Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprise G.R. No. 167195 May 8, 2009 Facts

Re: Cases for Sales Class
1. Santos vs. Santos et. Al G.R. No. 133895. October 2, 2001
2. Asset Privatization Trust vs. TJ Enterprises G.R. No. 167195. May 8, 2009
Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprise

G.R. No. 167195 May 8, 2009
Facts:
Petitioner was a government entity created for the purpose to conserve, to provisionally
manage and to dispose assets of government institutions. It had acquired assets consisting of
machinery and refrigeration equipment stored at the Golden City compound which was leased to
and in the physical possession of Creative Lines, Inc., (Creative Lines). These assets were being
sold on an as-is-where-is basis.
Petitioner and respondent entered into an absolute deed of sale over certain machinery
and refrigeration equipment wherein respondent paid the full amount as evidenced by
petitioner’s receipt. After two (2) days, respondent demanded the delivery of the machinery it
had purchased. Petitioner issued a Gate Pass to respondent to enable them to pull out from the
compound the properties designated ; however, during the hauling of Lot No. 2 consisting of
sixteen (16) items, only nine (9) items were pulled out by respondent. Respondent filed a
complaint for specific performance and damages against petitioner and Creative Lines. Upon
inspection of the remaining items, they found the machinery and equipment damaged and had
missing parts. Petitioner claimed that there was already a constructive delivery of the machinery
and equipment upon the execution of the deed of sale it had complied with its obligation to
deliver the object of the sale since there was no stipulation to the contrary and it was the duty of
respondent to take possession of the property.
The RTC ruled that petitioner is liable for breach of contract and should pay for the actual
damages suffered by respondent. It found that at the time of the sale, petitioner did not have
control over the machinery and equipment and, thus, could not have transferred ownership by
constructive delivery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment; hence, this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner had complied with its obligations to make delivery of the
properties and failure to make actual delivery of the properties was not attributable was beyond
the control of petitioner?
Held:
No. There was no constructive delivery of the machinery and equipment upon the
execution of the deed of absolute sale or upon the issuance of the gate pass since it was not the
petitioner but Creative Lines which had actual possession of the property. The presumption of
constructive delivery is not applicable as it has to yield to the reality that the purchaser was not
placed in possession and control of the property.
Petitioner also claims that its failure to make actual delivery was beyond its control. It
posits that the refusal of Creative Lines to allow the hauling of the machinery and equipment was
unforeseen and constituted a fortuitous event. The matter of fortuitous events is governed by Art.
1174 of the Civil Code which provides that except in cases expressly specified by the law, or
when it is otherwise declared by stipulation, or when the nature of the obligation requires
assumption of risk, no person shall be responsible for those events which could not be foreseen,
or which though foreseen, were inevitable. A fortuitous event may either be an act of God, or
natural occurrences such as floods or typhoons, or an act of man such as riots, strikes or wars.
However, when the loss is found to be partly the result of a person’s participation whether by
active intervention, neglect or failure to act, the whole occurrence is humanized and removed
from the rules applicable to a fortuitous event. Thus, the risk of loss or deterioration of property
is borne by petitioner. Thus, it should be liable for the damages that may arise from the delay.
3. Estelita Villamar vs. Balbino Mangaoil G.R. No. 188661. April 11, 2012
Villamar vs. Mangaoil GR No. 188661 April 11, 2012
Facts:
Estelita villamar a registered owner of 3.6080 hectares of parcel of land, decided to sell it to
Balbino Mangaoil with the certain conditions; The respondent paid the amount of 185,000 as a
down payment for the land title to be given to him. After some time, Mangaoil decided to back
out from the agreement because the area is not yet fully cleared by incumbrances as these are
tenants who are not willing to vacate the land without giving them back the amount that they
mortgage the land.

Mangaoil demanded a refund for his 185,000, reiterating his demand on another date but the
same as unheeded. The respondent filed a complaint in the RTC and the latter ordered the
rescission of the agreement and the deed of absolute sale in accordance of Art. 1458 and Art.
1191 of the Civil Code. The petitioner filed before the CA an appeal to challenge the foregoing.

The Petitioner filed an instant petition in the supreme court. The petitioner contends that in her
case, she had already complied with her obligations under the agreement and the law when she
had caused the release of TCT No. T-92958-A from the Rural Bank of Cauayan, paid individual
mortgagees Romeo Lacaden and Florante Parangan, and executed an absolute deed of sale in the
respondent’s favor.

Issue:
Whether or not the failure of seller to deliver the certificate of title over the property to buyer is a
breach of obligation in a contract of sale of real property that would warrant rescission?

Held:
The Supreme Court found the petitioner failed to comply with her obligations to deliver to the
respondent both the possession of the subject property and the certificate of title covering the
same.
The petition was denied for failure to deliver to the respondent the possession of the subject
property due to the continued presence and occupation of one Parangan and Lacaden. The Court
directed the rescission of the agreement and absolute deed of sale entered by Estelita Villamar
and Balbino Mangaoil and return of the down payment made for the purchase of the subject
property. And an interest of 12% per annum on the sum of 185,000 to be returned to Balbino
Mangaoil.
4. Power Commercial and Industrial Corporation vs. CA, 274 SCRA 597
Monday, October 4, 2010
POWER COMMERCIAL V. CA (June 20, 1997)
FACTS:
Petitioner asbestos manufacturer Power Commercial and industrial corporation bought the property of
spouses Reynaldo and Angelita Quiambao located in Makati City.
Since there are lessees occupying the subject land, part of the deed of sale is a warranty of respondents
that will defend its title and peaceful possession in favor of the petitioners.
The property is mortgage to PNP and as such, petitioners filed a request to assume responsibility of the
mortgage. Because of petitioners failure to produce the required papers, their petition was denied.
Petitioners allege that the contract should be rescinded because of failure of delivery.
ISSUE:
WON the contract is recissible due to breach of contract.
HELD:
There is no breach of contact in this case since there is no provision in the contract that imposes the
obligation to the respondents to eject the people occupying the property.
There was also a constructive delivery because the deed of sale was made in a public document. The
contention of the petitioners that there could be no constructive delivery because the respondents is not in
possession of the property is of no merit. What matters in a constructive delivery is control and not
possession. Control was placed in the hands of the petitioners that is why they were able to file an
ejectment case. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required and the execution of the deed
of sale is deemed equivalent to delivery.
5. Lagon vs. Hooven Comalco Industries Inc G.R. No. 135657 January 17 2001
6. Ten Forty Realty vs. Cruz G.R. No. 151212 September 10, 2003
7. Rudolf Leitz, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 122463 December 10
8. Miranda vs. Sps. Mallari G.R. No. 218343 November 28 2018

Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprise G.R. No. 167195 May 8, 2009 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprise G.R. No. 167195 May 8, 2009 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprise G.R. No. 167195 May 8, 2009 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Re: Cases for Sales Class

1. Santos vs. Santos et. Al G.R. No. 133895. October 2, 2001

Asset Privatization Trust vs. T.J. Enterprise

Villamar vs. Mangaoil GR No. 188661 April 11, 2012

Monday, October 4, 2010

POWER COMMERCIAL V. CA (June 20, 1997)

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.