Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PADUA
This is a case involving family members. In April 1987, Ainza and her
daughter Eugenia orally agreed that Ainza pay P100k in exchange for
half of the portion of Eugenias undivided conjugal property (a lot
located in QC). No Deed of Absolute Sale was executed. There was
physical delivery of the land through Concepcions other daughter
(Natividad) acting as atty-in-fact. Concepcion thereafter allowed
Natividad and her husband occupy the purchased portion of the land.
In 1994, Antonio caused the division of the lot into three (two were
occupied by the spouses), necessarily displacing Natividad. He also
had each subdivision titled. Antonio requested Natividad to vacate the
premises. Antonio averred that his wife only admitted of selling 1/3 of
the property to Concepcion for which a receipt was issued signed by
Concepcion. The RTC ruled in favor of Concepcion. The CA reversed
the RTC ruling. CA explained that the property is conjugal hence the
sale should have been with Antonios consent.
ISSUE: Whether or not the contract of sale between Ainza and
Eugenia is valid.
HELD: Yes it is valid until annulled (voidable). There was a perfected
contract of sale between Eugenia and Concepcion. The records show
that Eugenia offered to sell aportion of the property to Concepcion,
who accepted the offer and agreed to pay P100,000.00 as
consideration. The contract of sale was consummated when both
parties fully complied with their respective obligations. Eugenia
delivered the property to Concepcion, who in turn, paid Eugenia the
price of P100,000.00, as evidenced by the receipt. Since the land was
undivided when it was sold, Concepcion is entitled to have half of it.
Antonio cannot, however, attack the validity of the sale b/n his wife
and his mom-in-law, either under the Family Code or the Old Civil
Code due to prescription. The sale came to his knowledge in 1987. He
only filed the case in 1999. His right prescribed in 1993 (under the FC
[5 years]) and 1997 (under OCC [10 years]).
MCCULLOUGH VS BERGER
DICHOSO VS ROXAS
FACTS: Roxas sold to Dichoso and Hernandez a parcel of
unregistered coconut land, subject to the condition that the
vendor could repurchase the land within 5 years from the
date of sale. Roxas received from Dichoso several sums of
money as initial or advance payments, with the agreement that
Roxas would sell the same property, by absolute sale, to Dichoso.
Out of their remaining balance, they would use P850 to repurchase
the property from Borja and Alanguilan within the period
stipulated. Dichoso informed Borja of their readiness to
repurchase and sent Roxas a check. Roxas returned the
check with the request that they indorsed it to Borja and
Alanguilan when they make the repurchase. Despite the
repeated demands and representations, Roxas and Borja had
deliberately fails to execute the corresponding deed
of absolute sale and deed of resale.
ISSUE:Whether or not there was a double sale.
HELD:No. The contract between the petitioners and Roxas was a
mere promise to sell because Roxas merely promised to execute a
deed of absolute sale upon Dichosos completion of payment. On
the date that Roxas could possibly sell or convey in relation to
the property in question was her right to repurchase the same
from Borja. The private document executed between Roxas and
Dichoso can be considered as an assignment by Roxas to
Held: Yes.
Ratio: Failure to pay monthly installments constitute a breach of
contract. Default was not made in good faith. The letter to Myers corp
means that the non-payment of installments was deliberately made to
coerce Myers crp into answering for an alleged promise of the dead
FH Myers. Whatever obligation FH Myers had assumed is not an
obligation of Myers corp. No proof that board of Myers corp agreed to
assume responsibility to debts of FH Myers and heirs.
Schaedler allowed the estate proceedings of FH Myers to close
without providing liability. By the balance (of payment) in the Deed of
Conditional Sale, Maritime was attempting to burden the Myers corp
with an uncollectible debt, since enforcement against FH Myers estate
was already barred. Maritime acted in bad faith.
Maritimes contract with Myers is not the ordinary sale contemplated in
NCC 1592 (transferring ownership simultaneously with delivery).
validate the alleged absolute purchase of the lot. Registration does not
vest, but merely serves as evidence of, title. Our land registration laws
do not give the holders any better title than that which they actually have
prior to registration. Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, mere
registration is not enough to acquire a new title. Good faith must concur.
Clearly, Cristobal has not yet fully paid the purchase price. Hence, as long as it
remains unpaid, she cannot feign good faith. She is also precluded from
asserting ownership against the Portics. The CAs finding that she had a
valid title to the property must be set aside.
HEIRS OF MASCUNANA VS. CA
Facts: Masunana bought a parcel of land from the Wuthrich
siblings. Part of which Mascunana, he later sold to Sumilhig.
The contract price is 4,690 with 3,690 as down payment.
Their agreement says: That the balance of ONE THOUSAND
PESOS (P1,000.00) shall be paid by the VENDEE unto the
VENDOR as soon as the above-portions of Lot 124 shall have
been surveyed in the name of the VENDEE and all papers
pertinent and necessary to the issuance of a separate
Certificate of Title in the name of the VENDEE shall have been
prepared.
Sumilhig later sold the same lot to Layumas. Years after,
Layumas wrote to the heirs of Mascunana (since Mascunana
died already) offering to pay the 1,000 balance of the
purchase price of the property. The addressee, however,
refused to receive the mail matter. Heirs Mascunana then
filed a complaint for recovery of possession against Barte ( an
individual whom Layumas allowed to stay on the subject
property).
Issue: WON the contract of alienation of the subject lot in
favor of Sumilhig was a contract to sell or a contract of sale
Held:
CARRASCOSO VS. CA
In March 1972, El Dorado Plantation Inc, through board member
Lauro Leviste, executed a Deed of Sale with Carrascoso. The subject
of the sale was a 1825 hectare of land. It was agreed that
Carrascoso is to pay P1.8M. P290K would be paid by Carrascoso to
PNB to settle the mortgage placed on the said land. P210k would be
paid directly to Leviste. The balance of P1.3M plus 10% interest
would be paid over the next 3 years at P519k every 25th of March.
Leviste also assured that there were no tenants hence the land does
not fall under the LandReform Code. Leviste allowed Carrascoso to
mortgage the land which the latter did. Carrascoso obtained a total
of P1.07M as mortgage and he used the same to pay the
downpayment agreed upon in the contract. Carrascoso defaulted
from his obligation which was supposed to be settled on March
25, 1975. Leviste then sent him letters to make good his end
of the contract otherwise he will be litigated. In 1977, Carrascoso
executed a Buy and Sell Contract with PLDT. The subject of the sale
was the same land sold to Carrascoso by Leviste but it was
only the 1000 sq m portion thereof. The land is to be sold at
P3M. Part of the terms and conditions agreed upon was that
Carrascoso is to remove all tenants from the land within one year.
He is also given a 6 month extension incase hell need one.
Thereafter, PLDT will notify Carrascoso if whether or not PLDt
will finalize the sale. PLDT gained possession of the land. El
Dorado filed a civil case against Carrascoso. PLDT intervened
averring that it was a buyer in good faith. The RTC ruled in favor
of Carrascoso. CA reversed the RTC ruling.
ISSUE:What is the nature of each contract?
HELD:The contract executed between El Dorado and Carrascoso
was a contract of sale. It was perfected by their meeting of the
minds and was consummated by the delivery of the property to
Carrascoso. However, ElDorado has the right to rescind the
contract by reason of Carrascosos failure to perform his
obligation.
A contract of sale is a reciprocal obligation. The seller
obligates itself to transfer the ownership of and deliver a
determinate thing, and the buyer obligates itself to pay therefor a
price certain in money or its equivalent. The non-payment of the
price by the buyer is a resolutory condition which extinguishes the
transaction that for a time existed, and discharges the obligationsc
reated thereunder. Such failure to pay the price in the
manner prescribed by the contract of sale entitles the unpaid seller
to sue for collection or to rescind the contract.T he contract between
Carrascoso and PLDT is a contract to sell. This is evidenced by the
terms and conditions that they have agreed upon that after
fulfillment of Carrascosos obligation PLDT has to notify
Carrascoso of its decision whether or not to finalize the
sale.Carrascoso also averred that there was a breach on El
Dorados part when it comes to warranty. Carrascoso claimed
that there were tenants on the land and he spent about
P2.9Mrelocating them. The SC ruled that Carrascoso merely
had a bare claim without additional proof to support it.
Requisites of Express warranty in a Contract of Sale