Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 17

PRICE AND OTHER CONSIDERATION

MAPALO V MAPALO
Facts: Miguel an d Candia Mapalo were
illiterate farmers and owned a parcel of
land. Maximo Mapalo is to be married;
they donated the eastern half of the
land. Maximo deceived them by making
them sign an instrument donating the
whole lot. Maximo registered the lot and
sold the to Narcisos who took possession
and declared owners of the whole lot.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale.
Held: Consideration was totally absent,
the 5k price was never received, thus the
sale to Narcisos was void ab initio for
want of consideration.
RONGAVILLA V CA
Facts: Dela cruz are the aunts of
Rongavilla and owner of a parcel of land.
Dela Cruz borrowed from Rongavilla 2k
for repair. Later on Rongavilla induced
her aunts to sign a deed of sale.
Issue: W/N there was a valid sale.
Held: NO> the signatures were obtained
through
fraud.
There
was
no
consideration and the consent was not
onlt vitiated but was not given at all. The
deed of sale is void ab initio.
MATE V CA
Facts: Josefina approached Fernando and
deceived him to cede his 3 lots to Tan.
Josefina issued 2 checks. Later on the
checks bounced he sued Tan for
annulment of the sale for lack of
consideration.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale

Held: YES. There was consideration in


the form of the check although he never
received any money a sale is a
consensual contract.
YU BUN GUAN V CA
Facts: ong purchased a parcel f land from
Aurora. She reluctantly agreed to sell the
property and only in the name of Yu Bun
Guan. However when the Deed of
Absolute sale was executed in favor of Yu
Bun Guan he did not pay the
consideration. Yu Bun Guan filed for
petition for replacement of the TCT Ong
executed an affidavit of adverse claim.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale
Held: NO. the deed of sale was
completely simulated and thus void
without
effect.
Being
merely
a
subterfuge, that agreement cannot be
taken as a consideration for the sale.
ONG VS ONG
Facts: Ong transferred through a deed of
quitclaim her rights over a portion of a
pacel of land to Sandra. Later on it was
revoked and donated to her son Rex.
Sandra, sought to recover ownership and
possession.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale.
Held: YES. There was consideration. ts
apparent inadequacy is of no moment
since the usual practice in deeds of
conveyance is to place a nominal amount
although
there
is
more
valuable
consideration given. Consideration is
presumed to exist. He who alleges
otherwise assumes the burden of proof.
The one peso was not the consideration,
but
rather
the
other
valuable
considerations.

BAGNAS V CA
Facts: Hilario died without will and was
survived only by collateral relatives.
Bagnas were the nearest kin Retonil were
relatives but farther extent. They claimed
ownership over 10 lots. Bagnas claimed
that such were fictitious and Retonil
claimed to have done many things to
Hilario.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale
Held: NO. if no consideration it is void
and even collateral heirs may assail the
contract. price must be in money or
equivalent,
services
are
not
the
equivalent of money.
REPUBLIC V PHIL RESOURCES DEV
CORP
Facts: republic sought an action against
Apostol for the collection of sums owing
to his purchase of Palawan Almaciga and
other logs. PRDC intervened claiming
that Apostol took goods to settle his
personal debts. Republic opposed and
said price is always paid in money and
that payment in kind is no payment at
all.
Issue: W/N payment in kind is equivalent
to price in money
Held: YES. Price may be paid in money
or its equivalent in this case the goods.
PRDC has a substantial interest in the
case and must be permitted to intervene.

from Planters. A portion of the lot was


sold to Gathcalian. Navarra filed for
specific performance.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale.
Held: NO. Although there is a down
payment it was no clear how the
installment should be made. This cannot
lead to the conclusion that a contract of
sale was perfected. Before a valid and
binding sale can exist the manner of
payment must be establish. In the case
at bar no such thing was indicated or
agreed upon.
FORMATION OF CONTRACT OF SALE
MANILA METAL CONTAINER CORP VS
PNB
Facts: to secure a loan obtained from
PNB Manila Metal executed a real estate
mortgage. PNB sought to foreclosed the
property and PNB was the highest bidder.
Manila Metal requested an extension of
time to redeem and repurchase property.
Manila was allowed to repurchase
however PNB rejected it. Manila Metal
filed for annulment of foreclosure or
specific performance contending there
was a valid contract of sale.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale
Held: NO. There was no perfected
contract of sale between PNB and Manila
Metal because there was no agreement
as to the price certain.

NAVARRA V PLANTERS DEV BANK


CARCELLER V CA
Facts: Navarra owned 5 parcels of land
and obtained a loan from Planters bank
secured by a mortgage. They defaulted
thus
planter
bank
foreclosed
the
property. RRRC dev corp is owned by the
parents of Navarra and obtained a loan

Facts: Carceller leased 2 parcel of land


owned by State investment houses for 18
months. Under the leased agreement
Carceller has the exclusive right and
option purchase. Carceller was only

informed 3 weeks before the termination


of the lease SIHI offered it to him but it
was also offered to the public. Carceller
sued SIHI for specific performance to
compel SIHI to execute a deed of sale in
his favor.
Issue: W/N Carceller may still exercise
the option to purchase.
Held: YES. Even if Carceller failed to
purchase the property within the said
period still equity must intervene.
Carceller should thus be allowed to but
the lots.
TAYAG V LACSON
Facts: Lacson were the owners. Tiamzon
were the farmer-tenants. The tenants
executed a deed of assignment in favor
of Tayag subject to the conditions that
lacson would agree to sell the same and
there are no more legal impediments.
Issue: W/N the assignment was in the
form of an option contract.

Held: NO. the option contract is


supported by a consideration that being
the difference of the agreed price and the
market price of the other half of the land
which was sold to Villamor. Thus it is
valid and may be enforced by the
Villamor.
SANCHEZ V RIGOS
Facts: Sanchez and Rigos executed an
Option to purchase where Rigos agreed,
promised and committed to sell to
Sanchez a parcel of land. Despite
demands Rigos refused to sell the same.
Rigos alleged that the contract was a
unilateral promise to sell, which is not
supported by any consideration.
Issue: W/N there was a valid option
contract
Held: NO. Sanchez cannot compel Rigos
to comply with the promise unless the
former can establish that the promise
was for a consideration. There was no
valid option contract in this case.

Held: No. the deed of assignment were


not option contracts, which may be
enforced by Tayag. Not being the legal
owners of the property the tenants had
no right to confer upon Tayag the option
more so the exclusive right to buy the
property.

VASQUEZ V CA

VILLAMOR V CA

Issue: W/N there was a valid contract

Facts: Villamors purchased from Macari


a1/2 of the latters land for a higher price
and then executed a deed of option
stating that Villamor will have the
exclisuve right to purchase the land.
Macaria sought to repurchase the land
but Villamor refused.

Held: NO. it is apparent that the right to


repurchase was not supported by any
consideration. Thus, the doctrine of
Sanchez v Rigos apply. Vallejera must be
shown that he accepted the right ot
repurchase. No such acceptance was
made.

Issue: W/N the option contract is void for


lack of consideration.

Facts: Vallejara sought to recover from


Vasques a lot which was sold to him.
Along with the deed of sale the parties
also executed a right of repurchase.
Vasques resisted the redemption.

NIETES V CA

EQUATORIAL REALTY
MAYFAIR THEATER

Facts: Nietes leased from Dr. Garcia the


Angeles Educational Institute it contained
an option to buy the land and school
within the period of the leased. Nietes
paid Garcia certain sums in excess of the
rent and acknowledge it as partial
payment. Garcia informed Nietes that he
will rescind the contract. Nietes replied
tthat he will exercise his option to buy
but Garcia refuse.
Issue: W/N actual payment is need
before one may exercise the option to
buy
Held: NO. There is nothing in the
contract that required Nietes to pay the
full price before he could exercise the
option. The exercise of the option need
not be coupled with actual payment so
long as such payment is made upon the
fulfillment of the owners undertaking to
deliver the property.
ANG YU ASUNCION V CA
Facts: Unijeng owned certain residential
and commercial spaces leased by Ang
Yu. They offered to sell the same to Ang
Uy. They failed to arrive at any definite
agreement. When Ang Yu discovered that
they were planning to sell the property
he sued them for specific performance.
Issue: W/N there
contract of sale

was

perfected

Held: NO. There was no perfected


contract of sale since there was no
meeting of the mind. Thus, there is no
ground for specific performance. An
Option Contract of a Right of First Refusal
is separate and distinct from the actual
contract of sale which is the basis for
specific performance.

DEV

INC

Facts: Mayfair was leasing a portion of


the property with Carmelo. Under the
agreement if Carmelo should decide to
sell the property Mayfair shall be given
30 days exclusive option to purchase.
Carmelo was informed Mayfair that he is
selling the property and Ayala offered to
purchase. Mayfair replied his intention to
exercise its right to repurchase. Carmelo
sold the property to Equatorial Realty.
Issue: W/N the right to repurchase is an
option contract and void for lack of
consideration.
Held: NO. The clause in the lease
agreement was not an option contract
but a right of first refusal. It did not
contain a stipulation as to the price. he
requirement of separate consideration
does not apply to a right of 1st refusal
because consideration is already an
integral part of the lease. Carmelo
violated such right by not affording
Mayfair a fair chance to negotiate. It
abandoned the negotiations arbitrarily.
PARANAQUE
INC V CA

KINGS

ENTERPRISES

Facts: Catalina owned 8 parcels of land


leased to Chua who assigned its rights to
Lee Ching Bing who in turn assigned his
rights to Paranaque King. Under the
lease agreement in case of sale the
lessee shall have the option to buy.
Catalina sold the lot to Raymundo.
Paranaque notified her for the breach
and she then offered to them the
property for 15M.
Issue: W/N there was compliance with
the Right of First refusal assigned to
Paranaque King

Held: NO. in a right of first refusal, the


seller cannot offer the property to
another for a lower price or under temrs
more favorable. It must be the same
otherwise the right of first refusal
becomes illusory.
VASQUEZ V AYALA CORP
Facts: Ayala Corp entered into a MOA
with Dr Vasquez buying the latter shares
with Conduit Development. Under the
MOA Ayala agreed to give Vasquez a first
option to purchase the adjacent lots to
the retained area at the prevailing
market value. Vasquez comes forward
invoking Par 5.15 claiming that it was
valid option contract and Ayala should
sell to him the property.
Issue: W/N there was a valid option
given to Vasquez
Held: No. Par 5.15 was not an option
contract but a right of first refusal. It was
predicated upon Ayalas decision to sell
the said property. The price was also not
specified. It was also not supported by
any independent consideration. By twice
refusing to accept Ayalas offers, Vasquez
lost his right to repurchase.
RIVERA FILIPINA V CA
Facts: Reyes executed a 10 year contract
of lease with Rivera Filipina over a parcel
of land in EDSA. Under such contract the
lessee is given a right of first refusal
should the lessor decide to sell the
property during the terms of the lease.
The property was subject of a mortgage
executed by Reyes in favor of Prudential
Bank. Reyes failed to pay the loan it
foreclosed the mortgage. Reyes sold the
property to Riviera Filipina no agreement
was settled. Reyes and Traballo agreed to
buy the same but did not transpire.
Cypress and Cornhill trading redeem the
property. Deed of sale was executed to

them. Riviera Fipilina filed a suit for


violation of its right of first refusal
Issue: W/N Riviera Filipina lost its right
of first refusal
Held: YES. As clearly shown by the
records and transcripts of the case, the
actions of the parties to the contract of
lease, Reyes and Riviera, shaped their
understanding and interpretation of the
lease provision "right of first refusal" to
mean simply that should the lessor Reyes
decide to sell the leased property during
the term of the lease, such sale should
first be offered to the lessee Riviera. And
that is what exactly ensued between
Reyes
and
Riviera,
a
series
of
negotiations on the price per square
meter of the subject property with
neither party, especially Riviera, unwilling
to budge from his offer, as evidenced by
the exchange of letters between the two
contenders.
MACION V GUINI
Facts: Macion and Dela Vida institute
entered into a contract to sell, of 2 pacel
of land. Dela Vida took possession of it
and built edifice. The sale did not
materialized. Macion filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against Dela Vida,
while Dela Vida countered with a
complaint for reformation of the contract
to sell.
Issue: W/N it was proper to execute a
contract to sell
Held: YES. Although the compromise
agreement does not give Dela Vida the
right to demand from Macion the
execution of the contract to sell in its
favor. It cannot be denied that the
compromise agreement, having been
signed by both parties, is tantamount to
a bilateral promise to buy and sell a
certain thing for a price certain. Hence,

this gives the contracting parties rights


in personam, such that each has the
right to demand from the other the
fulfillment
of
their
respective
undertakings. Demandability may be
exercised at any time after the execution
of the Deed.
VILLONCO V BORMAHECO
Facts: Cervantes owned parcel of land
and buildings. Beside their property were
lots by Villonco Realty. Cenvantes
entered into several negotiations with
Villoco for sale of the Buendia property
made written offer with down payment to
serve as earnest money. Villonco made a
counter offer stating that the earnest
money was to earn 10% interest.
Cervantes accepted and cashed the
check. Cervantes however, sent back the
check stating that he is no longer
interested in selling the property.
Issue: W/N there
contract of sale.

was

perfected

Held: YES. There was a perfected


contract of sale. Cervantes assented to
the interest and he, in fact, paid the
same. Also, earnest money constitutes
prood of the perfection of the contract of
sale and forms part of the consideration.
The condition regarding the acquisition of
the Sta. Ana property was likewise
fulfilled; there is thus no ground for the
refusal of Cervantes to consummate the
sale.
OESMER V PARAISO DEV CORP
Facts: Oesmer meet up with Lee for
brokering the sale of the property to
Paraiso Dev. A conract to sell was entred.
A check was given as option money. 4
siblings signed, 2 refuses to sign.
Oesmers informed Paraiso that it is
rescinding the Contract to sell and
returning the option money.

Issue: W/N the Contract to sell is valid to


all signatories.
Held: NO. It is true that the signatures of
the 5 siblings did not confer authority on
Ernesto as agent to sell their respective
shares in the properties, because such
authority to sell an immovable is
required to be in writing. However, those
signatures signify their act of directly
(not through an agent) selling their
personal shares to Paraiso Dev. Corp. In
the case at bar, the Contract to Sell was
perfected when the petitioners consented
to the sale to the respondent of their
shares in the subject parcels of land by
affixing their signatures on the said
contract. Such signatures show their
acceptance of what has been stipulated
in the Contract to Sell and such
acceptance
was
made
known
to
respondent
corporation
when
the
duplicate copy of the Contract to Sell was
returned to the latter bearing petitioners
signatures.
FULE V CA
Facts: Fule, acquired a property under
the name of Fr Antonio Jacobe who
mortgaged it to Rural Bank of Alaminos
to secure a loan. Fule asked to look for a
buyer. They found Cruz who owns a pair
of diamond earrings. Fule, wants to buy
the earrings but Cruz refused. Fule
executed a deed of redemption on behalf
of Fr Jacobe. Deed of sale of the earrings
was also executed when delivered Fule
claimed it was fake. Fule sued and asked
the contract of sale of the property in
Tanay be declared null and void.
Issue: W/N the deed of sale is valid.
Held: YES. It is evident that there was a
meeting of the mind as such they are
bound by the contract unless there are
reasons or circumstances that warrants

its nullification. The nature and value of


the thing he had taken preclude its
return after that supervening period
within which anything could have
happened, not excluding the alteration of
the jewelry or its being switched with an
inferior kind.
DAILON V CA
Facts:
Sabesaje
sues
to
recover
ownership of a parcel of land based on a
private document of absolute sale
executed by Dailon. Dailon denies the
fact of the sale alleging that the same
being embodied in a private instrument,
the same cannot convey title under Art.
1358 of the Civil Code which requires
that contracts which have for their object
the creation, transmission, modification,
or extinction of real rights over
immovable property must appear in a
public instrument.
ISSUE: W/N there was a valid/perfected
contract of sale
HELD: YES. The necessity of a public
instrument is only for conveniencenot
for validity and enforceability. Such is not
a requirement for the validity of a
contract of sale, which is perfected by
mere consent. Dailon should thus be
compelled to execute the corresponding
deed of conveyance in a public
instrument in favor of Sabesaje. If the
sale is made through a public instrument,
it amounts to constructive delivery.
SECUYA V VDA DE SELMA
Facts: Caballero owned certain friar land.
She entered into an agreement of
partition of the property I favor of
Sabellona. Sabellona took possession
and sold a portion to Dalmacio Secuya
through a document already lost. Secuya
took possession. Selma bought a portion
of the said land including the area of

Secuya claiming she brought it from


Caballero.
Issue: Who has a better right?
Held: Selma has all the documents to
support her claim; she was in good faith.
The Secuyas have nothing to support
their claim of ownership. They did not
even pay taxes.
YUVIENGCO V DACUYCUY
Yuvienco entered into a contract with Yao
King Ong wherein the former will sell the
Sotto property provided that the latter
made known their decision to buy or not.
Yao King Ong found variance between
the terms of the payment stipulated thus
unsigned gave rise to action for specific
performance.
Issue: W/N the claim is enforceable
Held: YES. In any sale of real property
on installments, the Statute of Frauds
read together with the perfection
requirements of Article 1475 of the Civil
Code must be understood and applied in
the sense that the idea of payment on
installments must be in the requisite of a
note
or
memorandum
therein
contemplated. While such note or
memorandum need not be in one single
document or writing and it can be in just
sufficiently implicit tenor, imperatively
the separate notes must, when put
together', contain all the requisites of a
perfected contract of sale. T o put it the
other way under the Statute of Frauds,
the
contents
of
the
note
or
memorandum, whether in one writing or
in separate ones merely indicative for an
adequate understanding of all the
essential
elements
of
the
entire
agreement, may be said to be the
contract itself, except as to the form.

LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING VS CA


Facts: BPI is the trustee of Remnants Co.
Revilla Jr was give formal authority by
BPI to sell the lot he contacted Alfonso
Lim who agreed to buy the land. Lim
asked for payment on terms. Bank said
yes however it is under a stipulation that
if the term be disapprove that price shall
be paid in cash. Lim found out the terms
of payment has been frozen. The
payment was refuse by Albano since he
no longer authority over the property.
Lim
filed
an
action
for
specific
performance.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale.
Held: YES. There was a meeting the
minds in respect to price, payment
method. he perfection of the contract
took place when Aromin and Albano,
acting for BPI, agreed to sell and Alfonso
Lim with Albino Limketkai, acting for
LSM, agreed to buy the disputed lot at
P1,000/sqm. Aside from this there was
the earlier agreement between LSM and
the authorized broker. There was a
concurrence of offer and acceptance on
the object and on the cause.
ORTEGA V LEONARDO
Facts: Ortega occupied a parcel of land.
After liberation the government assigned
the lot to Rural progress admin. She
asserted he rights thereto but was
disputed by Leonardo. They agreed to
compromise if Ortega shall desist from
pressing her claim and Leonardo upon
getting the lot would sell to her a portion
thereof. Ortega thus desisted form the
claim paid for the surveying and
preparation of plan. When Leoanrdo
acquired title he refuses to sell the
portion.
Issue: W/N the contract is unenforceable

Held: NO. The contract is enforceable


because there was partial performance.
Ortega made substantial improvements
on the lot, desisted from her claim,
continued possession, and paid for the
surveying, and also paid the rentals. All
these put together amount to partial
performance, which takes the verbal
agreement out of the operation of the
Statue of Frauds.
ALFREDO V BORRAS
Facts: Godofredo & Carmen mortgaged
their land to DBP. To pay the debt they
sold the land to Armando & Amelia.
Carmen issued a receipt for the sale and
delivered the original title and introduced
the tenants. They later on possessed the
land and found out that Godofredo and
Carmen sold the lot to another.
Issue: W/N the contract
unenforceable under the
Frauds.

of sale is
Statute of

Held: NO. The Statute of Frauds is


applicable only to executory contracts,
not those that have already been
partially or completely consummated. In
this case, the sale of the land to
Armando & Adelia had already been
consummated. The ownership of the land
was also transferred to Armando & Adelia
when they were introduced to the
Natanawans and took possession thereof.
Therefore, when Godofredo & Carmen
sold the land to other buyers, it was no
longer theirs to sell.
CLAUDEL V CA
Facts: Claudel acquired a lot from Bureau
of Lands. He occupied and declared it in
his name. after his death his heirs and
siblings contested easch other claiming
ownership. His heirs was in possession of
the property. They partitioned it and

registered it. The siblings filed for


cancellation of titles and reconveyance.
Issue: W/N there was a valid
between Cecilio and his siblings

sale

Held: NO. As a rule, a sale of land is valid


regardless of the form it may have been
entered into. However, in the event that
a 3rd party disputes the ownership, there
is no such proof in support of the
ownership. As such, it cannot prejudice
3rd personssuch as the heirs in this
case. Also, the heirs had a right to rely
upon their Torrens titles, which, as
opposed to the subdivision plans, are
definitely more credible.
TOYOTA SHAW V CA
Facts: Sosa wanted to buy a Toyota lite
ace. He met with Benardo a sales rep.
Sosa explained that he needed the lite
ace by June 17, Bernardo guaranteed
that same and executed a document
where down payment was stipulated and
the lite ace will be available at the given
date. On the date the lite ac was
unavailable. According to Toyota BA
finance
did
not
approve
Sosas
application. Toyota returned the down
payment. Sosa sued.
Issue. W/N there
contract of sale.

was

perfected

Held: NO. Toyota should not be held


liable for damages since there was no
perfected contract of sale. There was no
agreement as to the price and the
manner of payment, which are essential
to the perfection of the sale.
CONSUMMATION/PERFECTION
CONTRACT
SANTOS V SANTOS

OF

Facts: Jesus and Rosalia owned a lot with


4 door apartment. They sold the property
to their children Salvador and Rosa.
Rosalia remained in possession and
control despite the sale. Salvador died,
Zenaida claiming to be the heir
demanded rent from the tenants. Other
children of Jesus and Rosalia filed for
reconveyance.
Issue: W/N the sale To Salvador was
fictitious
Held: YES. The sale through a public
instrument is equivalent to delivery of
the things sold the delivery can be
rebutted by clear and convincing
evidence.
The
vendors
continuous
possession made the sale dubious.
Salvador never took possession of the
property thus there was no real transfer
of ownership.
DY JR V CA
Facts: Wilfredo purchased a truck and
tractor both of which were mortgaged to
Libra Financing. Perfecto wanted to
purchase the tractor and convinced his
sister and executed a public document to
evidence it. Libra acceded to the sale if
upon the issuance and encashment the
chattel can be released. In a case against
Wilfredo filed by Gelac Trading, the
sheriff levied and sold the tractor.
Issue: W/N Wilfredo as mortgagor can
sell the tractor subject of a mortgage
Held: YES. Wilfredo had every right to
sell the property subject to mortgage.
There was a constructive delivery already
upon the execution of the public
instrument even if the tractor could not
yet be delivered.
ADDISON V. FELIX

Facts: Addison sold to Felix parcel of


land. Down payment was made the final
installment shall be paid after the
issuance of the title. Addison sued Felix
to pay the last installment but Felix
refused and sought to rescind the
contract.
Issue: W/N there was delivery
Held: NO. While it is true that execution
of a public instrument is tantamount to
delivery of the thing sold, in order for
such symbolic delivery to have the effect
of tradition, the vendor should have had
control over the thing and at the moment
of the sale, its delivery could have been
made. In this case, the ownership was
disputed by the Villafuertes, who were in
possession of the land.
DANGUILAN V IAC
Facts: Domingo owned 2 lots and
donated
it
to
Danguilan
for
a
consideration that he will take care of
him. Domingo.s daughter, Apolonia laid
claim to the land presenting a public
document in favor of her.
Issue: Who has a better right?
Held: DANGUILAN. The donation in favor
of Danguilan was valid. The deed of sale
presented by Apolinia was suspicious
even assuming it was valid the
presumptive delivery is overcome by the
fact that she failed to take possession.
Ownership is not transferred by mere
stipulation but by actual and adverse
possession.
PASAGUI V VILLABLANCA
Facts: Pasagui purchased a parcel of land
from Bocar. They failed to take
possession because Villablancas illegaly
took possession. Pasagui filed a case for
ejectment.

Issue: W/N this is a case for forcible


entry
Held: NO. The case was not for forcible
entry because there was no allegation
that Pasagui was in prior physical
possession of the land and that the
Villablancas, through force, stealth, or
threat, deprived them thereof. While the
sale was made through a public
document is equivalent to delivery, this
presumption only holds true if there is no
impediment to the possession of the
purchaser.
POWER
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL CORP V CA

AND

Facts: Power entered into a contract of


sale with Quiambao. Deed of absolute
sale with assumption of mortgage was
executed. Power filed to settle the
mortgage debt thus it could not
undertake the proper action to evict the
lessees on the lot. Power wants to
rescind the contract.
Issue: W/N there was delivery
Held: YES. Power was well aware of the
presence of the tenants and Power was
given control over the said lot and it
endeavored to terminate the occupants.
Control cannot be equated with actual
possession.
CHUA V CA
Facts: Choy is the owner of a property
and agreed to sell it to Chua. They
agreed on the price and earnest money.
Choy executed 2 deed of absolute sale.
Chua issued a check for the payment of
the tax and showed another check to
Choy but demanded that he should first
transfer the TCT to his name. Choy
compromise but Chua filed for specific
performance.

Issue: W/N the agreement was


contract of sale or contract to sell.

Issue: W/N the ownership is transferred


to the buyer

Held: CONTRACT TO SELL. The earnest


money is forfeited upon agreement and
the
absence
of
formal
deed
of
conveyance of the property the buyer
shows that there was no intention to
transfer ownership. Art 1482 speaks of
earnest money as evidence of a
perfected contract of sale however in the
case it was paid as part of the
consideration of a contract to sell
therefore Art 1482 cannot apply.

Held: No. The term FOB and CIF means


that the costs of delivery are for the
seller this means that it is the sellers
duty to make sure that the goods are
duly delivered ownership has not yet
transferred.

VIVE EAGLE LAND INC V CA


Facts: Flroes sold 2 land to Tatic square.
Tatic applied for loan with Capital to
finance the purchase. Tatic sold the land
to Vive Eagle although the torrens title
were in the custody of Capital Rural
Bank. Vive sold one parcel to Genuino
and a deed of assignment was executed
in favor of Genuino. Genuine demanded
Vevi to pay the capital tax however Vevi
refuse. Genuino filed for action for
specific performance.
Issue: W/N Vive is obliged to pay for the
expenses.
Held: YES. Under Art 1487 the vendor
should shoulder the expenses for the
registration of the sale unless there is a
stipulation of the parties relating to the
expenses.
BHEN MEYER CO V YANGCO
Facts: Yangco ordered 80 drums of
caustic soda from Bhen & Meyer. The
instrument evidencing the agreement
made use of the term FOB and CIF. The
goods were detained byt the British
authority. Bhen & Meyer alleges that
Yangco has already acquired ownership
of the goods. Yanco alleges that it was
not Carabao Brand and refuse to accept.

GEBERAL FOODS V NACOCO


Facts: Nacoco sold to General foods 1500
tons of long copra. In the Phil when the
net cargo arrived Nacoco then withdrew
95% of the amount in the letter of credit.
In NY the net cargo was weigh it was
short. NGeneral foods demanded the
refund. Nacoco however abolished and
went into liquidation. The Board refuse to
pay General Foods and alleged that the
quoted CIF it contemplated the payment
of the price according to weigh. Nacoco
alleges that the contract is an ordinary
CIF which means that the delivery to the
carrier is delivery to the buyer.
Issue: W/N the balance is based on the
weight and quality of the goods.
Held: Under an ordinary CIF agreement
delivery to the buyer is complete upon
delivery of the goods to the carrier. In
the case the, it was specifically stated as
to the price weight of the goods. Noacoco
has the burden to prove that the
shortage was due to risks of voyage and
not the natural drying up copra. Though
this letter of acknowledgement should
not be construed as an admission of
liability of NACOCO, it is nevertheless
competent
evidence
of
NACOCOs
intention to be bound by the net landed
weight or outturn weight of the copra at
the port of discharge.
PACIFIC
SINGZON

VEGETABLE

CORP

Facts: Pet and respondent entered into a


contract in the US whereby singzon
agreed to ship 500 tons of copra.
Singzon failed to deliver but the parties
entered into settlement. Singzon failed
again and did not pay the fine. Pacific
sued to recover.

Facts: Comayas offered to sell to Lumo a


house and lot. The property was already
registered and discovered that it was
mortgage and release of the adverse
claim it turned out that the lot was
already sold to Naawan Community. The
bank foreclosed the property.

Issue: W/N Pacific can sue.

Issue: Who has a better right?

Held: Pacific had personality to sue.


Pacific did not transact business in the
Phils. It clearly appears that the copra
was actually sold by Singzon in the US-it
was entered into the US by Singzons
broker who was in California. Not
only was the K entered into the US, it
was agreed to be consummated there.
Therefore, Pacific Oil has not transacted
business in the Phils, as such, it is not
required to obtain a license before it
could have personality to bring a court
action.

Held: LUMO spouses. Where a person


claims to have superior property rights
by virtue of a sheriffs sale, the benefit of
Art. 1544 applies favorably only if the
property is registered under the Torrens
Systemnot under Act 3344.
NAVAL V CA
Facts: Naval sold a parcel of land to
Gregorio. He also sold portions to Balilla,
Camalia and Moya who took possession.
Junita a great grand daughter of
Ildefonso claimed the land.

RUDOLF LIETZ INC V CA


Issue: W/N Juanita has a better right
Facts: Buriol entered into a lease
contract with Flaviano & Tiziana Turatello
and Sani for 25 years after payment of
the down payment Sani and Turatello
took possession of the land. Buriol sold
the land to Lietz but found out that Buriol
only owned 4 hectare and 1 hectare was
covered by the lease. Lietz instituted a
complaint for the annulment of the lease.
Issue: W/N the sale between Buriol and
Lietz is a lump sum or unit price sale
Held: LUMP SUM SALE. The deed shows
that the parties agreed on the purchase
price. In accordance with Art 1542 there
shall be no reduction in the purchase
price even if the area delivred to Lietz is
less that the stated in the contract.
NAAWAN COMMUNITY RURAL BANK
INC V. CA

Held: NO. Art 1544 it is not applicable


because the land was unregistered under
the torrens system at the time of the 1 st
sale. The applicable law is Act 3344.
Under said law, registration by the 1st
buyer is constructive notice to the 2nd
buyerand as such, the latter cannot be
deemed to be in good faith
CARILLO V CA
Facts: Gonzales purchased from Priscilla
the latters land for failure to execute the
Deed of Sale she fled a case for specific
performance and impleaded Pricilia. An
order was rendered against her and
issuend a new Cert of Title in favor of the
Gonzales. Dadons surfaced and sought to
annul the judgment.
Issue: Who has a better right?

Held: DABON. The decision of the lower


court in favor of Gonzales was void due
to extrinsic fraud. It must be noted that
the property was sold to Gonzales in
1988, while the same was sold to the
Dabons in 1989; nonetheless, the
requirements of double-sale are twofold: acquisition in good faith and
registration in good faith. Based on the
foregoing, the case is remanded to the
lower court for further proceeding.
CARBONELL V CA
Facts: Poncio owned a parcel of land and
offered to sell to Carbonell and Infante.
The land was mortgaged to Republic
Bank. CArbonell paid the mortgage and
executed an instrument to allow Pncio to
remain in the land however Poncio told
Carbonell that he could no longer
proceed since he sold the land for a
better price to Infante.
Issue: Who has a better right
Held: CARBONELL. In order to claim the
benefit of Art. 1544, the buyer of realty
must register the property in good faith.
It is a pre-condition to a superior title. In
this case, Infante was not in good faith,
thus the prior sale to Carbonell must
prevail.
SAN LORENZO DEV CORP V CA
Facts: Lu owned 2 lands which the sold
to
Babasanta.
He
demanded
the
execution of final deed of sale so he can
pay the purchase price however Lu
declined claimed that he requested for a
discount and refused, he rescinded the
agreement. Babasanta filed a case. San
Lorenzo Dev Corp intervened claiming
the lot was sold to them by deed of
absolute sale with mortgage. Both sale
were not registered.
Issue: Who has a better title

Held: SLDC. There was no double sale in


the case because the contract in favor of
Babasanta was mere contract to sell
hence Art 1544 is not applicable. There
was neither actual nor constructive
delivery as his title is based on a mere
receipt. Based on this alone, the right of
SLDC must be preferred.
MENDOZA V KALAW
Facts: CAnet sold to Kalaw a land under
conditional sale. After 2 months CAnet
sold to Mendoza the same land. Mendoza
took possession and sought to registered
but Kalaw opposed.
Issue: Who has a better right?
Held: CANET. While a conditional sale
came before the absolute sale, still the
latter must prevail. A conditional sale,
before the happening of the condition, is
hardly a sale especially if the condition
has yet to be complied with.
ADALIN V CA
Facts: Kado entered into an agreement
with Yu and Lim to buy the land under a
condition that the 5th will be bought by
Adalin. Elana was obliged to evict the
tenants before full payment. Elena
offered the same sale to the tenants but
refused since they cannot afford thus she
filed a clam for ejectment.
Issue: Who has a better title?
Held: YU AND LIM. While it is true that
the Deed was for Conditional Sale,
examination of the contents thereof
would show that it was one for the actual
sale. During the meeting, the property
was already sold; the only conditions
were that Elena would evict the lessees
before the full payment of the price. The
choice of to whom to sell the property
had already been decided. That being the

case, since the sale in favor of Yu and


Lim was the prior sale, it must be
preferred.

ESTATE OF
ONGJOCO

LINO

OLANGUER

Facts:
CHENG V GENATO
Facts: Genato owned 2 parcels of land
and entered into a contract to sell with
Da Jose. They asked for extension for the
payment, unknown to them, Genato
dealt with Cheng and aedicied to rescind
the contract. Cheng executed an affidavit
and sued for specific performance.
Issue: Who has a better title
Held: DA JOSE. Both agreements involve
a contract to sell, which makes Art. 1544
inapplicable since neither a transfer of
ownership nor a sales transaction took
place.

When Lino died, Olivia became the


administrator and Eduardo as co admin.
Olivia got married to Olaguer. Olivia and
Eduardo sold 12 parcels to Pastor Bacani.
A day later it was sold back to them. She
made a SPA in favor of Jose. The lot was
later on subdivided. With the SPA Jose
sold the 6 parcels toVirgilio Olaguer and
further sold the lots to Ongjoco.
Issue: W/N Ongjoco was a buyer in good
faith

Facts: Madrid brothers a land which was


subdivided. Rizal Madrid sold his share to
Gamaio and Dayag the other brother
object. The sale was not registered under
torrens system. Gamaio and Dayag sold
the land to Hernandez. The brothers all
sold their shares to Marquez and
registered the land and mortgaged to
Consolidated Bank. For failure to pay the
property was foreclosed.

Held: With respect to Lots 1 and 2, he


cannot be considered a buyer in good
faith since there was no proof that the
sale on both lots was evidenced by a
written power of attorney. With respect
to Lots 76-D to 76-G, there was a
notarized general power of attorney to
show evidence that authority had been
given by Virgilio to his father to dispose
the subject lots. Since petitioners was
not able to show any proof that the lots
being sold twice to respondent show bad
faith, good faith must be presumed.
Being notarized, the regularity of such
general power of attorney must also be
presumed.

Issue: Who has a better title

ABRIGO V DE VERA

CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK INC V


CA

Held: The successors in interest of


Gamiao and Dayag. Art 1544 does not
apply because the sale was not done by
the single vendor. The simple rule on
priority in time, priority in right would
apply. As such, the successors-in-interest
of Gamiao and Dayag would have a
better right as the sale in their favor
came ahead of time.

Facts: Villafania sold to Rosenda and


Rosita a house and lot. Unknown to
them, Villafania obtained a free patent
over the land and sold it to De Vera.
Rosenda and Rosita sold the property to
Abrigo.
Issue: Who has a better title?
Held: DE VERA. Abrigo registered the
property under Act 3344 while De Vera

registered the same under the Torrens


system.
De
Veras
right
prevails.
Registration must be done in the poroper
registry to bind the land. De Vera acted
in good faith.

nephew Leonardo Acabal. It was later


sold to Leonardo and Ramon Nicolas
hence a complaint was filed by Villaner
against them and his nephew.
Issue: W/N there was a valid sale.

DAGUPAN TRADING CO V MACAM


Facts: Maron and 7 brothers were co
owners
which
they
applied
fro
registration. Pending the proceedings,
they sold the same to Macam who made
improvements on the land. The property
was levied and sold to Dagupan Trading.
Issue: Who has a better right?
Held: MACAM. The sale in favor of
MAcam was executed before the land
was registered while the sale in favor of
Dagupan was made after registration.
Considering that at the time of the levy,
Maron was no longer the owner of the
land, then no title can thereafter pass in
favor of Dagupan. Macams title is thus
sustained.
CARUMBA V CA
Facts: Canuto sold a parcel of land to
Carumba the sale was never registered.
Therefore, Canuto was sued for collection
of money and the land was levied upon
and sold to Balbuena.
Issue: Who has a better right?

Held: YES. It is valid only as 5/9 of the


land is concerned. This is so because the
property in question was bought during
the pendency of the marriage of Villaner
therefore it is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership.
SALE BY NON OWNER/ BY ONE
HAAVING VOIDABLE TITLE; LIFE OF
A CONTRACT OF SALE
PAULMITAN V CA
Facts: Agatona died leaving 2 sons
Pasucal and Donato. Pascual died leaving
7 heirs. Title remained in the name of
Agatona and it was never partitioned.
Donato
executed
an
affidavit
of
declaration
of
heirship
unilaterally
adjudicating one of the lots to himself.
He then sold the entire lot to his
daughter for failure to pay the lot was
foreclosed. Heirs of Pascual sought to
partition the property.
Issue: W/N Juliana became the owner of
the entire lot

Held: CARUMBA. Art 1544 does not apply


instead the ROC are applicable. Balbuena
the later vendee merely steps into the
shoes of the judgment debtor and
acquires all the rights and interests by
the time Canuto no longer owned the
land.

Held: NO. The moment of Agatonas


death, her heirs, Pascual and Donato,
became co-owners of the undivided lot.
When Donato died, his pro-indiviso share
transferred to his heirs. That being the
case, when Donato sold the entire
property to his daughter, he was merely
co-owner thereof and transferred only his
undivided share.

ACABAL V ACABAL

MINDANAO V YAP

Facts: Acabal sold their lot to their son


Villaner who transferred it to his godson

Facts: Rosenda and Sotero were co


owners of 3 lands which they sold to Yap

without consnt of the other co owners.


Mindanao Academy and the other owners
assailed the validity of the sale. Yap
contends that Erlinda a co owner does
not have the standing to challenge the
sale.

Held: NO. A dealer buys to sell again.


Thus it is not a dealer. The Manila office
only processed the orders and payments,
it did not keep goods therein or act as a
dealer or intermediary between the field
office and the customers. Thus, it is not
liable for the said taxes.

Issue: W/N the sale is null and void


SUN BROS & CO V VELASCO
Held: YES. GR is that of a co owner
alienates the entire property without
consent the sale will affect only his share
should rule does not apply if the property
cannot be partitioned.
BUCTON V GABAR
Facts: Josefina bought a land from
Vilalrin by verbal agreement. Josefina
sold it to Nicanora and paid 1k then she
loaned to Josefina and took possession of
the land and built a house. Vilalrin then
issued a deed of sale to Josefina but the
later refused to execute. Josefina claimed
that the amount paid were in the concept
of loan. Nicanor sued for specific
performance.
Issue: W/N there was a sale
Held: YES. Assuming that at the time
when Josefina sold the lot to Nicanora,
she was not yet the owner thereof. When
Villarin executed the Deed of Sale in her
favor, title passed to Nicanora by
operation of law.
CITY OF MANILA B BUGSUK LUMBER
Facts: City Treasurer assessed Bugsuk
for license fees and mayors permit
alleging that Bugsuk sold at wholesale
and retail to different lumber. Bugsuk
refuse to pay alleging that the lumber
were delivered directly and paid Timber
license.
Issue: W/N Bugsuk is liable for additional
taxes

Facts: Sun sold an Admiral Ref to Lopez


upon the agreement that ownership will
only pass upon payment of the full price.
Lopez only paid down payment and sold
the same to JV Trading. It was then sold
to Co Kang Chiu. Sun sought to recover
Issue: W/N Sun brothers may recover
Held: NO. It is true that where a person
who is not the owner of a thing sells the
same, the buyer acquires no better title
than the seller has. In this case. Lopez
obviously had no title to the goods for
having failed to pay the full price. It only
follows that JV Trading had no title
thereto as Velasco was not in good faith.
He should have inquired if Lopez had
good title to itthe same not being
engaged in the business of selling
appliances.
TAGATAC V JIMENEZ
Facts: Tagatac bought a car abroad and
brought it to Phil Warner FEist deceived
her into believing he was rich. Levy
issued a postdated check which was
dishonored. Feist disappeared with the
car but able to register the car and sold
it to Sanchez who then sold it to
Jimenez. Tagatac sought to recover the
car.
Issue: W/N Jimenez may refuse to give
the car back.
Held: YES. Jimenez was a buyer in good
faith and he had no knowledge of any

defect in the title of the seller. The sale


between Feist and Tagatac was merely
voidablevalid until annulled. There was
a valid transmission of ownership.
EDCA PUBLISHING V SANTOS
Facts: EDCA sold books to Tomas dela
Pena
who
fraudulently
represented
himself as a dean of DSLU. EDCA
delivered him the books the check Tomas
issued was dishonored. Tomas sold the
books to Santos. EDCA stormed Santos
bookstore and retrieve the books.

of Cruz and convert it to a deed of sale.


He then registered it to his name ans
sold it to Bulahan who in turn sold it to
Pahati. The car was impounded and the
sale to Pahati was canceled. Bulahan
contends that the person who made
possible the injury must bear the loss.
Issue: W/N Cruz may recover
Held: YES. Both acted in good faith.
Since Cruz was unlawfully deprived by
Belizo he is entitled to recover the same
even against subsequent buyer in good
faith.

Issue: W/N EDCA may retrieve the books


DIZON V SUNTAY
Held: NO. Ownership passed to Tomas
upon the delivery. None payment only
warrants
rescission.
Possession
of
movable property in good faith is
equivalent to title.
AZNAR V YAPDIANGCO
Facts: Teodoro transacted with Marella to
buyhis car agreeing to pay only upon
registration of the car in his name it was
registered but since Marella didnt pay it
was not yet delivered to him. He pleaded
with Ireneo to talk to Marella, together
with De Dios who was able to induce
Ireneo to give the registration and
escaped with the car.
Issue: W/N Teodoro may recover the car
Held: YES. He was unlawfully deprived of
the car. There was no valid delivery to
Marella hence no title. Delivery must be
coupled with intent. Teodoro has the
right to claim from the thief but also to
3rd person who acquired in good.
CRUZ V PAHATI
Facts: Cruz delivered his car Belizo for
the latter to sell. Belizo forged the letter

Facts: Suntay owned 3 carat diamond


ring and entered into a contract with
Clarita Sison wherein the ring would be
sold on commission. Lourdes demanded
the return of the ring but the later refuse
and found out that she pawned the ring,
and was pledge to Melia Sison a niece of
Clarita. Lourdes filed for estafa and
asked Dominador Dizon for the return of
the ring but refused to give.
Issue: W/N Lourdes can possess the ring.
Held: NO. Lourdes, being unlawfully
deprived of her ring thus she has a right
to recover it from the current possessor.
Dizon is engaged in a business where
presumably ordinary prudence would
require him to inquire whether or not an
individual who is offering the jewelry by
pledge is entitled to do so. The principle
of estoppel cannot help him at all. Since
there was no precaution availed of,
perhaps because of the difficulty of
resisting opportunity for profit, he only
has himself to blame and should be the
last to complain if the right of the true
owner of the jewelry should be
recognized.