sales - august 20, 2015

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

1/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. 1

G.R. No. 133895 October 2, 2001

ZENAIDA M. SANTOS,petitioner,vs.CALIXTO SANTOS, ALERTO SANTOS, ROSA SANTOS!CARREON "#$ANTONIO SANTOS, respondents.

%&IS&MING, J.:

This petition for review1seeks to annul and set aside the deision date !arh1", 1##$ of the Court of %ppeals that affirmed the deision of the &egionalTrial Court of !anila, 'ranh $, dated !arh 1, 1##*. +etitioner also seeksto annul the resolution that denied her motion for reonsideration.

+etitioner enaida !. Santos is the widow of Salvador Santos, a brother ofprivate respondents Cali-to, %lberto, %ntonio, all surnamed Santos and &osaSantosCarreon.

The spouses /esus and &osalia Santos owned a parel of land registeredunder TCT 0o. 21 with an area of 12 s3uare meters, loated at Sta.Cru4 !anila. On it was a fourdoor apartment administered b5 &osalia whorented them out. The spouses had five hildren, Salvador, Cali-to, %lberto,

%ntonio and &osa.

On /anuar5 1#, 1#2#, /esus and &osalia e-euted a deed of sale of theproperties in favor of their hildren Salvador and &osa. TCT 0o. 21beame TCT 0o. 6"$1#. &osa in turn sold her share to Salvador on0ovember ", 1#* whih resulted in the issuane of a new TCT 0o.11*1. 7espite the transfer of the propert5 to Salvador, &osalia ontinued to

lease reeive rentals form the apartment units.1wphi1.nt

On 0ovember 1, 1##, /esus died. Si- 5ears after or on /anuar5 #, 1#$2,Salvador died, followed b5 &osalia who died the following month. Shortl5after, petitioner enaida, laiming to be Salvador8s heir, demanded the rentfrom %ntonio 9ombrebueno,a tenant of &osalia. :hen the latter refused topa5, enaida filed and e;etment suit against him with the !etropolitan TrialCourt of !anila, 'ranh , whih eventuall5 deided in enaida8s favor.

On /anuar5 2, 1#$#, private respondents instituted an ation forreonve5ane of propert5 with preliminar5 in;untion against petitioner in the&egional Trial Court of !anila, where the5 alleged that the two deeds of sale

e-euted on /anuar5 1#, 1#2# and 0ovember ", 1#* were simulated forlak of onsideration. The5 were e-euted to aommodate Salvador in

generation funds for his business and providing him with greater businessfle-ibilit5.

:9?&?@O&?, viewed from all the foregoing onsiderations,;udgment is hereb5 made in favor of the plaintiffs and against thedefendants>

a) 7elaring ?-h. A'A, the deed of sale e-euted b5 &osalia Santosand /esus Santos on /anuar5 1#, 1#2#, as entirel5 null and void forbeing fititious or stimulated and ine-istent and without an5 legalfore and effet>

b) 7elaring ?-h. A7A, the deed of sale e-euted b5 &osa Santos infavor of Salvador Santos on 0ovember ", 1#*, also as entirel5 nulland void for being likewise fititious or stimulated and ine-istent andwithout an5 legal fore and effet=

) 7ireting the &egister of 7eeds of !anila to anel TransferCertifiate of Title 0o. T11*1 registered in the name of SalvadorSantos, as well as, Transfer Certifiate of Title 0o. 6"$1# in the

names of Salvador Santos, &osa Santos, and onse3uentl5thereafter, reinstating with the same legal fore and effet as if thesame was not anelled, and whih shall in all respets be entitled tolike faith and redit= Transfer Certifiate of Title 0o. T21registered in the name of &osalia %. Santos, married to /esusSantos, the same to be partitioned b5 the heirs of the said registeredowners in aordane with law= and

d) !aking the in;untion issued in this ase permanent.

:ithout pronounement as to osts.

SO O&?7?&?7.*

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

2/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p.

The trial ourt reasoned that notwithstanding the deeds of sale transferringthe propert5 to Salvador, the spouses &osalia and /esus ontinued topossess the propert5 and to e-erise rights of ownership not onl5 b5reeiving the monthl5 rentals, but also b5 pa5ing the realt5 ta-es. %lso,&osalia kept the owner8s dupliate op5 of the title even after it was alread5in the name of Salvador. @urther, the spouses had no ompelling reason in

1#2# to sell the propert5 and Salvador was not finaniall5 apable topurhase it. The deeds of sale were therefore fititious. 9ene, the ation toassail the same does not presribe.

Bpon appeal, the Court of %ppeals affirmed the trial ourt8s deision dated!arh 1", 1##$.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

3/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. *

possess and administer the propert5 and en;o5 its fruits b5 leasing it to thirdpersons.1"'oth &osa and Salvador did not e-erise an5 right of ownershipover it.11'efore the seond deed of sale to transfer her N share over thepropert5 was e-euted b5 &osa, Salvador still sought she permission of hismother.1@urther, after Salvador registered the propert5 in his name, hesurrendered the title to his mother.1*These are lear indiations that

ownership still remained with the original owners.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

4/40


asserting the omplainant8s rights, the omplainant having had knowledge ornotie of the defendant8s ondut as having been afforded an opportunit5 toinstitute a suit= *) lak of knowledge or notie on the part of the defendantthat the omplainant would assert the right in whih he bases his suit= and )in;ur5 or pre;udie to the defendant in the event relief is aorded to theomplainant, or the suit is not held barred.1$These elements must all be

proved positivel5. The ondut whih aused the omplaint in the ourt auowas petitioner8s assertion of right of ownership as heir of Salvador. Thisstarted in 7eember 1#$2 when petitioner demanded pa5ment of the leaserentals from %ntonio 9ombrebueno, the tenant of the apartment units. @rom7eember 1#$2 up to the filing of the omplaint for reonve5ane on /anuar52, 1#$#, onl5 less than four 5ears had lapsed whih we do not think isunreasonable dela5 suffiient to bar respondents8 ause of ation. :elikewise find the fourth element laking. 0either petitioner nor her husbandmade onsiderable investments on the propert5 from the time it wasallegedl5 transferred to the latter. The5 also did not enter into transationsinvolving the propert5 sine the5 did not laim ownership of it until 7eember1#$2. +etitioner stood to lose nothing. %s we held in the same aseof !acsa"ana vs. CA, ited above, the onept of lahes is not onernedwith the lapse of time but onl5 with the effet of unreasonble lapse.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

5/40


G.R. No. 92989 *+- 8, 1991

ER)ECTO D/, *R. petitioner,vs.CO&RT O) AEALS, GELAC TRADING INC., "#$ ANTONIO .GONZALES, respondents.

$osa % &ui'ano !aw ())ices )or petitioner.

*+peito -. ugarin )or responent G*!AC /raing, Inc.

G&TIERREZ, *R., J.:p

This is a petition for review on certiorari

seeking the reversal of the !arh *,1##" deision of the Court of %ppeals whih ruled that the petitioner8spurhase of a farm trator was not validl5 onsummated and ordered aomplaint for its reover5 dismissed.

The fats as established b5 the reords are as follows>

The petitioner, +erfeto 75 and :ilfredo 75 are brothers. Sometime in 1##,:ilfredo 75 purhased a truk and a farm trator through finaning e-tendedb5 Dibra @inane and

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

6/40


%.

:9?T9?& O& 0OT T9? 9O0O&%'D? COB&T O@%++?%DS !

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

7/40


agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee.:e agree with the petitioner that %rtiles 1#$ and 1## are appliable in thease at bar.

%rtile 1#$ states>

%rt. 1#$. :hen the sale is made through a publiinstrument, the e-eution thereof shall be e3uivalent to thedeliver5 of the thing whih is the ob;et of the ontrat, iffrom the deed the ontrar5 does not appear or annot learl5be inferred.

--- --- ---

%rtile 1## provides>

%rtile 1##. The deliver5 of movable propert5 ma5 likewisebe made b5 the mere onsent or agreement of theontrating parties, if the thing sold annot be transferred tothe possession of the vendee at the time of the sale, or if thelatter alread5 had it in his possession for an5 other reason.(16*a)

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

8/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. $

The respondents further laim that at that time the sheriff levied on the tratorand took legal ustod5 thereof no one ever protested or filed a third part5laim.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

9/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. #

G.R. No. L!1232 A++t 3, 1918

A. A. ADDISON,plaintiffappellant,vs.MARCIANA )ELIX "#$ ALINO TIOCO,defendantsappellees.

/hos. D. Aitken )or appellant.3oesto 2ees an *liseo 4"5on )or appellees.

)IS(ER, J.4

'5 a publi instrument dated /une 11, 1#1, the plaintiff sold to the defendant!ariana @eli-, with the onsent of her husband, the defendant 'albinoTioo, four parels of land, desribed in the instrument. The defendant @eli-paid, at the time of the e-eution of the deed, the sum of +*,""" on aountof the purhase prie, and bound herself to pa5 the remainder ininstallments, the first of +,""" on /ul5 12, 1#1, and the seond of +2,"""thirt5 da5s after the issuane to her of a ertifiate of title under the Dand

&egistration %t, and further, within ten 5ears from the date of suh title +1",for eah oonut tree in bearing and +2 for eah suh tree not in bearing,that might be growing on said four parels of land on the date of the issuaneof title to her, with the ondition that the total prie should not e-eed+$2,""".

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

10/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. 1"

ontrat b5 virtue of the speial agreement not onl5 did not e-ist from themoment of the e-eution of the ontrat up to one 5ear after the registrationof the land, but does not arue until the land is registered. The wording ofthe lause, in fat, substantiates the ontention. The one 5ear8s deliberationgranted to the purhaser was to be ounted Afrom the date of the ertifiateof title ... .A Therefore the right to elet to resind the ontrat was sub;et toa ondition, namel5, the issuane of the title. The reord show that up to thepresent time that ondition has not been fulfilled= onse3uentl5 the defendantannot be heard to invoke a right whih depends on the e-istene of thatondition.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

11/40


7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

12/40


G.R. No. L!9960 No7eber 28, 1988

)ELIX DANG&ILAN, petitioner,vs.INTERMEDIATE AELLATE CO&RT, AOLONIA MELAD, "te$ b-:er :+b"#$, *OSE TAGACA/,respondents.

-ero 2. -ere5, 6r. )or petitioner.

/eooro . 3allonga )or private responent.

CR&Z, *.4

The sub;et of this dispute is the two lots owned b5 7omingo !elad whih islaimed b5 both the petitioner and the respondent. The trial ourt believedthe petitioner but the respondent ourt, on appeal, upheld the respondent.The ase is now before us for a resolution of the issues one and for all.

On /anuar5 #, 1#6, the respondent filed a omplaint against the petitionerin the then Court of @irst

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

13/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. 1*

!ausi, +enablana, +rovine of Caga5an, +hilippine

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

14/40


the land pratiall5 b5 himself and so provided for the donee (and his wife)during the latter part of 7omingo !elad8s life. :e ma5 assume that there wasa fair e-hange between the donor and the donee that made the transationan onerous donation.

&egarding the private respondent8s laim that she had purhased the

properties b5 virtue of a deed of sale, the respondent ourt had onl5 thefollowing to sa5> A?-hibit 8?8 taken together with the doumentar5 and oralevidene shows that the preponderane of evidene is in favor of theappellants.A This was, we think, a rather superfiial wa5 of resolving suh abasi and important issue.

The deed of sale was allegedl5 e-euted when the respondent was onl5three 5ears old and the onsideration was supposedl5 paid b5 her mother,!aria Gedan from her earnings as a wage worker in a fator5. 1This wasitself a suspiious irumstane, one ma5 well wonder wh5 the transfer wasnot made to the mother herself, who was after all the one pa5ing for thelands. The sale was made out in favor of %polonia !elad although she had

been using the surname Gedan her mother8s surname, before that instrumentwas signed and in fat even after she got married. 16The averment was alsomade that the ontrat was simulated and prepared after 7omingo !elad8sdeath in 1#2. 18

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

15/40


ownership, the propert5 right, is onl5 derived from thedeliver5 of a thing ... A

%s for the argument that s5mboli deliver5 was effeted through the deed ofsale, whih was a publi instrument, the Court has held>

The Code imposes upon the vendor the obligationto eliverthe thing sold. The thing is onsidered to bedelivered when it is plaed Ain the hands and possession ofthe vendee.A (Civil Code, art. 16).

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

16/40


G.R. No. L!21998 No7eber 10, 1965

CALIXTO ASAG&I "#$ )A&STA MOSAR, plaintiffsappellants,vs.ESTER T. ILLALANCA, ZOSIMO ILLALANCA, E&STA%&IA OCAR"#$ CATALINA OCARdefendantsappellees.

6ulio Siangco )or plainti))s8appellants.

9ilo"eno Arteche, 6r. )or e)enants8appellees. .

ANTONIO, J.:

The onl5 issue posed b5 this appeal is whether or not, from the nature of theation pleaded as appears in the allegations of the omplaint, the aforesaidation is one of forible entr5, within the e-lusive ;urisdition of the muniipalourt. .

On @ebruar5 , 1#6*, appellants Cali-to +asagui and @austa !osar filed aomplaint with the Court of @irst

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

17/40


7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

18/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. 1$

G.R. No. 11965 *+#e 20, 1996

O'ER COMMERCIAL AND IND&STRIAL CORORATION, petitioner,vs.CO&RT O) AEALS, SO&SES RE/NALDO "#$ ANGELITA R.%&IAMAO "#$ (ILIINE NATIONAL AN;, respondents.

ANGANIAN, J.:

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

19/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. 1#

That both parties herein agree to seek and seure theagreement and approval of the said +hilippine 0ational 'ankto the herein sale of this propert5, hereb5 agreeing to abideb5 an5 and all re3uirements of the said bank, agreeing thatfailure to do so shall give to the bank first lieu ( sic) over theherein desribed propert5.

On the same date, !rs. C.7. Constantino, then Eeneral !anager ofpetitionerorporation, submitted to +0' said deed with a formal appliationfor assumption of mortgage.

On @ebruar5 12, 1#$", +0' informed respondent spouses that, forpetitioner8s failure to submit the papers neessar5 for approval pursuant tothe former8s letter dated /anuar5 12, 1#$", the appliation for assumption ofmortgage was onsidered withdrawn= that the outstanding balane of+12,"""."" was deemed full5 due and demandable= and that said loan wasto be paid in full within fifteen (12) da5s from notie. 5

+etitioner paid +0' +1,$$".2 on /une , 1#$" and +",$*.1 on7eember *, 1#$", pa5ments whih were to be applied to the outstandingloan. On 7eember *, 1#$", +0' reeived a letter from petitioner whihreads>

:ith regard to the presene of the people who are urrentl5in ph5sial oupan5 of the (l)ot . . . it is our desire asbu5ers and new owners of this lot to make use of this lot forour own purpose, whih is wh5 it is our desire and intentionthat all the people who are urrentl5 ph5siall5 present andin oupation of said lot should be removed immediatel5.

@or this purpose we respetfull5 re3uest that . . . ourassumption of mortgage be given favorable onsideration,and that the mortgage and title be transferred to our nameso that we ma5 undertake the neessar5 proedures tomake use of this lot ourselves.

10

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

20/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. "

(*) Ordering defendant +0' to return to plaintiff the amountof +6,16*.2# (+1,$$".2 and +",$*.1) with 1Rinterest thereon from date of herein ;udgment until the sameis full5 paid.

0o award of other damages and attorne58s fees, the samenot being warranted under the fats and irumstanes ofthe ase.

The ounterlaim of both defendants spouses Iuiambaoand +0' are dismissed for lak of merit.

0o pronounement as to osts.

SO O&7?&?7.

On appeal b5 respondentspouses and +0', &espondent Court of %ppealsreversed the trial ourt. 11

:9?&?@O&?, the 7eision appealed from is hereb5&?F?&S?7 and the omplaint filed b5 +ower Commerialand

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

21/40


so desribed, must be onstrued against the part5 who ausedit. 1+etitioner itself aused the obsurit5 beause it omitted this allegedondition when its law5er drafted said ontrat.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

22/40


possession thereof. +rior ph5sial deliver5 or possession is not legall5re3uired and the e-eution of the deed of sale is deemed e3uivalent todeliver5. 2This deed operates as a formal or s5mboli deliver5 of thepropert5 sold and authori4es the bu5er to use the doument as proof ofownership. 0othing more is re3uired.

2euisites o) reach o) 0arrant Against *viction

Obvious to us in the ambivalent stane of petitioner is its failure to establishan5 breah of the warrant5 against evition. 7espite its protestation that itsa3uisition of the lot was to enable it to set up a warehouse for its asbestosproduts and that failure to deliver atual possession thereof defeated thispurpose, still no breah of warrant5 against evition an be appreiatedbeause the fats of the ase do not show that the re3uisites for suh breahhave been satisfied. % breah of this warrant5 re3uires the onurrene ofthe following irumstanes>

(1) The purhaser has been deprived of the whole or part of the thing sold=

() This evition is b5 a final ;udgment=

(*) The basis thereof is b5 virtue of a right prior to the sale made b5 thevendor= and

() The vendor has been summoned and made odefendant in the suit forevition at the instane of the vendee.25

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

23/40


'ut even if petitioner was a third part5 in regard to the mortgage of the landpurhased, the pa5ment of the loan b5 petitioner was a ondition learl5imposed b5 the ontrat of sale. This fat alone disproves petitioner8sinsistene that there was a AmistakeA in pa5ment. On the ontrar5, suhpa5ments were neessar5 to protet its interest as a Athe bu5er(s) and newowner(s) of the lot.A

The 3uasiontrat of solutio inebiti is one of the onrete manifestations ofthe anient priniple that no one shall enrih himself un;ustl5 at the e-penseof another. 31'ut as shown earlier, the pa5ment of the mortgage was anobligation petitioner assumed under the ontrat of sale. There is no un;ustenrihment where the transation, as in this ase, is ui pro uo, value forvalue.

%ll told, respondent Court did not ommit an5 reversible error whih wouldwarrant the reversal of the assailed 7eision.

:9?&?@O&?, the petition is hereb5 7?0

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

24/40


G.R. No. 119255 A

*" /une 1#$#

& ? C ? < + T

&?C?

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

25/40


On 1 /ul5 1#$#, the parties met again at the offie of FaldesCho58sounsel. Chua handed to FaldesCho5 the +'Com manager8s hek for+$2,"""."" so FaldesCho5 ould pa5 the apital gains ta- as she did nothave suffiient funds to pa5 the ta-. FaldesCho5 issued a reeipt showingthat Chua had a remaining balane of +1",12,"""."" after deduting theadvanes made b5 Chua. This reeipt reads>

/ul5 1, 1#$#

&eeived from !&. TO!%S . C9B% +'Com. Chek 0o. *2$21 inthe amount of @OB& 9B07&?7 ?

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

26/40


%ppl5ing the provisions of %rtile 11#1 of the new Civil Code, sinethis is an ation for speifi performane where the plaintiff, asvendee, wants to pursue the sale, and in order that the fears of thedefendant ma5 be alla5ed and still have the sale materiali4e,

;udgment is hereb5 rendered>

a. the owner8s dupliate op5 of TCT 0o. 16#22 registeredin her name=

b. the overing ta- delaration and the latest ta- reeiptevidening pa5ment of real estate ta-es=

. the two deeds of sale prepared b5 %tt5. !ark 'oobo on

/ul5 1*, 1#$#, dul5 e-euted b5 defendant in favor of theplaintiff, whether notari4ed or not= and

. :ithin five (2) da5s from ompliane b5 the defendant of theabove, ordering the plaintiff to deliver to the 'ranh Clerk of Court ofthis Court the sum of +1",#2,"""."" representing the balane ofthe onsideration (with the sum of +$","""."" for stamps alread5inluded)=

*. Ordering the 'ranh Clerk of this Court or her dul5 authori4edrepresentative>

a. to make representations with the '

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

27/40


#. 0o interest is imposed on the pa5ment to be made b5 the plaintiffbeause he had alwa5s been read5 to pa5 the balane and thepremises had been used or oupied b5 the defendant for theduration of this ase.

:9?&?@O&?, the deision appealed from is hereb5 &?F?&S?7and S?T %S

(1) 7ismissing Civil Case 0o. $#2=

() 7elaring the amount of +1"","""."", representingearnest mone5 as forfeited in favor of defendantappellant=

(*) Ordering defendantappellant to returnJrefund the amountof +$2,"""."" to plaintiffappellee without interest=

() 7ismissing defendantappellant8s ompulsor5 ounterlaim= and

(2) Ordering the plaintiffappellee to pa5 the osts.1#

9ene, the instant petition.

/he /rial Court:s 2uling

The trial ourt found that the transation reahed an impasse when FaldesCho5 wanted to be first paid the full onsideration before a new TCT overingthe +ropert5 is issued in the name of Chua. On the other hand, Chua did notwant to pa5 the onsideration in full unless a new TCT is first issued in hisname. The trial ourt faulted FaldesCho5 for this impasse.

The trial ourt held that the parties entered into a contract to sellon *" /une1#$#, as evidened b5 the &eeipt for the +1"","""."" earnest mone5. Thetrial ourt pointed out that the ontrat to sell was sub;et to the followingonditions> (1) the balane of +1","","""."" was pa5able not later than 12/ul5 1#$#= () FaldesCho5 ma5 sta5 in the +ropert5 until 1* %ugust 1#$#=and (*) all papers must be Ain proper orderA before full pa5ment is made.

The trial ourt held that Chua omplied with the terms of the ontrat to sell.Chua showed that he was prepared to pa5 FaldesCho5 the onsideration infull on 1* /ul5 1#$#, two da5s before the deadline of 12 /ul5 1#$#. Chuaeven added +$","""."" for the doumentar5 stamp ta-. 9e purhased from+'Com two manager8s heks both pa5able to FaldesCho5. The first hekfor +$2,"""."" was to pa5 the apital gains ta-. The seond hek for+1",12,"""."" was to pa5 the balane of the purhase prie. The trial ourtwas onvined that Chua demonstrated his apait5 and readiness to pa5the balane on 1* /ul5 1#$# with the prodution of the +'Com manager8shek for +1",12,"""."".

On the other hand, the trial ourt found that FaldesCho5 did not perform herorrelative obligation under the ontrat to sell to put all the papers in order.The trial ourt noted that as of 1 /ul5 1#$#, the apital gains ta- had notbeen paid beause FaldesCho58s ounsel who was suppose to pa5 the ta-did not do so. The trial ourt delared that FaldesCho5 was in a position todeliver onl5 the owner8s dupliate op5 of the TCT, the signed 7eeds of Sale,the ta- delarations, and the latest realt5 ta- reeipt. The trial ourtonluded that these douments were all useless without the 'ureau of

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

28/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. $

The trial ourt held that Chua8s nonpa5ment of the balane of+1",12,"""."" on the agreed date was due to FaldesCho58s fault.

/he Court o) Appeals: 2uling

. :9?T9?& F%D7?SC9OG !%G &?SC

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

29/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. #

'oth the trial and appellate ourts found that the balane of+1",12,"""."" was not actuall paito FaldesCho5 on the agreed date.On 1* /ul5 1#$#, Chua did show to FaldesCho5 the +'Com manager8shek for +1",12,"""."", with FaldesCho5 as pa5ee. 9owever,Chua re)useto give this hek to FaldesCho5 until a new TCT overing the+ropert5 is registered in Chua8s name. Or, as the trial ourt put it, until thereis proof of pa5ment of the apital gains ta- whih is a prere3uisite to the

issuane of a new ertifiate of title.

9irst an Secon Issues> Contract o) Sale or Contract to Sell?

Chua has onsistentl5 harateri4ed his agreement with Falde4Cho5, asevidened b5 the &eeipt, as a ontrat to sell and not a ontrat of sale.This has been Chua8s persistent ontention in his pleadings before the trialand appellate ourts.

Chua now pleads for the first time that there is a perfeted ontrat of salerather than a ontrat to sell. 9e ontends that there was no reservation in

the ontrat of sale that FaldesCho5 shall retain title to the +ropert5 untilafter the sale. There was no agreement for an automati resission of theontrat in ase of Chua8s default. 9e argues for the first time that hispa5ment of earnest mone5 and its aeptane b5 FaldesCho5 preludes thelatter from re;eting the binding effet of the ontrat of sale. Thus, Chualaims that FaldesCho5 ma5 not validl5 resind the ontrat of sale withoutfollowing %rtile 12#of the Civil Code whih re3uires demand, either

;udiiall5 or b5 notarial at, before resission ma5 take plae.

Chua8s new theor5 is not well taken in light of wellsettled ;urisprudene. %nissue not raised in the ourt below annot be raised for the first time onappeal, as this is offensive to the basi rules of fair pla5, ;ustie and due

proess.*

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

30/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. *"

stipulates that the earnest mone5 is a forfeitable deposit, to be forfeited if thesale is not onsummated should Chua fail to pa5 the balane of the purhaseprie. The earnest mone5 forms part of the onsideration onl5 if the sale isonsummated upon full pa5ment of the purhase prie.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

31/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. *1

- - -. (?mphasis supplied)

+rior to the e-istene of the ontrat of sale, the seller is not obligated totransfer ownership to the bu5er, even if there is a ontrat to sell betweenthem.

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

32/40


also to pa5 the full purhase prie at the agreed time. %rtile 12$ of the CivilCode provides that

%rt. 12$. The vendee is bound to aept deliver5 and to pa theprice o) the thing sol at the ti"e an place stipulate in the contract.

- - -. (?mphasis supplied)

Dee o) Absolute Sale covering the lot>

- - -

@or and in onsideration of the sum of ?

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

33/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. **

whih are ordinaril5 establishedA b5 usage or ustom.1:hat is inreasingl5beoming ustomar5 is to deposit in esrow the balane of the purhaseprie pending the issuane of a new ertifiate of title in the name of thebu5er. FaldesCho5 suggested this solution but unfortunatel5, it drew noresponse from Chua.

Chua had no reason to fear being swindled. FaldesCho5 was prepared toturnover to him the owner8s dupliate op5 of the TCT, the signed 7eeds ofSale, the ta- delarations, and the latest realt5 ta- reeipt. There was nohindrane to pa5ing the apital gains ta- as Chua himself had advaned themone5 to pa5 the same and FaldesCho5 had proured a manager8s hekpa5able to the 'ureau of

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

34/40


G.R. No. 150308 No7eber 2, 200

IE EAGLE LAND, INC. "#$ IRGILIO O. CERANTES,petitioners,vs.

CO&RT O) AEALS "#$ GEN&INO ICE CO., INC.,respondents.

7 ? C < S < O 0

CALLE*O, SR., J.4

This is a petition filed b5 Five ?agle Dand,

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

35/40


learane from the proper government agen5Jies within thirt5 (*")da5s from %pril 1, 1#$$. Offiial reeipts of pa5ments thereof shallbe presented and delivered to C%+

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

36/40


:9?&?@O&?, premises onsidered, it is most respetfull5 pra5edthat, after trial, ;udgment be rendered against defendants to, ;ointl5and severall5, indemnif5 plaintiff as follows>

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

37/40


absolute sale e-euted b5 the Spouses @lores and T%T

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

38/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. *$

tenantsJoupants from the propert5 within si-t5 da5s from %pril 1, 1#$$.T%T

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

39/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. *#

provides that the seller is obliged to pa5 the apital gains ta- based on itsobligation to transfer title over the propert5 to the vendee under Setions1(e) and *(h) of the 1# 0

7/24/2019 Sales - August 20, 2015

40/40

Sales Obligations of the Seller (Consummation) p. "

0o registration of an5 doument transferring real propert5 shall beeffeted b5 &egister of 7eeds unless the Commissioner or his dul5authori4ed representative has ertified that suh transfer has beenreported and the ta- herein imposed, if an5, has been paid= in ase ofdeferredpa5ment sales of real propert5 where the vendor retainstitle to the propert5, the vendee shall furnish the Commissioner with aop5 of the instrument of sale within the same period presribed for

pa5ment of the ta- herein imposed.

Setion (7) of the 1## 0

sales - august 20, 2015

Documents