Erneylou V Ranay

Civil Law Review 2

1. Cabrera v Ysaac G.R. No. 16670 November 19, 2014

The doctrinal principle embodied in this case is the principle of Contract to Sell. In the case at
bar, the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent is not a contract of sale, but a
contract to sell. In a contract to sell, the ownership or title is retained by the seller and is not
transferred to the buyer until the full payment of the price. Failure of the buyer to fulfill such
payment is not a breach. Hence, the remedy to rescind contract is not applicable because there
is no valid contract of sale to begin with.

2. Sps Domingo v Sps Manzano G.R. No. 201883 November 16, 2016

The doctrinal principle embodied in this case is the principle of Contract to Sell. In the case at
bar, Article 1544 is not applicable since there is only one valid sale. The ownership or title is
retained by the seller because of the failure of the petitioners to comply with the condition to
pay in full the price. Hence, the contract to sell is rendered ineffective and without force and
effect.

3. Sagun v ANZ Global Serivices and Operations G.R. No. 220399 August 22, 2016

The doctrinal principle embodied in this case is a Contract with Suspensive Condition. In the case
at bar, a contract between the petitioner and respondent was already perfected when the
petitioner signed the respondent’s employment offer and agreed to the terms and conditions.
This offer of employment contained several conditions that the petitioner needed to fulfill for
him to be deemed an employee. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the required
conditions. In a contract with a suspensive condition, if the condition was not fulfilled, the
obligation will not come into effect. Hence, no contract of employment existed between the
parties.

4. Danan v Sps Serrano G.R. No. 195072 August 1, 2016

The doctrinal principle embodied in this case is the Cancellation of Contract to Sell. In the case at
bar, the seller failed to comply with the requirements prescribed by RA No. 6552 with regards to
the cancellation of contract to sell. Hence, the Court shall then uphold the sale.

5. Catungal v Rodriguez G.R. No. 146839 March 23, 2011

 The doctrinal principle embodied in this case is the Conditional Sale. In conditional sales, the
acquisition of rights as well as extinguishment or loss of those already acquired shall depend
upon the happening of the event, which constitutes the condition as provided in Article 1181 of
the Civil Code. An obligation dependent upon a suspensive condition cannot be demanded until
after the condition takes place because it is only after the fulfillment of the condition that the
obligation arises.

6. Andal v PNB G.R. No. 194201 November 27, 2013

The doctrinal principle embodied in this case is the Potestative Condition. In the case at bar,
only the rate of interest was declared void. The stipulation requiring petitioners to pay interest
on their loan remains valid and binding. Potestative conditions are stipulations where fixing of
interest rate is the sole prerogative of the creditor/mortagee which is null and void under Article
1308 of the New Civil Code. This does not apply to this case, since the petitioners-spouses, as
borrowers, agreed to the payment of interest on their loan obligation. They are still liable to pay
interest from the time they defaulted in payment until their loan is fully paid.