6.1 Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

The petitioner is S, who claims that it is the one who entered into coal selling conract with B.
6.2 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.
6.3 What is/are the issue of the case?
Is the price certain in the meaning of the law?
6.4 What s the decision of the court?
The price may be assured by sipulation using unknown parameters, and in this situation, it’s safe
to presume the price was set Php 9.45/ long ton.

7.1 Who is/are the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

The petitioner X, X’s claim in this case is that she is entitled to the agreed-upon payment under
the provisions of the contract.

7.2 Who is/are the respondent? What is/are their contention?

The respondent is Y because the price was not specified, Y claims that there was no valid lease of
services contract.
7.3 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
7.4 What is the decision of the court?
Yes, The compensation in this case is decided by the parties’ agreement on the cost of
maintenance.

8.1 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.
8.2 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.
8.3 What is/are the issue of the case?
Whether the price is certain or not
8.4 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.

9.1 Who is/re the petitioner? What is/are their contention?

The petitioner is B, B claims that because of the transaction is a perfected sale, he is entitled to
repurchase the property.
9.2 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.
9.3 What is/are the issue of the case?
Whether or not the contract an equitable mortgage.
9.4 What is decision of the court?
According to Article 1602 of the Philippine Civil Code, when e 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.