Artates Pojas vs. Urbi, Et. Al.

Facts: Spouses Artates and Pojas sought the annulment

of the execution of a homestead issued and duly registered in their names. A public
sale was made to satisfy a judgment against Artates, which amount was awarded to
Urbi for physical injuries. Plaintiff spouses alleged that said sale violated the
provision of the Public Land Law exempting said property from execution from any
debt contracted within the five-year period from the date of the issuance of the
patent.
Issue: WON the execution sale is valid.
Ruling: The execution sale is null and void. As thus prescribed by law, for a period of
five years from the date of the government grant, lands acquired by free or
homestead patent shall not only be incapable of being encumbered or alienated in
favour of the government itself or any of its institutions or of duly constituted
banking corporations, but also, they shall not be liable to the satisfaction of any
debt contracted within the said period, whether or not the indebtedness shall
mature during or after the prohibited time. This provision is mandatory and a sale
made in violation thereof is null and void and produces no effect.
Though it may be a limitation on the right of ownership of the grantee, the salutary
purpose of the provision is to preserve and keep for the homesteader or his family
the land given to him gratuitously by the State, so that being a property owner, he
may become and remain a contented and useful member of the society.
#

Concrete Aggregates vs. CTA Facts: Concrete Aggregates Inc. is a domestic

corporation which processes rock aggregates mined by it from private lands and
produce ready-mixed concrete and plant-mixed hot asphalt. Upon the investigation
conducted by the CTA, the peitioner is liable to pay taxes which the latter disputes.
Petitioner contends that it is a contractor subject only to the 3% contractor's tax
under Section 191 of the 1968 National Internal Revenue Code and not a
manufacturer subject to the 7% sales tax under Section 186 of the same Code.
Issue: WON the petitioner is a contractor or a manufacturer.
Ruling: Concrete Aggregates Inc. is a manufacturer. Petitioner's raw materials are
processed under a prescribed formula and thereby changed by means of machinery
into a finished product, altering their quality, transforming them into marketable
state or preparing them for any of the specific uses of industry. A contract to make
is a contract of sale if the article is already substantially in existence at the time of
the order and merely requires some alteration, modification or adaptation to the
buyer's wishes or purposes. A contract for the sale of an article which the vendor in
the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general
market, whether the same is on hand at the time or not is a contract for the sale of
goods.
CONTRACTOR one who undertakes to do a specific job or piece of work for other
persons, using his own means and methods TRUE TEST: renders service in the
form of independent occupation, representing the will of his employer only as to the
result of his work
#

Peoples Homesite and Housing Corp. vs. CTA Facts: The PHHC board of directors
passed Resolution No. 513 awarding to Spouses Mendoza the Consolidation
Subdivision Plan on Lot 4 subject to the approval of the Quezon City Council. The
city council disapproved the said proposed plan. However approval was made by
the said council upon submission of a revised plan reducing the land area. Later on,
PHHC board of directors passed another resolution withdrawing the tentative award
to the Mendoza -spouses who never paid the price of the lot nor made the 20%
initial deposit. The spouses contend that there was a perfected sale of Lot 4 thus
they can enforce against the PHHC an action for specific performance.
Issue: WON there was a perfected contract of sale.
Ruling: There was no perfected contract of sale of Lot 4. It was conditionally or
contingently awarded to the Mendozas subject to the approval by the city council of
the proposed consolidation subdivision plan and the approval of the award by the
valuation committee and higher authorities. When the plan with the area of Lot 4
reduced to 2,608.7 square meters was approved, the Mendozas should have
manifested in writing their acceptance of the award for the purchase of Lot 4 just to
show that they were still interested in its purchase although the area was reduced
and to obviate ally doubt on the matter. They did not do so. The PHHC board of
directors acted within its rights in withdrawing the tentative award. We cannot say
there was a meeting of minds on the purchase of Lot 4.
#
Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs. CA Facts: Philippine Remnants Co., Inc. constituted
BPI as its trustee to manage, administer, and sell its real estate property. BPI gave
Revilla the formal authority, to sell the lot for P1,000.00 per square meter. Revilla
contacted Limketkai Sons Milling who agreed to buy the land. There were
negotiatons on the price and the term of payment between BPI and the Limketkai
until agreement has been reached. BPI later on refused the payment tendered by
the petitioner and sold the property to NBS instead.
Issue: WON there was a meeting of mind between Limketkai and BPI.
Ruling: There was a perfected contract of sale between Limketkai and BPI. The
negotiation or preparation stage started with the authority given by Philippine
Remnants to BPI to sell the lot, followed by (a) the authority given by BPI and
confirmed by Philippine Remnants to broker Revilla to sell the property, (b) the offer
to sell to Limketkai, (c) the inspection of the property and finally (d) the negotiations
with Aromin and Albano at the BPI offices. The perfection of the contract took place
when Aromin and Albano, acting for BPI, agreed to sell and Alfonso Lim with Albino
Limketkai, acting for petitioner Limketkai, agreed to buy the disputed lot at
P1,000.00 per square meter. Aside from this there was the earlier agreement
between petitioner and the authorized broker. There was a concurrence of offer and
acceptance, on the object, and on the cause thereof. Consent is manifested by the
meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to
constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. So
long as it is clear that the meaning of the acceptance is positively and unequivocally
to accept the offer, whether such request is granted or not, a contract is formed.
#
Southern Motors vs. Moscoso Facts: On June 6, 1957, plaintiff-appellee Southern
Motors, Inc. sold to defendant-appellant Angel Moscoso one Chevrolet truck, on
installment basis, for P6,445.00. Upon making a down payment, the defendant

executed a promissory note for the sum of P4,915.00, representing the unpaid
balance of the purchase price), to secure the payment of which, a chattel mortgage
was constituted on the truck in favor of the plaintif.
Of said account of P4,915.00, the defendant had paid a total of P550.00, of which
P110.00 was applied to the interest up to August 15, 1957, and P400.00 to the
principal, thus leaving an unpaid balance of P4,475.00. The defendant failed to pay
3 installments on the balance of the purchase price.
On November 4, 1957, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, to
recover the unpaid balance of the promissory note. Upon plaintiff's petition,
embodied in the complaint, a writ of attachment was issued by the lower court on
the properties Of the defendant.
Pursuant thereto, the said Chevrolet truck, and a house and lot belonging to
defendant, were attached by the Sheriff of San Jose, Antique, where defendant was
residing on November 25, 1957, and said truck was brought to the plaintiff's
compound in Iloilo City, for safe keeping.
Issue: WON the remedy chosen by appellee is the foreclosure of the truck or a
specific performance of the defendants obligation.
Ruling: Manifestly, the appellee had chosen the first remedy (specific performance).
The complaint is an ordinary civil action for recovery of the remaining unpaid
balance due on the promissory note. The plaintiff had not adopted the procedure or
methods outlined by Sec. 14 of the Chattel Mortgage Law but those prescribed for
ordinary civil actions, under the Rules of Court.
Had appellee elected the foreclosure, it would not have instituted this case in court;
it would not have caused the chattel to be attached under Rule 59, and had it sold
at public auction, in the manner prescribed by Rule 39. That the herein appellee did
not intend to foreclose the mortgage truck, is further evinced by the fact that it had
also attached the house and lot of the appellant at San Jose, Antique.
As the plaintiff has chosen to exact the fulfillment of the defendant's obligation, the
former may enforce execution of the judgment rendered in its favor on the personal
and real property of the latter not exempt from execution sufficient to satisfy the
judgment. That part of the judgment against the properties of the defendant except
the mortgaged truck and discharging the writ of attachment on his other properties
is erroneous.
We perceive nothing unlawful or irregular in appellee's act of attaching the
mortgaged truck itself. Since herein appellee has chosen to exact the fulfillment of
the appellant's obligation, it may enforce execution of the judgment that may be
favorably rendered hereon, on all personal and real properties of the latter not
exempt from execution sufficient to satisfy such judgment. It should be noted that a
house and lot at San Jose, Antique were also attached. No one can successfully
contest that the attachment was merely an incident to an ordinary civil action.
(Sections 1 & 11, Rule 59; Sec. 16, Rule 39).
The mortgage creditor may recover judgment on the mortgage debt and cause an
execution on the mortgaged property and may cause an attachment to be issued
and levied on such property, upon beginning his civil action.
#

HEIRS OF JUAN SAN ANDRES (VICTOR S. ZIGA) and SALVACION S. TRIA, petitioners,
vs. VICENTE RODRIGUEZ, respondent. G.R. No. 135634May 31, 2000 Facts: Juan
andres was the owner of the lot situated in liboton, naga city. The sale was
evidenced by a deed of sale. Upon the death of juan andres, ramon san andres was
appointed as administrator of the estate, and hired geodetic engineer. Jose panero
prepared a consolidated plan of the estate and also prepared a sketch plan of the
lot sold to respondent. It was found out that respondent had enlarged the area
which he purchased from juan. The administrator sent a letter to the respoindent to
vacate the said portion in which the latter refused to do. Respondent alleged that
apart from the original lot, which had been sold to him, the latter likewise sold to
him the following day the remaining portion of the lot. He alleged that the payment
for such would be affected in 5 years from the eecution of the formal deed of sale
after a survey is conducted. He also alleged that under the consent of juan, he took
possession of the same and introduced improvements thereon. Respondent
deposited in court the balance of the purchase price amounting to P7,035.00 for the
aforesaid 509-square meter lot. On September 20, 1994, the trial court rendered
judgment in favor of petitioner. It ruled that there was no contract of sale to speak
of for lack of a valid object because there was no sufficient indication to identify the
property subject of the sale, hence, the need to execute a new contract.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on April 21, 1998 rendered a
decision reversing the decision of the trial court. The appellate court held that the
object of the contract was determinable, and that there was a conditional sale with
the balance of the purchase price payable within five years from the execution of
the deed of sale. Issue: whether or not there was a valid sale.
Held: Civil Code provides that By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties
obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing,
and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract
of sale may be absolute or conditional. As thus defined, the essential elements of
sale are the following: Consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer
ownership in exchange for the price; Determinate subject matter; and, Price
certain in money or its equivalent. 12 As shown in the receipt, dated September 29,
1964, the late Juan San Andres received P500.00 from respondent as "advance
payment for the residential lot adjoining his previously paid lot on three sides
excepting on the frontage; the agreed purchase price was P15.00 per square meter;
and the full amount of the purchase price was to be based on the results of a survey
and would be due and payable in five (5) years from the execution of a deed of sale.

Petitioner's contention is without merit. There is no dispute that respondent

purchased a portion of Lot 1914-B-2 consisting of 345 square meters. This portion is
located in the middle of Lot 1914-B-2, which has a total area of 854 square meters,
and is clearly what was referred to in the receipt as the "previously paid lot." Since
the lot subsequently sold to respondent is said to adjoin the "previously paid lot" on
three sides thereof, the subject lot is capable of being determined without the need
of any new contract. The fact that the exact area of these adjoining residential lots
is subject to the result of a survey does not detract from the fact that they are
determinate or determinable. As the Court of Appeals explained: 15 Concomitantly,
the object of the sale is certain and determinate. Under Article 1460 of the New Civil
Code, a thing sold is determinate if at the time the contract is entered into, the
thing is Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil LawPage 1 2A SY 2009-2010 capable
of being determinate without necessity of a new or further agreement between the
parties. Here, this definition finds realization. Thus, all of the essential elements of a
contract of sale are present, i.e., that there was a meeting of the minds between the
parties, by virtue of which the late Juan San Andres undertook to transfer ownership
of and to deliver a determinate thing for a price certain in money.

In Re: Suspension from the Practice of Law in the territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G.
Maquera, 435 SCRA 417,July 30, 2004. Tinga, B.M. 793 FACTS: Atty. Leon G.
MAquera, in a decision rendered by the Superior Court of Guam, was suspended
from the practice of law in Guam for Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil
LawPage 29 2A SY 2009-2010 two years. The decision was based on Maqueras
misconduct, as he acquired his clients property as payment for his legal services,
then sold it and as a consequence obtained an unreasonable high fee for handling
his clients case. Castro, his client, and his creditor was in a civil case where Castros
property, a parcel of land, was a subject. The decision was rendered in against
Castro and ordered the auction sale of the land. It was purchased by the creditor but
Castro retained his right of redemption which was later on assigned to Maquera as
payment for his services. Maquera exercised this right and he was able to obtain the
property. He then sold it to C.S Chang and C.C. Chang which gave him a huge profit.
Thw suspension of Maquere was referred here in the Philippines through the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. However, it concluded that theres no evidence to
establish that he also committed a breach of ethics in the Philippines. ISSUE:
Whether Atty. Maqueras acts constitute grounds for his suspension or disbarment in
the Philippine Jurisdiction. RULING: Atty. Maquera is suspended for one year for the
meantime or until he shall have paid his membership dues, whichever came later.
Paragraph 5 of Article 1491 of the New Civil Code prohibits lawyers acquisition by
assignment of the clients property which is the subject of the litigation handled by
the lawyer. Under Article 1492, the prohibition extends to sales in legal redemption.
Maqueras acts in Guam which resulted in his two-year suspension from the practice
of law in that jurisdiction are also valid grounds for his suspension from the practice
of law in the Philippines. Such acts are violative of lawyers sworn duty to act with
fidelity toward his clients. It is also violative of Canon 17 which states, a lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, NORMA LEUENBERGER and FRANCISCO SOLIVA,

respondents. G.R. No. L-31189March 31, 1987 PARAS, J.: Facts: Norma Leuenberger
inherited the whole of Lot No. 140 from her grandmother, Simeona J. Vda. Sales
Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil LawPage 33 2A SY 2009-2010 de Ditching. In 1952,
she donated a portion of Lot No. 140, about 3 ha., to the municipality for the ground
of a certain high school and had 4 ha. converted into a subdivision. In 1963, she had
the remaining 21 ha. or 208.157 sq. m. relocated by a surveyor upon request of
lessee Ramon Jover who complained of being prohibited by municipal officials from
cultivating the land. It was then that she discovered that the parcel of land, more or
less 4 ha. or 33,747 sq.m. used by Petitioner Municipality of Victorias, as a cemetery
from 1934, is within her property. Norma Leuenberger wrote the Mayor of Victorias
regarding her discovery, demanding payment of past rentals and requesting
delivery of the area allegedly illegally occupied by Municipality of Victorias. When
the Mayor replied that Petitioner bought the land she asked to be shown the papers
concerning the sale but was referred by the Mayor to the municipal treasurer who
refused to show the same. Norma Leuenberger filed a complaint for recovery of
possession of the parcel of land occupied by the municipal cemetery. In its answer,
petitioner Municipality, by way of special defense, alleged ownership of the lot,
subject of the complaint, having bought it from Simeona Jingco Vda. de Ditching
sometime in 1934. The lower court decided in favor of the Municipality. On appeal
Respondent appellate Court set aside the decision of the lower court hence, this
petition for review on certiorari.

Held: It is expressly provided by law that the thing sold shall be understood as
delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee. Where
there is no express provision that title shall not pass until payment of the price, and
the thing gold has been delivered, title passes from the moment the thing sold is
placed in the possession and control of the buyer. Delivery produces its natural
effects in law, the principal and most important of which being the conveyance of
ownership, without prejudice to the right of the vendor to payment of the price.
When the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be
equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the
deed, the contrary does not appear or cannot be clearly inferred. The execution of
the public instrument operates as a formal or symbolic delivery of the property sold
and authorizes the buyer to use the document as proof of ownership. Respondent
Norma Leuenberger admitted that she inherited the land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-34036 from her grandmother, who had already sold the
land to the petitioner in 1934; hence, she merely stepped into the shoes of her
grandmother and she cannot claim a better right than her predecessor-in-interest.
delivery ang issue dito
SPOUSES CAMILO L. SABIO, and MA. MARLENE A. LEDONIO-SABIO, petitioners, vs.
THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK, INC. (now UNION BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES), GOLDENROD, INC., PAL EMPLOYEES SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION, INC., AYALA CORPORATION, LAS PINAS VENTURES, INC., FILIPINAS
LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY(now AYALA LIFE ASSURANCE, INC.), AYALA PROPERTY
VENTURES CORPORATION, and AYALA LAND, INC., respondents. G.R. No.
132709.September 4, 2001. Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil LawPage 34 2A
SY 2009-2010 YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Facts: The object of the controversy is a
portion of a vast tract of land located at Tindig na Manga, Almanza, Las Pinas City.
The spouses Gerardo and Emma Ledonio, assigned to the spouses Camilo and Ma.
Marlene Sabio (herein petitioners) all their rights, interests, title and participation
over a contiguous portion of the subject property measuring 119,429 square
meters. Similarly, while the subject property was still the object of several pending
cases, the International Corporate Bank, Inc. (or Interbank) acquired from the TransResource Management and Development Corporation all of the latters rights to the
subject property by virtue of a deed of assignment executed between them.
Sometime thereafter, the Sabios and Interbank settled their opposing claims by
entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (or MOA) whereby the Sabios assigned,
conveyed and transferred all their rights over the parcel assigned to them to
Interbank, with the express exception of of 58,000 square meter contiguous portion
of said lot. Thereafter, a dispute arose concerning the 58,000 square meter
contiguous portion subject of the MOA, petitioners claiming that respondent
Interbank was obligated to complete and perfect its ownership and title to the
parcels of land so that Interbank could transfer to petitioners the absolute
ownership and title over the contiguous portion. Issue: Whether or not respondents
failed to complete and perfect ownership and title to the subject property since it
was never in actual occupation, possession, control and enjoyment of said property.
Whether or not symbolic delivery by mere execution of the deed of conveyance is
sufficient since actual possession, control and enjoyment is a main attribute to
ownership. Held: Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code, when the sale is made
through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the
delivery of the object of the contract , if from the deed the contrary does not appear
or cannot be inferred. Possession is

also transferred, along with ownership thereof, to the petitioners by virtue of the
deed of conveyance. Petitioners contention that respondents never acquired
ownership over the subject property since the latter was never in possession of the
subject property nor was the property ever delivered is totally without merit. The
mere execution of the deed of conveyance in a public document is equivalent to the
delivery of the property. Since the execution of the deed of conveyance is deemed
equivalent to delivery, prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required.
The deed operates as a formal or symbolic delivery of the property sold and
authorizes the buyer or transferee to use the document as proof of ownership.
Nothing more is required.

Dizon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122544302 SCRA 288 Clearly, there is no
valid sale in this case. Jose did not have the right to transfer ownership of the
entire property to petitioner since 2/3 thereof belonged to his sisters.
Petitioner could not have given her consent to the contract, being a minor at
the time. Consent of the contracting parties is among the essential requisites
of a contract, including one of sale, absent which there can be no valid
contract. Moreover, petitioner admittedly did not pay any centavo for the
property, which makes the sale void. Article 1471 of the Civil Sales Case
Digests UST Faculty of Civil LawPage 12 2A SY 2009-2010 FIRST DIVISION

Ponente: Martinez, J Facts: On 1974, Private respondent Overland Express

Lines, Inc (lessee) entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with
petitioners (lessors) involving a land situated at Quezon City for one (1) year.
During that period the respondent was granted an option to purchase the
land. 1976, for failure of lessee to pay the rentals the petitioners filed an
action for ejectment. The City Court rendered judgment ordering lessee to
vacate the leased premises and to pay the rentals in arrears and damages
with interests. Lessee filed a petition enjoining the enforcement of said
judgment and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. Such petition was
denied. Thereafter, lessee filed for an action for specific performance to
compel the execution of a deed of sale pursuant to the option to purchase
and the receipt of the partial consideration given to Alice Dizon and for the
fixing of period to pay the balance. Respondent Court of Appeals rendered a
decision upholding the jurisdiction of City Court and concluding that there
was a perfected contract of sale between the parties due to the said partial
payment. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied by the
respondent Court
Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale?
There was no perfected contract of sale between the parties. In herein case, the
lessee gave the money to Alice Dizon in an attempt to resurrect the lapsed
option.The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with an agent is
put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. Here,
there was no showing that petitioners consented to the act of Alice Dizon nor
authorized her to act on their behalf with regard to her transaction with the lessee.
Therefore, one of the essential elements for a contract of sale to be perfected is
lacking: consent.

Tanedo vs. CA Facts: Lazaro Tanedo executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of his
eldest brother, Ricardo Tanedo and the latters wife where he conveyed his future

inheritance from his parents. Later, Ricardo discovered that the land in litigation
was sold to Lazaros children through another deed of sale which was recorded in
the Register of Deeds; the heirs of Lazaro wanted to have the rescission of the
deeds in favor of Ricardo.
Issue: WON the second sale and the act of registration are valid.
Ruling: Yes. In addition, applying 1544 of the NCC, the petitioners (heirs of Lazaro)
also have a better right over the land, because under the said provision, ownership
shall belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it first it in the Registry of
Property.

Radiowealth Finance Company vs. Palileo Facts: Spouses Castro sold a parcel of
unregistered land evidenced in a notarized deed of absolute sale to Palileo. Palielo
through his mother performed acts of ownership; appellee on the other hand
continuously paid the real estate taxes on said land. A judgment in a civil case
against Castro resulted to a sale of the land at a public auction and Radiowealth
bought it. The period of redemption expired and the sale was later registered.
Issue: WON the rule in 1544 of the NCC is applicable to the UNREGISTERED LAND.
Held: No. Apply Sec. 35, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court instead. The Court
explained that the purchaser of an unregistered land in a sheriffs execution sale
only steps in the shoes of the judgment debtor.

G.R. No. 170405 February 2, 2010 RAYMUNDO S. DE LEON, Petitioner, vs. BENITA T.
ONG. Respondent. Facts: On March 10, 1993, Raymundo S. De Leon (petitioner) sold

3 parcels of land to Benita T. Ong(respondent). The said properties were mortgaged

to a financial institution; Real Savings & Loan Association Inc. (RSLAI). The parties
then executed a notarized deed of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage. As
indicated in the deed of mortgage, the parties stipulated that the petitioner (de
Leon) shall execute a deed of assumption of mortgage in favor of Ong
(respondent)after full payment of the P415,000. They also agreed that the
respondent (Ong) shall assume the mortgage. The respondent then subsequently
gave petitioner P415,000 as partial payment. On the other hand, de Leon handed
the keys to Ong and de Leon wrote a letter to inform RSLAI that the mortgage will
be assumed by Ong. Thereafter, the respondent took repairs and made
improvements in the properties. Subsequently, respondent learned that the same
properties were sold to a certain Viloria after March 10, 1993 and changed the locks,
rendering the keys given to her useless. Respondent proceeded to RSLAI but she
was informed that the mortgage has been fully paid and that the titles have been
given to the said person. Respondent then filed a complaint for specific performance
and declaration of nullity of the second sale and damages. The petitioner contended
that respondent does not have a cause of action against him because the sale was
subject to a condition which requires the approval of RSLAI of the mortgage.
Petitioner reiterated that they only entered into a contract to sell. The RTC
dismissed the case. On appeal, the CA upheld the sale to respondent and nullified
the sale to Viloria. Petitioner moved for reconsideration to the SC.
Issue: Whether the parties entered into a contract of sale or a contract to sell?
Held: In a contract of sale, the seller conveys ownership of the property to the buyer
upon the perfection of the contract. The non-payment of the price is a negative
resolutory condition. Contract to sell is subject to a positive suspensive condition.
The buyer does not acquire ownership of the property until he fully pays the
purchase price.In the present case, the deed executed by the parties did not show
that the owner intends to reserve ownership of the properties. The terms and
conditions affected only the manner of payment and not the immediate transfer of
ownership. It was clear that the owner intended a sale because he unqualifiedly
delivered and transferred ownership of the properties to the respondent