Search
Home
Saved
325 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Sales Torcuator, Portic, Edrade Uploaded by Aster Carrillo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Sales Case Digests
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Join
Sales Case Carrascoso Jr. v. Digest_doublesales Court of Appeals
1
of 2
TORCUATOR v. Bernabe, 459 SCRA 439, June 8, 2005 FACTS: The subject of this action is Lot 17, Block 5 of the Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa, Metro-Manila, with an area of 569 square meters and covered by TCT No. S-79773. The above parcel of land was purchased by the Salvador spouses from the developers of Ayala Alabang subject, among others, to the following conditions:-“It is part of the condition of buying a lot in Ayala Alabang Village (a) that the lot buyer shall deposit with Ayala Corporation a cash bond (about P17,000.00 for the Salvadors) which shall be refunded to him if he builds a residence thereon within two (2) years of purchase, otherwise the deposit shall be forfeited, (b) architectural plans for any improvement shall be approved by Ayala Corporation, and (c) no lot may be resold by the buyer unless a residential house has been constructed thereon (Ayala Corporation keeps the Torrens Title in their [sic] possession).
Dichoso v Roxas
Search document
In 1968, spouses Portic acquired a parcel of land with a 3 door apartment from they’re aware that the land was mortgaged to the SSS. Portic defaulted in pa executed a contract with Cristobal and the latter agreed to buy the saidprope down payment was P45k and she also agreed to pay SSS. Thecontract between balance balance of P155,000. P155,000.00 00 has not yet been fully paid the FIRST PART ownership of the above described parcel of land together withits improvement BUYER shall shall have the right to collect collect themonthly themonthly rentals rentals due on the firs apartment; (payment is due 22May 1985, if Cristobal will not be able to pa transfer certificate was executed executed in favor of Cristobal. Cristobal was not able to ensued to lift the cloud on the title. ISSUE:
Who is the rightful owner of the parcel of land? Salvadors sold the parcel of land to Bernabe spouses. Salvadors executed a special power of attorney authorizing the Bernabes to construct a residential house on the lot and to transfer the title in their names. Bernabes, on the other hand, without making any improvement, contracted to sell the parcel of land to Torcuator spouses. Confronted by the Ayala Alabang restrictions, the parties agreed to cause the sale between the Salvadors and the Bernabes cancelled, in favor of (a) a new deed of sale from the Salvadors directly to the Torcuators; (b) a new Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney executed by the Salvadors to the Torcuators in order for the latter to build a house on the land in question; and (c) an Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney from the Salvadors to the Bernabes authorizing the latter to sell, transfer and convey, with power of substitution, the subject lot.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
The deed of sale was never consummated nor was payment on the said sale ever effected. Subseuqently,
HELD:
The Portics insofar as there was no contract of sale. What transpired between sell. The provision of the contract characterizes characterizes the agreementbetween the part a contract of sale. Ownership is retained by thevendors, the Portics; it will not b Cristobals, until the full payment of the purchase price. Such payment is a and failure to comply withit is not a breach of obligation; it is merely an event Cancel anytime. of the obliga obligatio tionof nof the vendor vendor to convey convey the title. title. In short, short, the vendor retainsownership.The mere issuance of the Certificate of Title in ownership in her.Neither did it validate the alleged absolute purchase of the
Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
Useful
Not useful
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
Search
Home
Saved
325 views
0
Sign In
Upload
RELATED TITLES
0
Sales Torcuator, Portic, Edrade Uploaded by Aster Carrillo
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Sales Case Digests
Save
Embed
Share
Print
Download
Join
Sales Case Carrascoso Jr. v. Digest_doublesales Court of Appeals
1
of 2
Dichoso v Roxas
Search document
ISSUE: WON there is a perfected contract of sale. Respondents filed an action against petitioners for specific performance with damages before the RTC, praying that petitioners be obliged to execute the necessary deed of sale of the two f ishing vessels and to pay the balance balance of the purchase purchase price. price. In their Complaint ,[7] [7] respondents alleged that petitioners contracted to buy the two fishing vessels for the agreed purchase price of Nine Hundred Thousand Pesos (P900,000.00), as evidenced by the above-quoted document, which according to them evinced a contract to
buy. However, despite delivery of said vessels and repeated oral demands, demands, petitioners failed to pay the balance, so respondents further averred. Petitioners averred that the document sued upon merely embodies an agreement brought about by the loans they extended to respondents. According to petitioners, respondents allowed allowed them to manage or administer the fishing vessels as a business on the understanding that should they find the business profitable profitable,, the vessels would be sold to them for Nine Hundred Hundred Thousand Thousand Pesos ( P900,000.0 P900,000.00). 0). But petitioners “decided to call it quits” after spending a hefty sum for the repair and maintenance of the vessels which were already in dilapidated condition.
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times RTC: In favor of petitioners. Treated the same as a suit for collection of money.
Special offer for CA: Affirmed RTC.students: Only $4.99/month.
RULING: NO. An examination of the document reveals reveals that there is no perf agreement may confirm the receipt by respondents of the two vessels and thei there there is no equivocal equivocal agreemen agreementt to transfer ownership ownership of the vessel, vessel, but “documents pertaining to the sale and agreement of payments…[are] to follow or documents which would formalize the transfer of ownership and contain purchase price, or the period when such would become due and demandabl no such document was executed and no such terms were stipulated upon.
The fact that there is a stated total purchase price should not le contract of sale had been perfected. In numerous cases, [19] [19] the the most recent o AB v. Court of Appeals,[20] [20] we we held that before a valid and binding contract o of payment of the purchase price must first be established, as such stands as es sale. After all, such agreement on the terms of payment is integral to the elem that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agre
Read Free Foron 30this Days Sign up to vote title
Useful
Not useful
Cancel anytime.
Home
Saved
Top Charts
Books
Audiobooks
Magazines
News
Documents
Sheet Music
Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.
Upload
Sign In
Read Free For 30 Days Cancel anytime.
Join
