You are on page 1of 3

Suntay v CA

Facts: Federico thru an absolute deed of sale sold his land to Rafael Suntay, his nephew for
20,000 pesos. After the sale Federico was still in possession of the said land in the concept of an
owner. A counter sale was made by Rafael. After 7 years Rafael made a loan using the land and
on this period Federico sought for the title held by Rafael to be returned to him. The matter was
elevated to the supreme court.

Issue: whether or not the deed of absolute sale executed by Federico to Rafael was valid?

Held: The allegation of Rafael that the lapse of seven (7) years before Federico sought the
issuance of a new title in his name necessarily makes Federico's claim stale and unenforceable
does not hold water. Federico's title was not in the hands of a stranger or mere acquaintance; it
was in the possession of his nephew who, being his lawyer, had served him faithfully for many
years. Federico had been all the while in possession of the land covered by his title and so there
was no pressing reason for Federico to have a title in his name issued. Even when the
relationship between the late Rafael and Federico deteriorated, and eventually ended, it is not at
all strange for Federico to have been complacent and unconcerned about the status of his title
over the disputed property since he has been possessing the same actually, openly, and adversely,
to the exclusion of Rafael. It was only when Federico needed the title in order to obtain a
collaterized loan that Federico began to attend to the task of obtaining a title in his name over the
subject land and rice mill. We, therefore, hold that the deed of sale executed by Federico in favor
of his now deceased nephew, Rafael, is absolutely simulated and fictitious and, hence, null and
void, said parties having entered into a sale transaction to which they did not intend to be legally
bound. As no property was validly conveyed under the deed, the second deed of sale executed by
the late Rafael in favor of his uncle, should be considered ineffective and unavailing.

Singson vs. Isabela Sawmill


GRN L- 27343 February 28, 1979Fernadez, J
Facts:Isabela Sawmill was formed by partners Saldajeno, Lon and Timoteo.Withdraw from the
partnership and after dissolution, L and T continued thebusiness still under the name Isabela
Sawmill. The partnership is indebted tovarious creditors and that Sheriff sold the assets of
Isabela Sawmill to S andwas subsequently sold to a separate company
.Issue:Whether or not Isabela Sawmill ceased to be a partnership and thatcreditors could no
longer demand payment.

Ruling:On dissolution, the partnership is not terminated but continues untilthe winding up of the
business. It does not appear that the withdrawal of Sfrom the partnership was published in the
newspapers. The Apelles and thepublic had a right to expect the public had a right to expect that
whatevercredit they extended to L & T doing business. In the name of the partnershipcould be
enforced against the partnership of said partnership. The judicialforeclosure of the chattel
mortgage executed in the favor of S did not relieveher from liability to the creditors of
the partnership.It may be presumed S acted in good faith, the Apelles also acted ingood faith in
extending credit to they partnership. Where one of the twoinnocent persons must suffer, that
persons must suffer, that person whogave occasion for the damages to be caused must bear the
consequences

Cadwaller and Co. v. Smith Bell

Facts: Plaintiff as assignee of pacific lumber filed for a money claim of $3,846 against defendant.
Afterwards a secret negotiation was made with the government. The trial court and court of
appeals ruled in favor of plaintiff. Hence, this petition.

Issue: whether or not there was breach of duty based on fraud by misrepresenting the condition
of the market

Held: It is plaint that in concealing from their principal the negotiations with the Government,
resulting in a sale of the piles at 19 a piece and in misrepresenting the condition of the market,
the agents committed a breach of duty from which they should benefit. The contract of sale to
themselves thereby induced was founded on their fraud and was subject to annulment by the
aggrieved party. (Civil Code, articles 1265 and 1269.) Upon annulment the parties should be
restored to their original position by mutual restitution. (Article 1303 and 1306.) Therefore the
defendants are not entitled to retain their commission realized upon the piles included under the
contract so annulled. In respect of the 213 piles, which at the time of the making of this contract
on August 5 they had already sold under the original agency, their commission should be
allowed.
The court below found the net amount due from the defendants to the plaintiff for the Quito
piles, after deducting the expense of landing the same and $543.10 commission, was $1,760.88,
on which it allowed interest at the rate of 6 per cent from March 1, 1903. This amount should be
increased by the addition thereto of the amount of the commission disallowed, to wit, $331.17
giving $2,092.05. Interest computed on this sum to the date of the entry of judgment below
amounts to $359.77, which added to the principal sum makes $2,241.82, the amount of plaintiffs
claim, which is to be deducted from defendants counterclaim of $6,993.80, leaving a balance of
$4,541.98, equivalent to 9,083.96 pesos, the amount for which judgment below should have been
entered in favor of the defendants.

You might also like