Jeneva Mae A Geocadin

RegFra

SALE

CASE NO. 1

Case Title: Alfredo vs Borras 404 SCRA 145 June 17, 2003

I. Facts
A parcel of land measuring 81,524 square meters (“Subject Land”) in Barrio
Culis, Mabiga, Hermosa, Bataan is the subject of controversy in this case.
Petitioners (“Godofredo and Carmen”) had mortgaged the Subject Land for
P7,000.00 with the Development Bank of the Philippines (“DBP”). To pay the
debt. Carmen and Godofredo sold the Subject Land to private

Respondents (“Armando and Adelia”) for P15,000.00, the buyers to pay the DBP
loan and its accumulated interest, and the balance to be paid in cash to the
sellers. Armando and Adelia gave Godofredo and Carmen the money to pay the
loan to DBP which signed the release of mortgage. The former subsequently paid
the balance of the purchase price of the Subject Land for which Carmen issued a
receipt dated 11 March 1970. They then took possession of the Subject Land.
Subsequently, Armando and Adelia discovered that Godofredo and Carmen had
re-sold portions of the Subject Land to several persons. The private respondents
then filed a complaint for specific performance against petitioners.
II. Issue
Whether or not was there perfected contract of sale between parties?

III. Ruling
Yes. The contract of sale between the spouses Godofredo and Carmen and the
spouses Armando and Adelia was a perfected contract. A contract is perfected
once there is consent of the contracting parties on the object certain and on the
cause of the obligation. In the instant case, the object of the sale is the Subject
Land, and the price certain is P45,000.00. The trial and appellate courts found
that there was a meeting of the minds on the sale of the Subject Land and on the
purchase price of P15,000.00. The contract of sale of the Subject Land has also
been consummated because the sellers and buyers have performed their
respective obligations under the contract. In a contract of sale, the seller
obligates himself to transfer the ownership of the determinate thing sold, and to
deliver the same, to the buyer who obligates himself to pay a price certain to the
seller. In the instant case, Godofredo and Carmen delivered the Subject Land to
Armando and Adelia, while Armando and Adelia paid the full purchase price as
evidenced by the receipt issued by Carmen.

CASE NO. 2

Case Title: Sanchez vs Malapad Realty Corp. GR No. 148516 December 27, 2007

I. Facts
Respondent Mapalad was the registered owner of 4 parcels of land located along
Roxas Boulevard, Baclaran, Paranaque. On March 21, 1986, shortly after EDSA
revolution, Jose Campos executed an affidavit admitting that Mapalad was one of
the companies held in trust for former President Marcos. Campos turned over, all
assets, properties, records and documents pertaining to Mapalad to the new
administration led by President Corazon Aquino. PCSS issued writs of
sequestration for Mapalad and all its properties. Rolando Josef, appointed Vice
President/Treasurer and GM of Mapalad, discovered for that there was 4 TCTs
missing. Josef inquired about it and discovered Felicito Manalili, Mapalad’s
former director and general manager took them. On November 16, 1992,
Nordelak Development Corporation filed a notice of adverse claim over the
subject properties based on deed of sale purportedly executed by Miguel
 Magsaysay in his capacity as President and board chairman of Mapalad. A.
Magsaysay Inc., a corporation controlled by Miguel Magsaysay, acquired
ownership of all the shares of stock of Mapalad however was terminated after
selling all his shares to Novo Properties on December 3, 1982. Mapalad
commenced the present action for annulment of deed of sale and reconveyance
of title with damages against Nordelak. During the pendency of the case,
Nordelak sold the subject property to a certain Manuel Luis Sanchez, now
petitioner.

II. Issue
Whether or not there is a valid sale between Mapalad and Nordelak?
III. Ruling

(1) Consent of the contracting parties by virtue of which the vendor obligates
himself to transfer ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the
vendee obligates himself to pay therefor a price certain in money or its
equivalent.

(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract. The object must be
licit and at the same time determinate or, at least, capable of being made
determinate without the necessity of a new or further agreement between the
parties..

(3) Cause of the obligation which is established. The cause as far as the vendor
is concerned is the acquisition of the price certain in money or its equivalent,
while the cause as far as the vendee is concemed is the acquisition of the
thing which is the object of the contract.

Contracts of sale are perfected by mere corisent, which is manifested by the meeting of
the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract,

Consent may be given only by a person with the legal capacity to give consent. In the
case of juridical persons such as corporations like Mapalad, consent may only be
granted through its officers who have been duly authorized by its board of directors. In
this case, there was lack of consent on the part of Mapalad, Magsaysay being no long
connected with Mapalad when the contract was executed. There was likewise no
consideration, since there was no payment effected by Nordelak for this transaction

CASE NO. 3

Case Title: Sps. Bernardo Buenaventora and consolacion Joaquin, et al vs Court

I. Facts
Joaquin and Landrito are the parents of the plaintiffs and the defendants. They would
like to be declared null and void ab initio certain deeds of sale of real property executed
by Joaquin and landrito in favor of their co-defendants. Petitioners aver that the deeds
are simulated and therefore null and void ab initio because firstly, there was no actual
valid consideration for the deeds of sale over the properties, secondly, assuming that
there was consideration in the sumar eflected in the questioned deeds, the properties
are more than three- fold times more valuable than the measly sums appearing therein,
thirdly, the deeds of sale do not reflect and express the true intent of the parties
(vendors and vendees), fourthly, the purported sale of the properties in litis was the
result of a deliberate conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory
heirsof their legitime.
II. Issue
Whether or not the Deeds of sale are void for lack of consideration
III. Ruling
No, the deeds of sale are not void for lack of consideration. A contract of sale is not a
real contract, but a consensual contract. As a consensual contract, a contract of sale
becomes a binding and valid contract upon the meeting of the minds as to price. If there
is a meeting of the minds of the parties as to the price, the contract of sale is valid,
despite the manner of payment, or even the breach of that manner of payment. If the
real price is not stated in the contract, then the contract of sale is valid but subject to
reformation. If there is no meeting of the minds of the parties as to the price, because
the price stipulated In the contract is simulated, then the contract is void. Article 1471 of
the Civil Code states that if the price in a contract of sale is simulated, the sale is vold. It
is not the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale.
Payment of the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Payment of
the price goes Into the performance of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is
different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the
fulfillment or

Cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid contract while the latter prevents
the

Existence of a valid contract.

LOAN

CASE NO. 1

Case Title: GENIZA VS HENRY SY

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling

CASE NO. 2

Case Title: PNB VS CA

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling

PLEDGE

CASE NO. 1

Case Title: Manila Banking Corporation vs Teodoro Jr.

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling

CASE NO. 2
Case Title: Ong v. IAC (G.R. No. 74073)

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling

MORTGAGE

CASE NO. 1

Case Title:

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling

CASE NO. 2

Case Title:

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling

AGENCY

CASE NO. 1

Case Title:

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling

CASE NO. 2

Case Title:

I. Facts
II. Issue
III. Ruling