Law on Sales Digested Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

HEIRS OF JUAN SAN ANDRES (VICTOR S.ZIGA) and SALVACION S. TRIA, petitioners, vs. VICENTE RODRIGUEZ, respondent.G. No. 135634 May 31, 2000Facts: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 andre...

Description

HEIRS OF JUAN SAN ANDRES (VICTOR S. ZIGA) and SALVACION S. TRIA, petitioners, vs. VICENTE RODRIGUEZ, respondent. G.R. No. 135634

May 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. Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil Law 2A SY 2009-2010

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 conditional.

may

be absolute or

As thus defined, the essential elements of sale are the following: a) Consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; b) Determinate subject matter; and, c) 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 Page 1

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. As Art. 1475 of the Civil Code provides: The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. . . .That the contract of sale is perfected was confirmed by the former administrator of the estates, Ramon San Andres, who wrote a letter to respondent on March 30, 1966 asking for P300.00 as partial payment for the subject lot. As the Court of Appeals observed: Without any doubt, the receipt profoundly speaks of a meeting of the mind between San Andres and Rodriguez for the sale. Evidently, this is a perfected contract of sale on a deferred payment of the purchase price. All the prerequisite elements for a valid purchase transaction are present. There is a need, however, to clarify what the Court of Appeals said is a conditional contract of sale. Apparently, the appellate court considered as a "condition" the stipulation of the parties that the full consideration, based on a survey of the lot, would be due and payable within five (5) years from the execution of a formal deed of sale. It is evident from the stipulations in the receipt that the vendor Juan San Andres sold the residential lot in question to respondent and undertook to transfer the ownership thereof to respondent without any qualification, reservation or condition.

parties is absolute, not conditional. There is no reservation of ownership nor a stipulation providing for a unilateral rescission by either party. In fact, the sale was consummated upon the delivery of the lot to respondent. 20 Thus, Art. 1477 provides that the ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. The stipulation that the "payment of the full consideration based on a survey shall be due and payable in five (5) years from the execution of a formal deed of sale" is not a condition which affects the efficacy of the contract of sale. It merely provides the manner by which the full consideration is to be computed and the time within which the same is to be paid. But it does not affect in any manner the effectivity of the contract. Consequently, the contention that the absence of a formal deed of sale stipulated in the receipt prevents the happening of a sale has no merit. The claim of petitioners that the price of P7,035.00 is iniquitous is untenable. The amount is based on the agreement of the parties as evidenced by the receipt (Exh. 2). Time and again, we have stressed the rule that a contract is the law between the parties, and courts have no choice but to enforce such contract so long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. Otherwise, court would be interfering with the freedom of contract of the parties. Simply put, courts cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend the latter's agreement, for to do so would be to alter the real intentions of the contracting parties when the contrary function of courts is to give force and effect to the intentions of the parties. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the modification that respondent is ORDERED to reimburse petitioners for the expenses of the survey.

A deed of sale is considered absolute in nature where there is neither a stipulation in the deed that title to the property sold is reserved in the seller until full payment of the price, nor one giving the vendor the right to unilaterally resolve the contract the moment the buyer fails to pay within a fixed period. Applying these principles to this case, it cannot be gainsaid that the contract of sale between the Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil Law 2A SY 2009-2010

Page 2

Hernando R. Penalosa vs. Severino Santos G.R. No. 133749

August 23, 2001

Facts: Severino sold his property to henry. Henry applied for a loan with philam life. As It was already approved pending the submission of certain documents such as the owners duplicate of transfer certificate of title which is in possession of severino. Henry already took possession of the property in question after ejectment of the lessees. He also paid an ernest money of 300,000 under the premise that it shall be forfeited in favor of severino in case of nonpayment. Severino now claims ownership over the property claiming that henry did not pay for the property, therefore there was no sale to speak of. Issue: whether or not there is a contract of sale perfected in this case. Held: there was a perfected contract of sale due to the second deed of sale. The basic characteristic of an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effects or alter the juridical situation of the parties in any way.30 However, in this case, the parties already undertook certain acts which were directed towards fulfillment of their respective covenants under the second deed, indicating that they intended to give effect to their agreement. Further, the fact that Severino executed the two deeds in question, primarily so that petitioner could eject the tenant and enter into a loan/mortgage contract with Philam Life, is to our mind, a strong indication that he intended to transfer ownership of the property to petitioner. For why else would he authorize the latter to sue the tenant for ejectment under a claim of ownership, if he truly did not intend to sell the property to petitioner in the first place? Needless to state, it does not make sense for Severino to allow petitioner to pursue the ejectment case, in petitioner's own name, with petitioner arguing Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil Law 2A SY 2009-2010

that he had bought the property from Severino and thus entitled to possession thereof, if petitioner did not have any right to the property. Also worth noting is the fact that in the case filed by Severino's tenant against Severino and petitioner in 1989, assailing the validity of the sale made to petitioner, Severino explicitly asserted in his sworn answer to the complaint that the sale was a legitimate transaction. He further alleged that the ejectment case filed by petitioner against the tenant was a legitimate action by an owner against one who refuses to turn over possession of his property. It should be emphasized that the nonappearance of the parties before the notary public who notarized the deed does not necessarily nullify nor render the parties' transaction void ab initio. We have held previously that the provision of Article 1358 of the New Civil Code on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. Failure to follow the proper form does not invalidate a contract. Where a contract is not in the form prescribed by law, the parties can merely compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected.35 This is consistent with the basic principle that contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all essential requisites are present.3 The elements of a valid contract of sale under Art. 1458 of the Civil Code are: (1) consent or meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter; and (3) price certain in money or its equivalent.37 In the instant case, the second deed reflects the presence of all these elements and as such, there is already a perfected contract of sale. The non-payment of the contract price merely results in a breach of contract for nonperformance and warrants an action for rescission or specific performance under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. Be that as it may, we agree with petitioner that although the law allows rescission as a remedy for breach of contract, the same may not be availed of by respondents in this case. To begin with, it was Severino who prevented full payment of the stipulated price when he refused to deliver the owner's original duplicate title to Page 3

Philam Life. His refusal to cooperate was unjustified, because as Severino himself admitted, he signed the deed precisely to enable petitioner to acquire the loan. He also knew that the property was to be given as security therefor. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner breached his obligation towards Severino since the former has always been willing to and could comply with what was incumbent upon him. In sum, the only conclusion which can be deduced from the aforesaid circumstances is that ownership of the property has been transferred to petitioner. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil Law 2A SY 2009-2010

Page 4

Issue:

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

Whether the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution has fully met the test of moral certainty as to the guilt of the accused on both charges of violation of section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 and of illegal possession of firearms.

Facts:

Decision:

Major Juvenile Sulapas, Officer-incharge, Dangerous Drugs Enforcement Section, Pasay City Police Station, received a confidential report from an informant about the rampant trafficking of drugs by Elizabeth Ganguso y Decena a.k.a. "Beth Tomboy".

The instant appeal is partly granted, and the challenged decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City is modified. As modified, accused-appellant Beth is acquitted for the charge of illegal possession of firearms on ground of reasonable doubt. The penalty imposed on her for the violation of section 15, Article III of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is reduced to an indeterminate sentence of three months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to three years of prision correccional, as maximum.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELIZABETH GANGUSO G.R. No. 115430

November 23, 1995

A buy-bust operation was planned with Dennis Vermug acting as poseur-buyer, backedup by SPO1 Lumapat, SPO1 Gabutin, PO3s Mendoza and Garcia with SPO3 Fucanan as team leader. The operation was carried out and they were successful in arresting Beth for the violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. At the same time, they were able to recover a .38 caliber Paltik revolver from the suspect. Several documentary exhibits were presented as evidence to the crime. Beth made statements in her testimony different to that of the police’s: policemen barged into her house, searched the premises and her person without a warrant and; denied the revolver recovered from her. At the trial, defense presented two witnesses who also claimed that no buy bust operation took place and no revolver was in the possession of the suspect. Nevertheless, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay convicted her of both charges. She was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine plus costs for the crime involving drugs. She was also sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve years and one day, as maximum, with fine and costs for the crime of illegal possession of firearms. Hence, Beth appealed. Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil Law 2A SY 2009-2010

Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court held that the elements of a contract of sale were present. Beth is presumed to have given her consent by not inquiring as to the meaning of “S” when the officer posed to buy “Php 500 worth of S”. Therefore, there was a meeting of minds upon a definite object and upon the price. Though she was not in possession of the object of sale, Article 1459 merely requires that the vendor must have the right to transfer ownership of the object sold at the time of delivery. In the case at bar, though Beth is not the owner, she had the right to dispose of the prohibited drug. Ownership was thereafter acquired upon her delivery to the men in the alley after her payment of the price. Supreme Court also held that failure to conduct prior surveillance and absence of marked money does not affect the evidence of the prosecution. It is sufficient that the members of the operation were accompanied by the informant to the scene; the sale was adequately proven and; the drug subject was presented before the court. As regards the penalty imposed, since the shabu only weighs 0.1954 grams, penalty Page 5

should be prision correccional to reclusion temporal depending upon the quantity. Applying R.A. No. 7659, ISLAW, and the decision in the case of People v. Simon, proper penalty should be within the range of arresto mayor to prision correccional. 

R.A. No. 7659, amending R.A. No. 6425, took effect on 31 December 1993. Being patently favorable to the appellant, that amendatory law should be applied retroactively.



ISLAW: If an offense under the RPC is also punishable by another law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same.

Finally, there was no proof that Beth is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the possession of firearms. Hence, presumption of innocence stands for failure of the prosecution to establish such guilt.

Sales Case Digests UST Faculty of Civil Law 2A SY 2009-2010

Page 6

HEIRS OF AMPARO AURORA SANTOS G.R. No. L-46892

DEL

ROSARIO

v.

September 30, 1981

GUERRERO, J.: Facts: Amparo Del Rosario entered into a contract with Attorney Andres Santos and his wife Aurora Santos whereby the latter sold to the former a 20,000 sq. m. of land which is to be segregated from Lot 1. Said lot forms part of the several lots belonging to a certain Teofilo Custodio, of which lots, Attorney Santos, by agreement with the latter, as his attorney’s fees, owns ½ interest thereof. Parties agreed that spouses Andres shall thereafter execute a Deed of Confirmation of Sale in favor of Del Rosario as soon as the title has been released and the subdivision plan of said Lot 1 has been approved by the Land Registration Commissioner. Due to the failure of spouses Andres to execute the deed after the fulfillment of the condition, Del Rosario claims malicious breach of a Deed of Sale. Defendant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss setting up the defenses of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the action and lack of cause of action as well as the defense of prescription. They further alleged that the deed of sale was only an accommodation graciously extended, out of close friendship between the defendants and the plaintiff, hence, tantamount to waiver, abandonment or otherwise extinguishment of the demand set forth in the complaint. Finally, defendants alleged that the claim on which the action or suit is founded is unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that the cause or object of the contract did not exist at the time of the transaction.

and convey to plaintiff the 20,000 sq. m. of land to be taken either from Lot 4 or from Lot 5-A of Custodio’s lots, which defendants own ½ interest thereof. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the defendants filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which certified the records of the case to the Supreme Court for final determination. Issue: (As far as it concerns Sales) Whether the sale is valid as to the cause or object of the contract. Decision: The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellants. Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court held that the execution of the deed of sale is valid notwithstanding the lack of any title to the lot by appellants at the time of execution f the deed of sale in favor of appellee as there can be a sale of an expected thing in accordance with Article 1461 of the New Civil Code: Art. 1461. Things having a...