Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

As mentioned, the elements of a price are: Bagnas et al.

filed a case against respondents


1. Price must be real, not simulated. seeking annulment of the deeds of sale as fictitious,
2. It must be in money or its equivalent fraudulent or falsified, or alternatively, as donations void
3. It must be certain or ascertainable at the perfection. for want of acceptance embodied in a public instrument.
4. Manner of payment: which must be agreed upon. In answer to the complaint, the respondents denied the
alleged fictitious or fraudulent character of the sales in
1. Price must be real: their favor, asserting that the said sales were made for
good and valuable consideration.
Article 1471. If the price is simulated, the sale is
void, but the act may be shown to have been in ISSUE: W/N the said consideration is valid.
reality a donation, or some other act or contract.
HELD:
The Court ruled that the deeds of sale are void
Do take note, however, of the 2 kinds of simulation. and are of no force and effect.
Absolutely simulated and relatively simulated contracts.
Upon the consideration alone that the apparent
When the price if considered false, we have to gross, not to say enormous, disproportion between the
distinguish it if whether it is false because the real price stipulated price (in each deed) of P l.00 plus unspecified
is not expressed in the contract, then the parties will and unquantified services and the undisputably valuable
nevertheless be bound by their true agreement, but when real estate allegedly sold worth at least P10,500.00 going
you say it is false because there is no meeting of the only by assessments for tax purposes which, it is well-
minds as to the price or consideration, then there is no known, are notoriously low indicators of actual value
valid contract at all. plainly and unquestionably demonstrates that they state a
false and fictitious consideration, and no other true and
Non-payment of price does not affect validity of lawful cause having been shown, the Court finds both
contract. You have to distinguish between absence of said deeds, insofar as they purport to be sales, not merely
consideration from failure of consideration. When you voidable, but void ab initio.
say absence of consideration,
no valid contract of sale. Failure of consideration or non- The transfers in question being void, it follows
payment of price, goes not into perfection but the as a necessary consequence that the properties
consummation of the contract of sale. purportedly conveyed remained part of the estate of
Hilario Mateum, said transfers notwithstanding,
Now the second element for a valid price is that it must recoverable by his intestate heirs, the petitioners herein,
be in money or its equivalent. In the case of Inchausti, whose status as such is not challenged.
the word sum signifies an amount or figure in terms of
money that must be paid as a result of the sales Even if the contract of sale would be shown as
transaction. So, equivalent to the thing sold. Its very a donation (apparently, this was the intent of the donor),
clear under Article 1458 that the price must be in money failure to conform to the requirements would not make it
or its equivalent. a valid donation.

What happened in the case of Bagnas? There is no Contract of Sale for lack of
consideration. Likewise, there is also no valid deed of
ISAAC BAGNAS ET AL. vs. CA donation for failure to conform to the requirements of
G.R. No. L-38498, August 10, 1989 donation.

FACTS: ----
Hilario Mateum died without a will and was
survived only by collateral relatives. Bagnas et al., the Q: Do we have a consideration?
petitioners, were his nearest kin. The respondents A: Yes
Retonil et al. on the other hand were relatives to a farther Q: Was that a valid consideration?
extent. A: The SC said no, maam.
Retonil et al. claims ownership of 10 parcels of Q: Isnt it that P1 and services rendered would be
land from the estate of Hilarion which they contend were considered as money and its equivalent as provided in
sold by Hilario through two deeds of sale where the 1458?
consideration for the lands was one (1.00) Peso and
services rendered, being rendered and to be rendered.
A: Court considered it as indeterminable and so could However, on November 19, 1980, Imelda Ong revoked
not be considered as valid consideration. Services were the aforesaid Quitclaim and donated the property to her
also not considered as equivalent in money. son Rex.

So what do we have here? The consideration written in Subsequently, Sandra Maruzzo on June 20, 1983,
the contract is P1.00 and services rendered. And what is through here guardian ad litem Alfredo Ong, filed with
the ruling of the Supreme Court? the RTC an action for the recovery of
ownership/possession and nullification of the Deed of
xxx. The Deeds of Sale are VOID or have no force Donation in favor of Rex.
or effect. Upon the consideration alone that the
apparent gross, not to say enormous, disproportion Petitioners claimed that the Quitclaim Deed is null and
between the stipulated price (in each deed) of P void inasmuch as it is equivalent to a Deed of Donation,
1.00 plus unspecified and unquantified services acceptance of which by the donee is necessary to give it
and the undisputably valuable real estate allegedly validity. Further, it is averred that the donee, Sandra
sold worth at least P10,500.00 going only by Maruzzo, being a minor, had no legal personality and
assessments for tax purposes which, it is well- therefore incapable of accepting the donation.
known, are notoriously low indicators of actual
value plainly and unquestionably demonstrates The trial court ruled in favor of Maruzzo and held that
that they state a false and fictitious the Quitclaim Deed is equivalent to a Deed of Sale and,
consideration, and no other true and lawful cause hence, there was a valid conveyance in favor of the
having been shown, the Court finds both said latter.
deeds, insofar as they purport to be sales, not
merely voidable, but void ab initio. xxx Appealing to the IAC, petitioners additionally contends
that the One (1.00) Peso consideration is not a
There was an indication that the consideration evidence consideration at all to sustain the ruling that the
presented was simulated, false and fictitious. Moreover Quitclaim Deed is equivalent to a sale. The IAC
the SC held here that the services were not treated as an however affirmed the TC.
equivalent of monetary value.
ISSUE: W/N the quitclaim is equivalent to a deed of
What do we mean by mere nominal price? There was no sale or to a deed of donation
intention of the parties to pay any indicated valuable
consideration. Non-performance of service will not HELD:
affect validity since service is not equivalent to money. The Quitclaim Deed is equivalent to a deed of sale. A
careful perusal of the subject deed reveals that the
Q: Was is the consideration for the case of Ong? conveyance of the one- half () undivided portion of the
A:The consideration is also 1 peso and other valuable above-described property was for and in consideration of
considerations. the One (P 1.00) Peso and the other valuable
Q: Was it a valid consideration for the sale? considerations (emphasis supplied) paid by private
Q: Yes maam, the SC said it is a valid consideration. respondent Sandra Maruzzo through her representative,
Alfredo Ong, to petitioner Imelda Ong. Stated
So what happened in this case? differently, the cause or consideration is not the One
(P1.00) Peso alone but also the other valuable
2. It must be in money or its equivalent considerations.

MELDA ONG, ET AL. vs ALFREDO ON ET AL. Although the cause is not stated in the contract it is
G.R. No. L-67888, October 8, 1985 presumed that it is existing

FACTS: xx
On February 25, 1976, Imelda Ong for and in Nisingit si Atty. Sarona
consideration of One (1.00) Peso and other valuable Q: SO that refers to what kind of presumption?
considerations, executed in favor of Sandra Maruzzo, A: Disputable presumption.
then a minor, a Quitclaim Deed whereby she transferred, Q: How can it be disputed?
released, and assigned all her rights and title over a A: If the debtor proves the contrary. (Article 1354)
parcel of land in Makati. Q: In the case was there proof that such consideration
did not exist?
A: None, maam
xx Now we also have the case of Republic. What happened
in this case?
. unless the debtor proves the contrary (Article 1354
of the Civil Code). One of the disputable presumptions is REPUBLIC vs PRDC and CA
that there is a sufficient cause of the contract. It is a legal G.R. No. L-10141, January 31, 1958
presumption of sufficient cause or consideration
supporting a contract even if such cause is not stated FACTS:
therein (Article 1354, New Civil Code of the The Republic brought an action against Apostol for the
Philippines.) This presumption cannot be overcome by a collection of sums owing to it for his purchase of
simple assertion of lack of consideration especially when Palawan Almaciga and other logs. His total debt
the contract itself states that consideration was given, amounted to some P34,000. PRDC intervened claiming
and the same has been reduced into a public instrument that Apostol, as President of the company, without prior
with all due formalities and solemnities. To overcome authority, took goods (steel sheets, pipes, bars, etc) from
the presumption of consideration the alleged lack of PRDC warehouse and appropriated them to settle his
consideration must be shown by preponderance of personal debts in favor of the government. The Republic
evidence in a proper action. opposed the intervention of PRDC, arguing that price is
always paid in money and that payment in kind is no
The execution of a deed purporting to convey ownership payment at all; hence, money and not the goods of
of a realty is in itself prima facie evidence of the PRDC are under dispute.
existence of a valuable consideration, the party alleging
lack of consideration has the burden of proving such ISSUE: W/N payment in kind is equivalent to price
allegation. paid in money.

Even granting that the Quitclaim deed in question is a HELD:


donation, Article 741 of the Civil Code provides that the Yes. The Government argues that "Price . . . is always
requirement of the acceptance of the donation in favor of paid in terms of money and the supposed payment being
minor by parents of legal representatives applies only to in kind, it is no payment at all, "citing Article 1458 of the
onerous and conditional donations where the donation new Civil Code.
may have to assume certain charges or burdens.
Donation to an incapacitated donee does not need the However, the same Article provides that the purchaser
acceptance by the lawful representative if said donation may pay "a price certain in money or its equivalent,"
does not contain any condition. In simple and pure which means that they meant of the price need not be in
donation, the formal acceptance is not important for the money. Whether the G.I. sheets, black sheets, M. S.
donor requires no right to be protected and the donee Plates, round bars and G. I. pipes claimed by the
neither undertakes to do anything nor assumes any respondent corporation to belong to it and delivered to
obligation. The Quitclaim now in question does not the Bureau of Prison by Macario Apostol in payment of
impose any condition. his account is sufficient payment therefore, is for the
court to pass upon and decide after hearing all the parties
---- in the case. Should the trial court hold that it is as to
credit Apostol with the value or price of the materials
In the case of Bagnas, aside from the fact that the delivered by him, certainly the herein respondent
consideration was 1 peso and other services rendered, corporation would be affected adversely if its claim of
there was really no evidence that the parties really ownership of such sheets, plates, bars and pipes is true.
entered into a contract of sale. Here in Ong, there was no
proof shown that there was no intention and therefore ----
the presumption of existence of a consideration is
applicable. Why is it important to determine whether there is valid
consideration? Here, the argument of the government
Dito, no evidence was shown that the consideration was that the price should always be paid in money and if
stated was not paid or that it was simulated and therefore it is in kind, theres no payment at all. However, Article
it is presumed to exist. 1458 is clear, that consideration can be in money or its
equivalent. So it was important to determine whether
Also recall what we have discussed in Polytechnic. these construction materials were delivered in payment
Again, anong consideration dun? Cancellation of the because whether the G.I. sheets, blacksheets, M. S.
liabilities of the seller to the buyer. Plates, round bars and G. I. pipes claimed by the
respondent corporation to belong to it and delivered to
the Bureau of Prison by Macario Apostol in payment of Where such third person or persons are prevented
his account is sufficient payment therefore, is for the from fixing the price or terms by fault of the seller
court to pass upon and decide after hearing all the or the buyer, the party not in fault may have such
parties in the case. remedies against the party in fault as are allowed
the seller or the buyer, as the case may be.
Should the trial court hold that it is as to credit Apostol
with the value or price of the materials delivered by him,
certainly the herein respondent corporation would be Okay, so you could have here, still a valid contract of
affected adversely if its claim of ownership of such sale even if the price is not certain as long as it is
sheets, plates, bars and pipes is true. ascertainable. Meaning you could have there a reference
to another thing which is certain or when the price is
What falls within the term Equivalent? fixed by a third person.
Pwede sya in kind. So its also possible, so lets say the
seller sells a car for 250K and the buyer gives 100K plus Do take note, that you have there also in 1469 that if the
parcel of land. The land will be considered as a valid third person who determines the price 1.) acts in bad
price. faith; or 2.) acts by mistake, the court may fix the price.

Cancellation of debt, as in the case of Polytechnic, is Notice in 1469, is the only instance where the parties can
also a valid consideration. Even if we say cancellation seek court remedy to fix the price. If you notice the 2 nd
would result to dacion en pago, we still go back to sales, paragraph, we have there the term inefficacious. And
because it is the law of sales that governs dacion en then, however, if the third person was prevented from
pago. fixing the price through the fault of one of the parties,
the party not at fault is permitted to file an action against
And then, If for example, the price would be paid from the party who is at fault as against the seller or buyer as
the profits of a business, that would still be considered as the case may be.
a valid price. if there are no profits from the business,
than that would not affect validity of sale since the profit Now even before the fixing of the price by the
affects the consummation and not the perfection of the designated third party, the contract of sale is already
sale. perfected. If the parties have consented that a third
person may fix the price, the price may not be certain
That is the case of Bagnas, wherein there is no Contract because they will not know yet what is the price which
of Sale. At the very least what you have is Labor, will be determined by the third person. But we know it is
Contract of Services. (I pay that you may do. Do ut a valid consideration because it is ascertainable.
facias)
If the third party is however unable or unwilling to fix
Now another requisite for a valid price that we the price, distinguish it from yung in bad faith or by
mentioned before is that the price must be certain or mistake or an instance where it is prevented by one of
ascertainable at perfection. the parties. The parties cannot seek redress when unable
or unwilling to fix the price since the condition imposed
Its very easy to say whether or not a price is certain or on the contract has not happened. So this is when you
not. When we say its certain, it is in terms of money or have the term inefficacious.
pesos and centavos. But ascertainable, we also have that
as provided under Article 1469. What do you mean by inefficacious? It is the inability to
produce the effect desired by the parties. Now, third
Article 1469. In order that the price may be party prevented by one party, again, you can file an
considered certain, it shall be sufficient that it be so action in court or you could also apply here constructive
with reference to another thing certain, or that the fulfillment under 1186 that you learned already in
determination thereof be left to the judgment of a ObliCon.
special person or persons.
Article 1186. The condition shall be deemed
Should such person or persons be unable or fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its
unwilling to fix it, the contract shall be fulfillment.
inefficacious, unless the parties subsequently agree
upon the price. Now, while 1369 allows a third party to fix the price as
determined or agreed upon by the parties. The third
If the third person or persons acted in bad faith or
by mistake, the courts may fix the price.
person CANNOT determine the subject matter. So so that the property would be cleared of any
distinguish that. encumbrance. Irene gave 10k (5k on 2 occasions). It was
agreed by them that the 10k would form part of the sale
Now, how is price determined to be ascertainable? Of price of 550k.
course under Article 1469:
1. Set by third person Thereafter, Jose went to Irene, bringing with him Mr.
2. by the courts in the case provided Sabio, requesting her to allow Sabio to purchase of the
Also, by the parties. property, to which they consented, so they would just
purchase the other half (265k, having paid the 10k). Dela
Price can be certain by reference to a definite day of Cruz executed in favor of their co-defendants (Guido
particular exchange or market. We have Article and Felicitas Pile) a Deed of Assignment of the other
1472. portion of the land, wherein Gamaliels apartment unit is
situated. This was purportedly as full payment and
Article 1472. The price of securities, grain, liquids, satisfaction of an indebtedness obtained from the Piles.
and other things shall also be considered
certain,when the price fixed is that which the thing TCT was later issued in the name of the Piles.
sold would have on a definite day, or in a particular
exchange or market, or when an amount is fixed Soon, Gamaliel learned about the assignment and
above or below the price on such day, or in such issuance of new TCT. Petitioners elevated their
exchange or market, provided said amount be complaint to the Court (specific performance). They
certain. contend that a contract of sale has been perfected and
that the 10k formed part of the purchase price
If the parties stipulated that the purchase price would be (necessarily then, there must have been an agreement as
for example, a share of stock, the purchase price would to the price). They cite Art 1482: Whenever earnest
be plus 5 pesos based on Makati Stock Exchange, pwede money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be
ganyan. Or price maybe price of such rice in public considered as part of the price and proof of perfection of
market on a specific day as long as such price must be the contract. On the other hand, private respondents
certain. claim that what was agreed upon was that the 10k be
primarily intended as payment for realty tax, and was
Another instance where it ascertainable, by reference to going to for part of the consideration of the sale if the
another thing certain, such as to invoices then in transaction would finally be consummated. They insist
existence and clearly identified by the agreement or that there was no clear agreement as to the true amount
when you have known factors or stipulated formula. of consideration.

Now we have the case of Villanueva. ISSUE: Was there a perfected contract of sale? NO

3. It must be certain or ascertainable at the HELD:


perfection. After a review of the evidence, SC found that there was
no agreement as to the price (based on the testimonies).
VILLANUEVA VS. CA To settle the conflicting claims, petitioners could have
267 SCRA 89 presented the contract of sale. However, it was not
G.R. NO. 107624 presented in evidence. Petitioners aver that even if the
JANUARY 28, 1997 (unsigned) deed was not produced, Jose admitted
preparing said deed in accordance with their agreement.
FACTS:
Petitioner Gamaliel Villanueva has been a tenant- We do not agree with petitioners. Assuming arguendo
occupant of a unit in an apartment building erected on a that such draft deed existed, it does not necessarily
parcel of land owned by private respondents dela Cruz. follow that there was already a definite agreement as to
In 1986, Jose dela Cruz offered said land with the the price. If there was, why then did private respondent
apartment building for sale and petitioners (Gamaliel Jose de la Cruz not sign it? If indeed the draft deed of
and Irene) showed interest in the property. sale was that important to petitioners' cause, they should
have shown some effort to procure it. They could have
As initial step, Jose gave Irene a letter of authority for secured it through a subpoena ducestecum or thru the
her to inspect the property. Since the property was in use of one of the modes of discovery. But petitioners
arrears for payment of realty taxes, Jose approached made no such effort. And even if produced, it would not
Irene and asked for a certain amount to pay for the taxes
have commanded any probative value as it was not
signed. Now how about in the case of Moreno?

The price of the leased land not having been fixed, the MORENO, JR. VS. PRIVATE MANAGEMENT
essential elements which give life to the contract were OFFICE
lacking. It follows that the lessee cannot compel the 507 SCRA 63
lessor to sell the leased land to him. G.R. NO. 159373
NOVEMBER 16, 2006
The price must be certain; it must be real, not fictitious.
It is not necessary that the certainty of the price be actual FACTS:
or determined at the time of executing the contract. The The subject-matter in the civil case is the J. Moreno
fact that the exact amount to be paid therefor is not Building or more specifically, the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and
precisely fixed, is no bar to an action to recover such 6th floors of the building.
compensation, provided the contract, by its terms,
furnishes a basis or measure for ascertaining the amount Moreno is the owner of the Ground Floor, the 7th Floor
agreed upon. The price could be made certain by the and the Penthouse of the J. Moreno Building and the lot
application of known factors. A contract of sale is not on which it stands.
void for uncertainty when the price, though not directly
stated in terms of pesos and centavos, can be made Private Management Office (formerly, Asset
certain by reference to existing invoices identified in the Privatization Trust or APT) on the other hand, is the
agreement. owner of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th floors of the
building, the subject-matter of this suit.
In the instant case, however, what is dramatically clear On February 13, 1993, APT called for a conference for
from the evidence is that there was no meeting of mind the purpose of discussing Morenos right of first refusal
as to the price, expressly or impliedly, directly or over the floors of the building owned by APT. At said
indirectly. meeting, APT informed Moreno that the proposed
purchase price for said floors was P21 Million.
----
In a letter dated February 22, 1993, APT, informed
Q: Wasnt there an agreement that the price was 575K? Moreno that the Board of Trustees (BOT) of APT "is in
A: It was not agreed upon. The other party requested to agreement that Mr. Jose Moreno, Jr. has the right of first
lower it to 550K, which was also not accepted by the refusal" and requested Moreno to deposit 10% of the
other party. "suggested indicative price" of P21 million on or before
Q: How about the fact that there was already payment of February 26, 1993.
10K?
A: There was no agreement that it was a downpayment, Moreno paid the P21 million on February 26, 1993. APT
so there is no meeting of the minds. issued an OR for the said payment.

Again, the price must be certain. It must be real, not But later, APT wrote Moreno that its Legal Department
fictitious although it is not necessary that the certainty of has questioned the basis for the computation of the
the price be actually determined at the time of executing indicative price for the said floors. Thus, on April 2,
the contract. The fact that the exact amount to be paid 1993, APT wrote Moreno that the APT BOT has
therefore is not precisely fixed is not a bar to such action "tentatively agreed on a settlement price of
to recover such compensation. Provided, that the P42,274,702.17" for the said floors.
contract by its terms provides a basis or measure for
ascertaining the amount agreed upon. The price may be RTC ruled in favor of Moreno, declared that there was a
made certain by the application of certain factors. perfected contract of sale and ordered APT to sell the
subject floors at P21M.
However in this case, aside from the fact that there was
no meeting of the minds, 550k or 575K, there was CA reversed, hence the petition.
nothing shown that the price was in reference to another
thing. So here, there was no sale, as there was no price. ISSUE: WON there was a perfected contract of sale
In the instant case, however, what is dramatically clear over the subject floors at the price of 21 Million. NO
from the evidence is that there was no meeting of mind
as to the price, expressly or impliedly, directly or HELD: A contract of sale is perfected at the moment
indirectly. there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the
object of the contract and upon the price. Consent is If Mr. Moreno is in agreement, he should deposit with
manifested by the meeting of the offer and the APT the amount of P2.1 Million equivalent to 10% of
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to the price on or before February 26, 1993. The balance
constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the will be due within fifteen (15) days after Mr. Moreno
acceptance absolute. receives the formal notice of approval of the indicative
price. Xxx
To reach that moment of perfection, the parties must
agree on the same thing in the same sense, so that their Q: Was there a valid consideration here?
minds meet as to all the terms. They must have a distinct A: NO. This did not pass the negotiation stage, hence no
intention common to both and without doubt or perfected Contract of Sale, no consideration.
difference; until all understand alike, there can be no
assent, and therefore no contract. The minds of parties Again, price must be certain. Offer must be certain, and
must meet at every point; nothing can be left open for acceptance must be absolute. Now, I asked. What were
further arrangement the specific words that were written in the letter? 10% of
the suggested indicative price. In other words,
So long as there is any uncertainty or indefiniteness, or suggested pa siya,subject to approval. Dahil yun sa
future negotiations or considerations to be had between kanilang usapan sa negotiation stage. So even if there
the parties, there is not a completed contract, and in fact, was payment of the 10%, it did not result to a perfected
there is no contract at all. contract of sale because it is clear that the offer was not
yet certain at that time.
Once there is concurrence of the offer and acceptance of
the object and cause, the stage of negotiation is finished. What we have here is a suggested indicative price where
This situation does not obtain in the case at bar. The the sale involves the sale of an asset under a
letter of February 22, 1993 and the surrounding privatization scheme which attaches a peculiar meaning
circumstances clearly show that the parties are not past or signification to the term "indicative price." Remember
the stage of negotiation, hence there could not have been the interpretation with regard to terms, as merely
a perfected contract of sale. constituting a ball-park figure then the price is not
certain. So there was a use of interpretation of terms
The letter is clear evidence that APT did not intend to (statcon principle).
sell the subject floors at the price certainofP21M. The
letter clearly states that P21M is merely a "suggested So again, the price suggested pa yun, wala pa yung
indicative price" of the subject floors as it was yet to be approval. It is yet to be approved by the Board of
approved by the BOT. Trustees and therefore the consideration was not certain
and therefore, walang COS.
Before the Board could confirm the suggested indicative
price, the Committee on Privatization must first approve Now take note, or you probably remember this under
the terms of the sale or disposition. It appears in the case Oblicon, the price or consideration can never be set by
at bar that Morenos construction of the letter of one of the parties. Article 1473.
February 22, 1993 that his assent to the "suggested
indicative price" of P21M converted it as the price Article 1473. The fixing of the price can never be
certain, thus giving rise to a perfected contract of sale is left to the discretion of one of the contracting
his own subjective understanding. As such, it is not parties. However, if the price fixed by one of the
shared by APT. parties is accepted by the other, the sale is
perfected.
----

Q: What were the precise words written? Now what is the effect if the price is unascertainable?
A: xxx We are pleased to inform you that the Board is in As provided in Article 1469, the status is inefficacious.
agreement that Mr. Jose Moreno, Jr. has the right of first When we say inefficacious, again it only means the
refusal. This will be confirmed by our Board during the inability to produce the effect desired by the parties. It
next board meeting on February 26, 1993. In the does not mean that the sale is void. Because if it is void,
meantime, please advise Mr. Moreno that the suggested sinabi na sana dyan na it is void. It is inefficacious so
indicative price for APTs five (5) floors of the building meaning it is valid. It is not void because there is an
in question is P21 Million. implied acknowledgment that the existence of the form
allowed by law at the point of perfection has actually
rendered the contract valid but only conditional. The sale
would just not take into effect. So if subsequently the have noticed, when you say reasonable it will always
parties would decide na O sige, kita na lang magsabot depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.
because the third party is unable or unwilling to fix it, it
would still eb a valid contract. With regard to this element, that the price must be
certain or ascertainable, we have Articles 1469 to 1474.
Even if the sale is deemed inefficacious, we still have to It is certain, if it is expressed in terms of specific
consider Article 1474 amounts of money, it can still be considered
ascertainable if it is with reference to another thing
Article 1474. Where the price cannot be determined certain or even when left to the judgment of a specified
in accordance with the preceding articles, or in any persons as agreed by the parties.
other manner, the contract is inefficacious.
However, if the thing or any part thereof has been Also we have Article 1472. Do remember the provisions
delivered to and appropriated by the buyer he must under Obligations and Contracts in relation to
pay a reasonable price therefor. What is a consideration. We have Article 1350, we also have
reasonable price is a question of fact dependent on Article 1351 wherein motive must be distinguished from
the circumstances of each particular case. cause or consideration. When is it unlawful, we have
Article 1352. Article 1353 we have discussed before
when the consideration is false. We have Article 1354
presumption as to consideration and 1355 in case there is
Ok, so again noh, such sale would be considered fraud.
inefficacious, but if there is already appropriation on the
part of the buyer, it is just fair that the buyer pay a 5 minute break!
reasonable price for such subject matter. Again as you

Оценить