Q5.1. Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is B, even it is true that the price is not fixed, B insisted that it is.

Q5.2. Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?

- The respondent is S, S on the other hand, claims that the price is unknown

Q5.3. What is/are the issue of the case?

- The issue of the case is, if the price of the property sold is considered certain within the sense of
the law under the conditions of the agreement,

Q5.4 .What is the decision of the court?

- It's likely that the price has been decided. The products that would be sold were finally and
firmly determined. The price of each item was established in stone. Tobacco prices, for example,
were not measured in pesos and centavos. B, on the other hand, agreed to pay the sum
mentioned in the invoices that were in existence at the time, as per the conditions of the
agreement. A simple reference to these invoices might ensure that the pricing is correct.

Q3.1. Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is MPC, which claims to have questions about the legitimacy of the transaction to
T.
Q3.2. Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?
- The respondent is GSIS officer, At a public auction, he sold the land to T. T, despite being the
wife of a GSIS officer, has the right to buy a property at public auction, according to the
respondent, since she is not a government official, agent, administrator, or guardian.
Q3.3. What is/are the issue of the case?;
- Whether or not the sale is under the prohibited transactions under Article 1491.

Q3.4. What is the decision of the court?

- T's transaction is void. The sale is under the prohibited transactions category, according to the
Court, because T's husband has extensive authority over some activities, such as retirement, and
his influence cannot be underestimated. They're both linked to the GSIS.

Q11.1 Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is S, S sold P1.00 and other valued considerations to “B” for the rights and
interests in a 12 undivided piece of a parcel of property. S is satisfied that the deed is null and
void since it was deemed a Deed of Donation, which the donee must accept in order for it to be
valid.
 Q11.2 Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?

- The respondent is B, B is a minor to whom the rights and interests in a 1/2 undivided section of
a parcel of land were transferred in exchange for P1.00 and other valuable considerations. B is
satisfied since the Quitclaim Deed made the transaction legal and valid.

Q11.3 What is/are the issue of the case?

- Whether the Quitclaim Deed of conveyance of the property a valid cause or a consideration.

Q11.4 What is the decision of the court?

- The Quitclaim Deed has a solid cause of consideration since it includes additional important
factors in addition to the P1.00. Although these beneficial factors were not mentioned, they
were included in the contract. This presumption is unassailable since the factors were stipulated
in the contract, which was then transformed into a public document. “Although the cause is not
specified in the contract, it is believed that it exists and is valid, unless the debtor demonstrates
the contrary,” according to Article 1354 of the New Civil Code.
-

Q2.1. Who is/are the petitioner? Wht is/are their contention?;

- The petitioner is S, he sued B to regain ownership of the lots that the latter continues to inhabit,
claiming that the president of B's firm neglected to sign the contract to sell that S prepared.
Q2.2. Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?;
- The respondent is B, since the draft contained seven instead of six properties, B's president
refused to sign the contract to sell drafted by S.
Q2.3. What is/are the issue of the case?;

(1) May the unsigned draft be deemed to embody the agreement between the parties?

(2) May the receipt of the five (5) checks by S serve to produce the effect of tender of down payment by
B?

Q2.4 .What is the decision of the court?

(1) Based on the situation, the parties had not reached a definite agreement. The only point of agreement
they achieved was the price indicated in the draft contract. The amount of items to be sold was an
important component of the Contract to Sell. If the parties cannot agree on the issue, they may not be
regarded to have established a contract under the law.

(2)Since the five (5) checks were not cashed, B should have deposited the corresponding amount of the
above-mentioned checks, as well as the agreed-upon payments. A contract to sell in this case includes the
performance of an obligation rather than the exercise of a privilege or right. As a consequence, not only
may performance or payment be done by payment tender, but also through tender and consignment.
Consignment is required to discharge B's obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price. B didn't
even attempt to offer and consign the payments, much less change the contract to reflect the parties'
genuine intentions regarding the amount of lots to be sold.

CASE 6
Q6.1. Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?
- The petitioner is S, who claims that it is the one who entered into a coal selling contract with B.
Q6.2. Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?
- The respondent is B, who claims that the contract’s price is subjected to change and is uncertain.
Q6.3. What is/are the issue of the case?
- Is the price certain within the meaning of the law?
Q6.4 .What is the decision of the court?
- The price may be assured by stipulation using known parameters, and in this situation, it's safe to
presume the price was set at P9.45 per long ton.
-

Q1.1 Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is S. B had failed to pay the amount requested by S, and S's payment
constitutes a specified suspensive condition.

Q1.2. Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?

- The respondent is B, He claims that the payment he made to satisfy S for the transfer of
ownership to the "24 tons of iron ore, more or less" was contingent on the sale of B's iron
ore.

Q1.3. What is/are the issue of the case?

- Is the shipment or local sale of the iron ore a condition precedent (or suspensive condition)
to the payment of the balance, or only a suspensive period or term?

Q1.4 What is the decision of the court?

- B is the one with a term that was previously held by the Court. There is no doubt that the
payment will have to be made sooner or later; the only question is when that payment will
have to be made. There is already a payment obligation; just the demandability is postponed.

Q8.1 Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

 - The petitioner is S, who agreed to transfer to B "the whole right, title, and interest" in a firm by
signing a paper.

Q8.2 Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?

- The respondent is B, who claims that even if the agreement was just a commitment to sell, it
would not prohibit any recovery in this case.

Q8.3 What is/are the issue of the case?

- Whether the price is certain or not.

Q8.4 What is the decision of the court?

- Since the parties have already agreed on the item and the price, the pricing is certain.
Nothing was left undone, and all queries were answered, resulting in a flawless sale.

Q7.1. Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is X, X's claim in this case is that she is entitled to the agreed-upon payment under
the provisions of the contract.
Q7.2. Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?
- The respondent is because the price was not specified, Y claims that there was no valid lease of
services contract.
Q7.3. What is/are the issue of the case?
- Whether or not the contract furnish a basis or measure by which the amount of compensation may
be ascertained
Q7.4 .What is the decision of the court?

- Yes. The compensation in this case is decided by the parties' agreement on the cost of
maintenance.

Q9.1 Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is B, B claims that because the transaction is a perfected sale, he is entitled to
repurchase the property.

Q9.2 Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is S, S claims that the transaction contains an equitable mortgage since the
amount paid is insufficient.

Q9.3 What is/are the issue of the case?

- Whether or not the contract an equitable mortgage.

Q9.4 What is the decision of the court?

- According to Article 1602 of the Philippine Civil Code, when the price of a sale with right to
repurchase is abnormally low, it is assumed to be an equitable mortgage. In addition, Article
1602 stated that a transaction appearing to be a sale with right of repurchase should be
regarded as an equitable mortgage if there is any dispute. As a result, because the price is
insufficient, the transaction will be treated as a loan with an equitable mortgage, with the
amount paid as the loan's principal and the land as security.

Q4.1. Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

- The petitioner is EDCA, who claims that X who acquired no titles in the books is an impostor.

Q4.2. Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?

- The respondent is Y, who claims that because he purchased the books in good faith, he has the
legal right to keep and own them.

Q4.3. What is/are the issue of the case?

- Whether or not EDCA has been unlawfully deprived of the books because the check issued
by the impostor X in payment therefor was dishonored

Q4.4. What is the decision of the court?

- The contract of sale is consensual. — "The contract of sale is consensual and is finalized after
the parties agree on the subject matter and consideration." ‘ART. 1475. ART. 1475. ART. 1475.
ART. 1475. ART. 1475. When there is agreement on the product that is the subject of the
contract and on the price, the contract of sale is finalized. From that point forward, the
parties may seek reciprocal performance, subject to the rules of the law regulating contract
form.