Oscar C. Fernandez vs Sps. Carlos and Narcisa Tarun

 GR No. 143868 November 14, 2002

Facts:

Brothers Antonio, Santiago, Demetria and Angel and their uncle Armando owned 1/6 of the fishpond. When Armando died, his share was distributed to others. Antonion sold his share to Tarun and the sales were registered and annotated. The co-owners of the fishpond executed an Extrajudicial deed of partition in exchange of the shares. The deed stipulated that the sale of the shares of demetria and antonio be recognised. When Tarun was already paying her realty taxes on their share of the fishpond, Angel and others were still in possession of the entire fishpond. Angel refused to the partition of the property.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to exercise their right of legal redemption

Ruling:

No, the petitioners are not entitled to exercise their right of legal redemption. The right to redeemonly applies when a portion is sold to a non-co-owner. Tarun became a co owner of the fishpond because they were sold shares of it by Demetria and Antionio before Tarun succeeded angel. Legal redemption is in the nature of a privilege created by law partly for reasons of public policy and partly for the benefit and convenience of the redemptioner, to afford him a way out of what might be a disagreeable or inconvenient association into which he has beenthrust. The petitioner’s contention that the sales of the shares in the disputed fishpond to the respondents are void because a notice in writing to the other co-owners wasnot sent as required under Article 1625  of the Civil Code is not meritorious. The provision only states that thedeed of sale shall not be recorded in the registry of property without such notice but it does not make the sale void.

Ting Ho vs Teng Gui

 GR No. 130115 July 16, 2008

Facts:

Felix Ting Ho, Jr., Merla Ting Ho Braden, Juana Ting Ho and Lydia Ting Ho Belenzo against their brother, respondent Vicente Teng Gui.   The controversy revolves around a parcel of land, and the improvements which should form part of the estate of their deceased father, Felix Ting Ho, and should be partitioned equally among each of the siblings. Petitioners alleged that their father Felix Ting Ho died intestate on June 26, 1970, and left upon his death an estate. According to petitioners, the said lot and properties were titled and tax declared under trust in the name of respondent Vicente Teng Gui for the benefit of the deceased Felix Ting Ho who, being a Chinese citizen, was then disqualified to own public lands in thePhilippines; and that upon the death of Felix Ting Ho, the respondent took possession of the same for his own exclusive use and benefit to their exclusion and prejudice.



Issue:
Whether or not the sale was void



Ruling:
No, the sale was not void. Article 1471 of the Civil Code has provided that if the price is simulated, the sale is void, but the act may be shown to have been in reality a donatin, or some other act or contract. The sale in this case, was however valid because the sale was in fact a donation. The law requires positive proof of the simulation of the price of the sale. But since the finding was based on a mere assumption, the price has not been proven to be a simulation.

Mapalo vs Mapalo

 GR No. 21489 &21623 May 19, 1966

Facts:

Magpalo and Quiba are farmers who are the registered owners of a residential land. Magpalo decided to donate the eastern half of his land to Maximo. However, Magpalo and Quiba were deceived into signing a deed of absolute sale of the entire land. The document showed a consideration of P500 but Magpalo contended that he was not able to receive anything. Magpalo built a fence to segregate the donated land. Maximo registered the deed of sale in his favor and was able to obtain a TCT. Maximo then sold the entire land to Narciso. Narciso took possession of the eastern part of the land.



Issue:
Whether or not the contract is voidable



Ruling:



No, the contract is not voidable but void. The contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect whatsoever where the same is without cause or consideration in that purchase price which appears thereon as paid, has in fact never been paid by the purchaser or the vendor.

Penalosa vs Santos

 363 SCRA 545, GR No. 133749 August 23, 2001

Facts:

Penalosa entered into 2 contracts of sale with Santos. The contract is a conditional contract of sale. According to the stipulations of the contract, Penalosa would have to evict the illegal settlers in the lot afterwhich, the sale will be formalised. However, Penalosa failed to pay the purchase price. Santos contends that the contracts are absolutely simulated and therefore, void.



Issue:
Whether or not the contract of sale was absolutely simulated for want of consideration



Ruling;
No, the contract of sale was not simulated. The contracts were perfected and the entire requirement for the perfection of a contract of sale were satisfied. The meeting of the minds of Santos and Penalosa perfected the contract despite the failure of Penalosa to pay the purchase price.

Mccullough vs Aenille & Co.

13 hil. 285 February 3, 1904

Facts:

Furniture and tobacoo were being sold by Aenille and Co. The furniture was sold at 90% of the price that is shown in a subsequent inventory. The tobacco was sold with the price indicated in the invoice.

Issue:

Whether or not the price is already considered certain

Ruling:

Yes, the price is already considered certain. A written agreement by which one party buys and the other sells can be made certain by reference to certain invoices in existence and identified by the agreement. The contract of sale is therefore completed.

Toyota Shaw vs CA

 GR No. 116650 May 23, 1995

Facts:

Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Car. She met Bernardo, the sales representative of Toyota. Sosa emphasized to the sales rep that she needed the car not later than 17 June 1989. They contracted an agreement on the delivery of the unit and that the balance of the purchase price would be paid by credit financing. The following day, Sosa delivered the downpayment and a Vehicle sales proposal was printed. On the day of delivery, Bernardo called Sosa to inform him that the car could not be delivered. Toyota contends, on the other hand, that the Lite Ace was not delivered to Sosa because of the disapproval by B.A. Finance of the credit financing application of Sosa. Toyota then gave Sosa the option to purchase the unit by paying the full purchase price in cash but Sosa refused. Sosa asked that his down payment be refunded. Toyota did so on the very same day by issuing a Far East Bank check for the full amount, which Sosa signed with the reservation, “without prejudice to our future claims for damages.” Thereafter, Sosa sent two letters to Toyota. In the first letter, she demanded the refund of the down payment plus interest from the time she paid it and for damages. Toyota refused to the demands of Sosa.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale

Ruling:

What is clear from the agreement signed by Sosa and Gilbert is not a contract of sale. No obligation on the part of Toyota to transfer ownership of the car to Sosa and no correlative obligation on the part of Sosa to pay . The provision on the down payment of PIOO,OOO.OO made no specific reference to a sale of a vehicle. If it was intended for a contract of sale, it could only refer to a sale on installment basis, as the VSP executed the following day. Nothing was mentioned about the full purchase price and the manner the installments were to be paid. An agreement on the manner of payment of the price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. This is so because the agreement as to the manner of payment goes, into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price. Definiteness as to the price is an essential element of a binding agreement to sell personal property.

Sps. Bernardo Buenaventora and consolacion Joaquin, et. al vs Court of Appeals, et. al

GR No. 126376 November 20, 2003

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 sumsr 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.

Issue:

Whether or not the Deeds of sale are void for lack of consideration



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 void. 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.