Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 205 views

    Fule v. CA

    Uploaded by

    David Cameron
    Gregorio Fule offered to sell his 10-hectare property in exchange for P40,000 and a diamond earring owned by Dr. Cruz. After negotiations, they executed a deed of sale and Fule examined the earring for 10-15 minutes before taking it. Two hours later, Fule complained the earring was fake. The court ruled the sale was consummated as ownership transferred when Fule took the earring, and he was estopped from later complaining due to unexplained delay. While the P40,000 was unpaid, the contract did not specify when it was due so this was not grounds to invalidate the sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fule v. CA

    Uploaded by

    David Cameron
    205 views2 pages
    Gregorio Fule offered to sell his 10-hectare property in exchange for P40,000 and a diamond earring owned by Dr. Cruz. After negotiations, they executed a deed of sale and Fule examined the earring for 10-15 minutes before taking it. Two hours later, Fule complained the earring was fake. The court ruled the sale was consummated as ownership transferred when Fule took the earring, and he was estopped from later complaining due to unexplained delay. While the P40,000 was unpaid, the contract did not specify when it was due so this was not grounds to invalidate the sale.

    Original Description:

    Fule vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Gregorio Fule offered to sell his 10-hectare property in exchange for P40,000 and a diamond earring owned by Dr. Cruz. After negotiations, they executed a deed of sale and Fule examined the earring for 10-15 minutes before taking it. Two hours later, Fule complained the earring was fake. The court ruled the sale was consummated as ownership transferred when Fule took the earring, and he was estopped from later complaining due to unexplained delay. While the P40,000 was unpaid, the contract did not specify when it was due so this was not grounds to invalidate the sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    205 views2 pages

    Fule v. CA

    Uploaded by

    David Cameron
    Gregorio Fule offered to sell his 10-hectare property in exchange for P40,000 and a diamond earring owned by Dr. Cruz. After negotiations, they executed a deed of sale and Fule examined the earring for 10-15 minutes before taking it. Two hours later, Fule complained the earring was fake. The court ruled the sale was consummated as ownership transferred when Fule took the earring, and he was estopped from later complaining due to unexplained delay. While the P40,000 was unpaid, the contract did not specify when it was due so this was not grounds to invalidate the sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    GREGORIO FULE, PETITIONER, VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS, NINEVETCH


    CRUZ AND JUAN BELARMINO, RESPONDENTS.
    FACTS
    Gregorio Fule, a banker by profession and a jeweler at the same time, offered to
    sell his parcel of land (10-hectare property in Rizal) to Dr. Cruz in exchange for P40,000
    and a diamond earring owned by the latter. It is undisputed that Fule had an interest to
    purchase said earring from Dr. Cruz and made several offers to buy it from the latter.
    Subsequently, negotiations for the barter of the jewelry and the Tanay property ensued.
    A deed of absolute sale was then prepared by Atty. Belarmino and the parties
    executed the same. On the same day Fule went to the bank with Dichoso and Mendoza,
    and Dr. Cruz arrived shortly thereafter. Dr. Cruz got the earrings from her safety deposit
    box and handed it to Fule who then examined it for 10-15 minutes. After a while, Dr.
    Cruz asked if those were alright to which petitioner expressed his satisfaction by nodding
    his head and took the earrings. Two hours after, Fule complained that the earrings were
    fake. Thereafter, he filed a complaint to declare the sale null and void on the ground of
    fraud and deceit.
    The trial court rendered a decision against petitioner in finding that the contract of
    sale or barter had had in fact been consummated and that petitioner is already estopped to
    question the genuineness of the jewelry due to the unexplained delay of 2 hours.
    ISSUE
    Whether the sale should be nullified on the ground of fraud
    RULING
    NO.
    A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon
    the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. Being consensual, a
    contract of sale has the force of law between the contracting parties and they are expected
    to abide in good faith by their respective contractual commitments.
    Ownership over the parcel of land and the pair of emerald-cut diamond earrings
    had been transferred to Dr. Cruz and petitioner, respectively, upon the actual and
    constructive delivery thereof. Furthermore, petitioner was afforded the reasonable
    opportunity required in Article 1584 of the Civil Code within which to examine the
    jewelry as he in fact accepted them when asked by Dr. Cruz if he was satisfied with the
    same. By taking the jewelry outside the bank, petitioner executed an act which was more
    consistent with his exercise of ownership over it. The nature and value of the thing he had
    taken preclude its return after that supervening period within which anything could have
    happened, not excluding the alteration of the jewelry or its being switched with an
    inferior kind.
    While it is true that the amount of P40,000.00 forming part of the consideration
    was still payable to petitioner, its nonpayment by Dr. Cruz is not a sufficient cause to
    invalidate the contract or bar the transfer of ownership and possession of the things
    exchanged considering the fact that their contract is silent as to when it becomes due and
    demandable.

    Neither may such failure to pay the balance of the purchase price result in the payment
    of interest thereon. Article 1589 of the Civil Code prescribes the payment of interest
    by the vendee for the period between the delivery of the thing and the payment of
    the price in the following cases:
    (1) Should it have been so stipulated;
    (2) Should the thing sold and delivered produce fruits or income;
    (3) Should he be in default, from the time of judicial or extrajudicial demand for the
    payment of the price.
    Not one of these cases obtains here. This case should, of course, be distinguished from
    De la Cruz v. Legaspi, where the court held that failure to pay the consideration after the
    notarization of the contract as previously promised resulted in the vendees liability for
    payment of interest. In the case at bar, there is no stipulation for the payment of interest in
    the contract of sale nor proof that the Tanay property produced fruits or income. Neither
    did petitioner demand payment of the price as in fact he filed an action to nullify the
    contract of sale.

    You might also like