of the proposed consolidation-subdivision plan and the approval
of the award by the valuation committee and higher authorities.

When the plan with the area of Lot 4 reduced to 2,608.7 square meters was approved, the Mendozas should
have manifested in writing their acceptance of the award for the purchase of Lot 4 just to show that they
were still interested in its purchase although the area was reduced and to obviate any doubt on the matter.