Sanchez vs.

Mapalad Realty Corporation

Mini facts: Miguel Magsaysay executed a deed of sale in his capacity as president and board chairman of
Mapalad.

Magsaysay Inc. a corporation controlled by Miguel Magsaysay, acquired ownership of all the
shares of stocks of Mapalad, however, was terminated after selling all his shares to the Novo
Properties in December 3, 1982.

ISSUE: WON there was a valid sale between Mapalad and Nordelak. (NO)

RULING: During the trial, Magsaysay admitted to be no longer connected with the Mapalad
because he already divested all his interests in said corporation as early as 1982. VOIDABLE
for lack of authority resulting in his capacity to give on the part of Mapalad.

Likewise, there was no consideration, since there was no payment effected by Nordelak.
Lack of consideration makes a contract of sale fictitious, and a fictitious sale is void ab initio.

Frenzel vs. Catito

Mini facts: Frenzel is an Australian citizen. Met Catito in Australia, fell in love. Bought her numerous
properties in Quezon City and parcels of land in Davao City. Petitioner was unaware that respondent
was married.

ISSUE: WON petitioner can recover the money used in purchasing the several properties. (NO)

RULING: Lands of the public domain, which includes private lands, may be transferred or conveyed only
to individuals or entities qualified to acquire or hold private lands or lands of public domain. Aliens,
whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring lands of public domain.
HENCE, they have also been disqualified from acquiring PRIVATE LANDS.

Transactions are in violation of the Constitution (As he is an alien), hence null and void ab initio

A contract that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void and vests no rights and creates no
obligations. It produces no legal effect at all.

National Grains Authority vs. Magcamit

Issue: WON the terms of the agreement between sellers and private respondents to deliver the
certificate of the title to latter, constitutes a breach of trust sufficient to defeat the title and right
acquired by petitioner NGA, an innocent purchaser?

RULING: No. The third party, the NGA, is a registered owner under the Torrens system and has obviously
has a better right. P.D 1529, every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a
decree registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered land taking a certificate of title for
value and in good faith.
A bank is not required before accepting a mortgage to make an investigation of the title of the property
being given as a security and where innocent third persons like mortgage relying on the certificate of
title acquire rights over the property, their rights cannot be disregarded.

Melliza vs. Iloilo

Mini Facts: 1. Melliza donated 9000sqm of Lot to Municipality to Iloilo. Donation was revoked by parties
for the area was found inadequate to meet the Arellano Plan Requirements.

2. Melliza sold 10k sqm to Municipality of Iloilo

ISSUE: WON the sale object was made determinate at the time of the contract. (YES)

RULING: Yes. The object of the sale is capable of being made determinate without the need for a new
agreement between parties. (specific mention of some lots(also could be determined which and how
much of the portions of land contiguous to those specifically named, were needed for construction.

Arturo Reyes vs. Beltran

Issue: WON Petitioners have a better right to the subject property over the respondent. (NO)

RULING: Petitioners cannot derive title to the subject property by virtue of the Contract to Sell. Vendor
Miguel Socco was not yet the owner of the subject property and was merely expecting to inherit the
same as his share as a co-heir of Constancia’s estate.

Sale of subject property in favor of Arturo Reyes was conditioned upon the event that Miguel Socco
would actually inherit and become owner of said property. Absent such occurrence, Socco NEVER
acquired ownership of the subject property which he could validly transfer to Arturo Reyes.

Art. 1459 – LAW specifically requires that he vendor must have ownership of the property at the time it
is DELIVERED.

Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware

Mini facts: Plaintiff and respondent. Respondent= agent of the former

ISSUE: WON the contract was that of agency or sale (SALE)

RULING: CLASSIFY (LOOK AT ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS)

BUENAVENTURA VS. CA

ISSUE: WON the Deeds of Sale are void for lack of jurisdiction. (NO because of failure to pay
consideration does not equate to lack of consideration. )

WON the deeds of sale are void for gross inadequacy of price. (NO because there is no
requirement that the price be equal to exact value of the subject matter of sale)