Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Q1: Who is entitled to the house and lot? ANSWER: The Filipina is
not a co-owner of the house and lot because she will not be able to
prove that she made actual contributions in its acquisition in the form
of money, property or industry. The foreigner is the exclusive owner
of the house but not the lot because of the prohibition in the
Constitution. Instead, the lot can be confiscated by the State thru
escheat proceedings.
1) Requisites
2) Example
3) Exception to principle of relativity of
contracts
Option vs. RFR
1) Distinction
2) Rules in Option
3) Rules in RFR
ART. 1484: Sale of personal property thru
installments (ESB v. Palces) (Perlas)
Palces purchased a vehicle a motor vehicle from
Hyundai through a loan granted by ESB. The loan is
payable in 36 equal monthly installments and secured by
a chattel mortgage vehicle over the same motor vehicle.
When Palces defaulted in the payment of the loan, ESB
filed a complaint for replevin with alternative prayer for
sum of money and damages. Thereafter, the sheriff seized
the vehicle pursuant to a writ of replevin. The RTC ruled
in favor of ESB. On appeal, the CA modified the
judgment by requiring ESB to return the sum of
P103,000 to Palces and by deleting the award of
attorneys fees. The CA explained that by choosing to
recover the subject vehicle, ESB waived its right to
recover the unpaid installments pursuant to Article 1484
of the Civil Code. Is the CA correct? Is Art. 1484(3)
applicable?
ART. 1484: Sale of personal property thru
installments (ESB v. Palces) (Perlas)
ANSWER: CA not correct. Art. 1484(3) not
applicable because there is no vendor-vendee
relationship between ESB and Palces, because the
latter never bought the subject vehicle from
the former but from a third party. Instead, the
latter merely sought financing from the former for
its full purchase price. Hence, what was entered into
between the parties is a loan contract with the
accessory chattel mortgage contract --- and not a
contract of sale of personal property in installments.
Hence, Article 1484 is not applicable. Thus, the rights
of the parties shall be governed by the Chattel
Mortgage contract.
MACEDA LAW (RA 6552): AMOSUP
PTGWO-ITF v. Decena (Perlas)
AMOSUP entered into a contract under its
Shelter Program with one of its members,
Decena, allowing the latter to take possession
of a house and lot in Dasma, Cavite, with the
obligation to reimburse AMOSUP the cost
thereof in the amount of US$28,563 payable in
180 equal monthly payment. Contract provides
that upon completion of the payment
AMOSUP shall execute a Deed of
Transfer and shall cause issuance of TCT in
favor of Decena.
MACEDA LAW (RA 6552): AMOSUP
PTGWO-ITF v. Decena (Perlas)
Contract also provides that in case Decena fails to
remit 3 monthly reimbursement payments, he shall
be give a 3-month grace period, otherwise the
contract is automatically cancelled or revoked
without need of demand or judicial action. From
1995 up to July 1999, Decena had been remitting
payments but from August 1999 up to August 2001
Decena failed to remit 25 monthly installments.
Hence, AMOSUP cancelled the contract and treated
all his payments as rentals for his occupancy of the
premises. When Decena refused to vacate, AMOSUP
commenced an ejectment case against Decena.
MACEDA LAW (RA 6552): AMOSUP
PTGWO-ITF v. Decena (Perlas)
Q1: Is the Contract between the parties lease or
contract to sell?