Nur Julkanain__Cases No. 88-92__Sales 88. Pacifc Commercial Company vs. Ermita Market Col! Stores" inc." #.$. No. %-&'(2( Marc) 9" *9&2 +, P)il. ,*( acts On September 14, 1927, the Pacifc Commercial Co., the plainti herein, sold to the Ermita Maret ! Cold Stores, "nc., the de#endant herein, an a$tomatic re#ri%eratin% machine. &he parties si%ned the $s$al printed sales'contract sales'contract #orm o# the plainti compan(, the p$rchase price, pa(able b( installments as stated in the sales contract. )( m$t$al a%reement, the said machine *as installed b( the plainti, to be paid b( the de#endant, in #a+or o# the plainti. Compl(in% *ith the terms o# the sales contract, the de#endan de#endantt paid paid the the plaint plainti i an initia initiall amo$nt amo$nt o# the the p$rcha p$rchase se price price o# the machine, lea+in% a balance. #e* da(s a#ter installation, the de#endant ad+ised the plainti that the machine *as not ser+in% the p$rpose #or *hich it *as sold and that it *as lacin% ammonia recei ecei+e +err and and oil oil sepa separa rato tor, r, and and #$rt #$rthe herr alle alle%e %es s that that the the temp temper erat at$r $re e in the the re#ri%eratin% rooms did not reach, and had ne+er reached, o*in% to the ne%li%ence o# the plaint plainti i in not repair repairin% in% or p$tti p$ttin% n% in %ood %ood *ori *orin% n% condi conditio tion n the the said said re#ri%eratin% re#ri%eratin% machine, the de#endant had been #orced to close its establishment and #or *hich reason the de#endant claimed dama%es a%ainst the plainti. &he plainti denied %enerall( and specifcall( each and e+er( and e+er( alle%ation in the said cross'complaint and b( *a( o# special de#ense, alle%ed that *hate+er de#ects or defcienc( there mi%ht ha+e been in the temperat$re in the re#ri%eratin% rooms o# de#endant-s establishment, or in the #$nctionin% o# the machine, these *ere d$e to the de#ects and imper#ections o# the coils *hich *ere s$pplied and installed b( the de#endant itsel#, as *ell as to the incompetenc( and inecienc( o# the de#en de#endan dant-s t-s perso personne nnell to operat operate e the machin machine. e. )( *hich *hich the the Co$rt Co$rt o# /irst irst "nstan "nstance ce o# Manila Manila rende rendere red d its 0$d%me 0$d%ment, nt, order orderin% in% the de#end de#endant ant to pa( the remainin% amo$nt pl$s interest and other dama%es, so, the de#endant appealed.
/ssue hether or not the installed re#ri%eration machine *as the same machine a%reed $pon b( the plainti and the de#endant 0el! &he 0$d%ment o# o# the Co$rt o# /irst "nstance "nstance o# Manila is armed armed in its its entiret(. #ter a care#$l eamination o# the record, *e ha+e not the least do$bt that the plainti deli+ered the machine as described in the sales contract, and the #act that the de#endant co$ld not $se it satis#actoril( in the three cold stores di+ision cannot be attrib$ted to plainti-s #a$lt3 as #ar as *e can see, the machine *as strictl( in
accordance *ith the *ritten contract bet*een the parties, and the de#endant can hardl( honestl( sa( that there *as an( deception b( the plainti. )$t it is clear that the de#endant compan( did not #$ll( $nderstand the $se o# the motor. "t complains that the machine *o$ld not properl( re#ri%erate the re#ri%eratin% rooms, b$t it is e+ident that the machine co$ld not operate a$tomaticall( *hen the de#endant had three re#ri%eratin% rooms *hich it epected to maintain at three dierent temperat$res. &he de#endant also complained that the machine *as not e$ipped *ith a thermostat and that the lac o# its obstr$cted the *or o# the re#ri%eratin%. "n the frst place, the thermostat *as not incl$de in the sales contract and in the second place it *o$ld not ha+e been o# an( ser+ice to de#endant beca$se it co$ld not possibl( operate a$tomaticall( at three dierent temperat$res *ith the de#endant-s ins$cient e$ipment. &he de#endant-s complaint that the machine did not contain an oil separator is not tr$e3 the oil separator is combined *ith the recei+er and condenser in a sin%le combined piece in the machine.
Case 1 89 /%%3NC3 $E4%56 C3MP4N6" plainti7-appellee an! E/50 PE$E E 54#%E" intervenor-appellee" vs :3$M40EC3" /NC." $4NC/SC3 N. CE$4N5ES an! $3S4$/3 N. CE$4N5ES" !e;en!ants-appellants. Meer" Meer Meer ;or plainti7appellee. #.$. No. %-2,8(2 July 2+" *9(+ </%%3NC3 vs :3$M40EC3= acts Cer+antes and his *i#e o*ned 5 parcels o# land alon% )$endia *here the b$ildin%s o# )ormaheco "nc *ere sit$ated. )eside their propert( *ere lots o*ned b( 6illonco ealt(. Cer+antes entered into se+eral ne%otiations *ith 6illonco #or sale o# the )$endia propert(. Cer+antes made a *ritten oer o# P488sm *ith a do*n pa(ment o# P188,888.88 to ser+e as earnest mone(. &he oer also made the cons$mmation o# the sale dependent $pon the ac$isition b( )ormaheco o# a Sta. na propert(. 6illonco made a co$nter'oer statin% that the earnest mone( *as to earn 18: interest p.a. &he chec *as enclosed *ith the repl( letter. Cer+antes accepted and cashed the chec. &he Sta. na Propert( *as a*arded to )ormaheco3 the trans#er *as also d$l( appro+ed. ;o*e+er, Cer+antes sent the chec bac to 6illonco *ith the interest thereon
/ssue hether or not there *as a per#ected contract o# sale
0el! =ES. &here *as a per#ected contract o# sale. &he alle%ed chan%es made in the co$nter'oer are immaterial and are mere clarifcations. &he chan%es o# the *ords >Sta. na propert(? to another propert( as *ell as the insertion o# the n$mber >12? in the date, and the *ords >per ann$m? in the interest are tri+ial. &here is no incompatibilit( in the oer and co$nter'oer. Cer+antes assented to the interest and he, in #act, paid the same. lso, earnest mone( constit$tes proo# o# the per#ection o# the contract o# sale and #orms part o# the consideration. &he condition re%ardin% the ac$isition o# the Sta. na propert( *as lie*ise #$lflled3 there is th$s no %ro$nd #or the re#$sal o# Cer+antes to cons$mmate the sale. case 1 9> %3$EN3 E%4SC3 4N S3C3$$3 J. E%4SC3" petitioners vs 03N3$4:%E C3?$5 3 4PPE4%S an! M4#4%EN4 ES545E" /NC." respon!ents. No. %-&*>*8" +* SC$4 '&9" June 29" *9(& <E%4SC3 vs C3?$5 3 4PPE4%S= acts On @o+ember 29, 19A2, herein petitioners and respondents had entered into a contract o# sale b( +irt$e o# *hich the latter oered to sell and a%reed to b$( b( the #ormer, a parcel o# land *ith an area o# 2,8B9 s. ms. ocated in D$eon Cit(, #or a total p$rchase price o# P 188,888.88. Petitioners alle%ed he *as to %i+e a do*n pa(ment o# 18,888.88 pesos to be #ollo*ed b( P 28,888.88 and the balance o# P78,888.88 to be paid in installment basis, the monthl( amortiation o# *hich *as to be determined as soon as the P 58,888.88 do*n pa(ment had been completed. On Fan$ar( G, 19A4, the petitioners tendered to pa( the additional do*n pa(ment o# P 28,888.88 to complete the do*n pa(ment o# P 58,888.88, b$t the respondents re#$sed to accept and e+ent$all( it lie*ise re#$sed to eec$te a deed o# sale a%reed $pon, so, petitioner demanded #or dama%es and specifc per#ormance #rom the respondents o# an alle%ed deed o# sale o# a parcel o# land residential land in their #a+or. espondents denied that it has had an( direct'dealin%, m$ch less, contract$al relations *ith the petitioners re%ardin% the propert( in $estion and contends that the alle%ed contract described attached to the complaint is entirel( $nen#orceable
$nder the stat$te o# #ra$d. ccordin%l(, respondents re#$sed to accept the additional do*n pa(ment #or it had considered the oer to sell rescinded on the acco$nt o# the petitionersH #ail$re to pa( on or be#ore Iecember 51, 19A2. On @o+ember 5, 19AG, the C/" D$eon Cit( rendered a decision dismissin% the complaint o# the petitioners, *hich *as armed b( the Co$rt o# ppeals on September B, 19A9, $pon motion b( the petitioner. So, a petition #or certiorari and mandam$s *as fled be#ore the S$preme Co$rt b( the petitioners.
/ssue 1. hether or not there *as a per#ected contract o# sale 2. hether or not a defnite a%reement on matters o# pa(ment o# p$rchase price is an essential element in the #ormation o# a bindin% and en#orceable contract
0el! @o contract o# sale *as per#ected beca$se the minds o# the parties did not meet >in re%ard to the manner o# pa(ment?. &he material a+erments contained in 6elascoHs complaint themsel+es disclose a lac o# complete >a%reement in re%ard to the manner o# pa(ment? o# the lot in $estion. &he complaint states penitentl( >that plainti and de#endant #$rther a%reed that the total do*n pa(ment shall be P58, 888.88, "ncl$din% the P18.888.88 partial pa(ment as mentioned , and that $pon completion o# the said do*n pa(ment o# P58,888.88, the balance P78,888.88 shall be paid b( the plainti to the de#endant in 18 (ears #rom @o+ember 29, 19A23 and that the time *ithin *hich the #$ll do*n pa(ment o# the P58,888.88 *as to be completed *as not specifed b( the parties b$t the de#endant *as d$l( compensated d$rin% the said time prior to the completion o# the do*n pa(ment o# P58,888.88 b( *a( o# lease rentals on the ho$se eistin% thereon *hich *as earlier leased b( the de#endant to the plaintiHs sister'in'la*, Socorro F. 6elasco, and *hich *ere d$l( paid to the de#endant b( checs dra*n b( plainti. &he 6elascos themsel+es admit that the( and Ma%dalena Estate still ha+e to meet and a%ree on ho* and *hen the do*n pa(ment and the installment pa(ments *ere to be paid. S$ch bein% the sit$ation, it cannot be said that a defnite and frm sales a%reement bet*een the parties ha+e been per#ected o+er the lot in $estion. Iefnite a%reement on the manner o# pa(ment o# the p$rchase is an essential element in the #ormation o# a bindin% and en#orceable contract o# sale. "n the present case, the 6elascos deli+ered to Ma%dalena Estate the s$m o# P18, 888.88 as part o# the do*n pa(ment that the( had to pa( cannot be considered as s$cient proo# o# the per#ection o# an( p$rchase and sale a%reement bet*een the parties $nder article 14G2 o# the ne* Ci+il Code, as the 6elascos themsel+es admit that some essential matter Jthe terms o# pa(mentK still had to be m$t$all( co+enanted.
case 1 9* Spouses oromal" Sr. an! Salas" !e;en!ants-appellant vs Court o; 4ppeals" respon!ent-appellee No. %-&,>8" ,, SC$4 +(+" Septem@er >+" *9(+ <oromal vs C4= acts ot 5B84 o# the cadastral s$r+e( o# "loilo, sit$ated in the poblacion o# a Pa, one o# its districts, *ith an area o# a little more than 2'12 hectares *as ori%inall( decreed in the name o# the late F$stice ntonio ;orilleno, in 191A, $nder Ori%inal Certifcate o# &itle @o. 1514, Eh. , b$t be#ore he died, he eec$ted a last *ill and testament attestin% to the #act that it *as a co'o*nership bet*een himsel# and his brothers and sisters, the co'o*ners *ereL beside 1. F$stice ;orilleno Jda$%hter Mar( as heirK, 2. $is, 5. Soledad, 4. /e, B. osita, A. Carlos and 7. Esperana,- all s$rnamed ;orilleno, and since Esperana had alread( died, she *as s$cceeded b( her onl( da$%hter and heir herein plainti, /ilomena Fa+ellana, in the proportion o# 17 $ndi+ided o*nership each3 e+en tho$%h their ri%ht had not as (et been annotated in the title, the co'o*ners led b( Carlos, had *anted to sell their shares, or i# possible i# plainti /ilomena Fa+ellana *ere a%reeable, *anted to sell the entire propert(, and the( hired an ac$aintance Cresencia ;arder, to loo #or b$(ers, and the latter came to interest de#endants, the #ather and son, named amon Ioromal, Sr. and Fr., and in preparation #or the eec$tion o# the sale, since the brothers and sisters ;orilleno *ere scattered in +ario$s parts o# the co$ntr(, 1. Carlos in "locos S$r, 2. Mar( in )a%$io, 5. Soledad and 4. /e, in Mandal$(on%, ial, and B. osita in )asilan Cit(, the( all eec$ted +ario$s po*ers o# attorne( in #a+or o# their niece, Mar( ;. Fimene the( also ca$sed preparation o# a po*er o# attorne( o# identical tenor #or si%nat$re b( plainti, /ilomena Fa+ellana, and sent it *ith a letter o# Carlos, dated 1G Fan$ar(, 19AG Carlos in#ormed /ilomina that the price *as P4.88 a s$are meter,'altho$%h it no* t$rns o$t accordin% to Eh. 5 that as earl( as 22 October, 19A7, Carlos had recei+ed in chec as earnest mone( #rom de#endant amon Ioromal, Fr., the s$m o# PB,888.88 and the price therein a%reed $pon *as f+e JPB.88K pesos a s$are meter in another letter also o# Carlos to Plainti## /ilomina in B @o+ember, 19A7, Eh. A, he had told her that the Ioromals had %i+en the earnest mone( o# PB,888.88 at PA.88 a s$are meter t an( rate, Plainti## /ilomina not bein% a%reeable, did not si%n the po*er o# attorne(, and the rest o# the co'o*ners *ent ahead *ith their sale o# their A7, Carlos frst seein% to it that the deed o# sale b( their common attorne( in #act, Mar( ;. Fimene be si%ned and
ratifed as it *as si%ned and ratifed in Candon, "locos S$r, on 1B Fan$ar(, 19AG, Eh3 2, then bro$%ht to "loilo b( Carlos in the same month, and beca$se the e%ister o# Ieeds o# "loilo re#$sed to re%ister ri%ht a*a(, since the ori%inal re%istered o*ner, F$stice ntonio ;orilleno *as alread( dead, Carlos had to as as he did, hire tt(. &eotimo randela to fle a petition *ithin the cadastral case, on 2A /ebr$ar(, 19AG, #or the p$rpose, a#ter *hich Carlos ret$rned to $on, and a#ter compliance *ith the re$isites o# p$blication, hearin% and notice, the petition *as appro+ed. on 29 pril, 19AG, Carlos alread( bac in "loilo *ent to the e%ister o# Ieeds and ca$sed the re%istration o# the order o# the cadastral co$rt appro+in% the iss$ance o# a ne* title in the name o# the co'o*ners, as *ell as o# the deed o# sale to the Ioromals, as a res$lt o# *hich on that same date, a ne* title *as iss$ed &C& @o. 251B2, in the name o# the ;orillenos to A7 and plainti /ilomena Fa+ellana to 17, the Ioromals paid $nto Carlos b( chec, the s$m o# P97,888,88 o# Chartered )an *hich *as later s$bstit$ted b( chec o# Phil. @ational )an, beca$se there *as no Chartered )an )ranch in "locos S$r, b$t besides this amo$nt paid in chec, the Ioromals accordin% to their e+idence still paid an additional amo$nt in cash o# P1G,2B8.88 since the a%reed price *as PB.88 a s$are meter and th$s *as cons$mmated the transaction. On 18 F$ne, 19AG, there came to the residence o# the Ioromals in I$man%as, "loilo, plainti /ilomenaHs la*(er, tt(. rt$ro ;. 6illan$e+a, brin%in% *ith him her letter o# that date, main% a #ormal oer to rep$rchase or redeem the A7 $ndi+ided share in ot 5B84 #or P58,888.88 in cash *hich *ill be deli+ered as soon as the contract o# sale is eec$ted in #a+or o# /ilomena. the Ioromals *ere a%hast, and re#$sed the net da(, 11 F$ne, 19AG, plainti /ilomena fled this case, and in the trial, thr$ oral and doc$mentar( proo#s, so$%ht to sho* that as co'o*ner, she had the ri%ht to redeem at the price stated in the deed o# sale o# P58,888.88 b$t de#endants Spo$ses Ioromals in ans*er, and in their e+idence, oral and doc$mentar( so$%ht to sho* that plainti had no more ri%ht to redeem, and that i# e+er she sho$ld ha+e, that it sho$ld beat the tr$e and real price paid b( them *hich amo$nts to P11B,2B8.88 trial 0$d%e L plainti had no more ri%ht, to redeem, beca$se -Plainti *as in#ormed o# the intended sale o# the A7 share belon%in% to the ;orillenos. -Co$rt o# ppeals re+ersed the trial co$rt-s decision and held that altho$%h respondent /ilomena Fa+ellana *as in#ormed o# her co'o*ners- Proposal to sell the land in $estion to petitioners she *as, ho*e+er, ne+er notifed... least o# all, in *ritin%, o# the act$al eec$tion and re%istration o# the correspondin% deed o# sale, hence, said respondent-s ri%ht to redeem had not (et epired at the time she made her oer #or that p$rpose thr$ her letter o# F$ne 18, 19AG deli+ered to petitioners on e+en date. &he intermediate co$rt #$rther held that the redemption price to be paid b( respondent sho$ld be that stated in the deed o# sale *hich is P58, 888.88 not*ithstandin% that the preponderance o# the e+idence pro+es that the act$al price paid b( petitioners *as P11B,2B8.88
/ssue hether or not /ilomenaHs ri%ht to redeem had epired
0el! @O. &here is @o sho*in% that /ilomena *as notifed. &he letters sent b( Carlos ;orilleno to respondent and dated Fan$ar( 1G, 19AG, Ehibit 7, and @o+ember B, 19A7, Ehibit A, constit$ted the re$ired notice in *ritin% #rom *hich the 58'da( da( period fed in said pro+ision sho$ld be comp$ted. )$t to start *ith, there is no sho*in% that said letters *ere in #act recei+ed b( respondent /ilomena and *hen the( *ere act$all( recei+ed. )esides, petitioners do not pinpoint *hich o# these t*o letters, their dates bein% more than t*o months apart, is the re$ired notice. "n an( e+ent, as #o$nd b( the appellate co$rt, neither o# said letters re#erred to a cons$mmated sale. "t cannot be said that the Co$rt o# ppeals erred in holdin% that the letters a#orementioned s$ced to compl( *ith the re$irement o# notice o# a sale b( co' o*ners $nder rticle 1A25 o# the Ci+il Code. e are o# the considered opinion and so hold that #or p$rposes o# the co'o*ner-s ri%ht o# redemption %ranted b( rticle 1A28 o# the Ci+il Code, the notice in *ritin% *hich rticle 1A25 re$ires to be made to the other co'o*ners and #rom receipt o# *hich the 58'da( period to redeem sho$ld be co$nted is a notice not onl( o# a per#ected sale b$t o# the act$al eec$tion and deli+er( o# the deed o# sale. &his is implied #rom the latter portion o# rticle 1A25 *hich re$ires that be#ore a re%ister o# deeds can record a sale b( a co'o*ner, there m$st be presented to him, an ada+it to the eect that the notice o# the sale had been sent in *ritin% to the other co'o*ners. sale ma( not be presented to the re%ister o# deeds #or re%istration $nless it be in the #orm o# a d$l( eec$ted p$blic instr$ment.
case 1 92 E%/4S #4%%4$" plainti7-appellee vs 0E$MENE#/%4 0?S4/N" E5 4%." !e;en!ants :3N/4C/3 0?S4/N" !e;en!ant-appellant #.$. No. %-2>9+' May 2'" *9,( <#4%%4$ vs 0?S4/N= acts ;$sains in this case are the heirs o# &eodoro ;$sain. &eodoro ;$sain sold the land $nder disp$te #or 58 pesos to Serapio Chichirita *ith the ri%ht to rep$rchase *ithin A (ears. &eodoro trans#erred his ri%ht to his sister, Nraciana ;$sain. Nraciana paid the redemption price and later sold the land to Elias Nallar #or cattle. Possession o# the land, to%ether *ith the o*ner-s d$plicate o# the certifcate o# title o# &eodoro ;$sain, *as deli+ered on the same occasion to Nallar, *ho since then has been in
possession o# the land. co$ple o# (ears a#ter, Nallar fled this s$it in the Co$rt o# "nstance o# "loilo on October 18, 19A8 to compel ;ermene%ilda and )oni#acio ;$sain, as heirs o# &eodoro ;$sain, to eec$te a deed o# con+e(ance in his #a+or so that he co$ld %et a trans#er certifcate o# title. ;e also ased #or dama%es. &he ;$sains co$ntered b( sa(in% that Nraciana alread( paid the redemption price th$s their #ather had alread( reac$ired o*nership o+er the same. &he( also claim that the action o# Elias has alread( PESC")EI.
/ssue 1. hether or not o*nership *as trans#erred to Nallar 2. hether or not the action has alread( prescribed 0el! 1. =ES, o*nership has been trans#erred to Nallar. &he ri%ht o# rep$rchase ma( be eercised onl( b( the +endor in *hom the ri%ht is reco%nied b( contract or b( an( person to *hom the ri%ht ma( ha+e been trans#erred. Nraciana ;$sain m$st, there#ore, be deemed to ha+e ac$ired the land in her o*n ri%ht, s$b0ect onl( to &eodoro ;$sain-s ri%ht o# redemption. s the ne* o*ner she had a per#ect ri%ht to dispose o# the land as she in #act did *hen she echan%ed it #or cattle *ith Nallar. 2. @O, the action is imprescriptible. &his action is not #or specifc per#ormance3 all it sees is to $iet title, to remo+e the clo$d cast on appellee-s o*nership as a res$lt o# appellant-s re#$sal to reco%nie the sale made b( their predecessor. nd, as plainti'appellee is in possession o# the land, the action is imprescriptible. ppellant-s ar%$ment that the action has prescribed *o$ld be correct i# the( *ere in possession as the action to $iet title *o$ld then be an action #or reco+er( o# real propert( *hich m$st be bro$%ht *ithin the stat$tor( period o# limitation %o+ernin% s$ch actions.
