Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    Doctrines Sales and Lease

    Uploaded by

    dianepndvla
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in Dignos v CA. It found that all the elements of a valid contract of sale were present between the spouses Dignos and Jabil for a land sale in 1965. The spouses Dignos did not have the right to sell the land because possession had already been delivered to Jabil, and they did not take legal steps to rescind the sale. There was no evidence Jabil authorized waiving rights to the land. The document discusses several other cases related to doctrines on sales and lease and articles 1458-1478, 1479-1483 and 1504, and 1493-1520 of relevant codes.

    Copyright:

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

    Doctrines Sales and Lease

    Uploaded by

    dianepndvla
    13 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in Dignos v CA. It found that all the elements of a valid contract of sale were present between the spouses Dignos and Jabil for a land sale in 1965. The spouses Dignos did not have the right to sell the land because possession had already been delivered to Jabil, and they did not take legal steps to rescind the sale. There was no evidence Jabil authorized waiving rights to the land. The document discusses several other cases related to doctrines on sales and lease and articles 1458-1478, 1479-1483 and 1504, and 1493-1520 of relevant codes.

    Original Title

    SALES.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in Dignos v CA. It found that all the elements of a valid contract of sale were present between the spouses Dignos and Jabil for a land sale in 1965. The spouses Dignos did not have the right to sell the land because possession had already been delivered to Jabil, and they did not take legal steps to rescind the sale. There was no evidence Jabil authorized waiving rights to the land. The document discusses several other cases related to doctrines on sales and lease and articles 1458-1478, 1479-1483 and 1504, and 1493-1520 of relevant codes.

    Copyright:

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

    Doctrines Sales and Lease

    Uploaded by

    dianepndvla
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in Dignos v CA. It found that all the elements of a valid contract of sale were present between the spouses Dignos and Jabil for a land sale in 1965. The spouses Dignos did not have the right to sell the land because possession had already been delivered to Jabil, and they did not take legal steps to rescind the sale. There was no evidence Jabil authorized waiving rights to the land. The document discusses several other cases related to doctrines on sales and lease and articles 1458-1478, 1479-1483 and 1504, and 1493-1520 of relevant codes.

    Copyright:

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

    DOCTRINES

    SALES AND LEASE

    ART 1458 - 1478

    DIGNOS v CA
    The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals saying stated that all the elements of
    a valid contract of sale are present in the document and that the spouses Dignos had no right to sell
    the land in question because an actual delivery of its possession has already been made in favor of
    Jabil as early as March 1965. It was also found that the spouses Dignos never notified Jabil by notarial
    act that they were rescinding the contract, and neither did they file a suit in court to rescind the sale.
    There is no showing that Jabil properly authorized a certain Cipriano Amistad to tell petitioners that he
    was already waiving his rights to the land in question.

    TAN v BENORILAO

    ARTATES v URBI

    HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ZAMBALES v CA

    QUIROGA v PARSONS

    CONCRETE AGREGATES v CTA

    PEOPLEs HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP v CA

    TOYOTA SHAW v CA

    SAMPAGUITA PICTURES v JALWINDOR MANUFACTURES

    ART 1479 1483 AND 1504

    SOUTHERN SUGAR AND MOLLASES v ATLANTIC GULF

    ARKINS KROLL AND CO v CUA HIAN TEK

    NATINO v IAC

    SERRA v CA

    ROMAN v GRIMALT

    EQUATORIAL REALTY v MAYFAIR THEATER

    NORKIS DISTRIBUTIONS IN v CA

    ART 1484 1491


    SOUTHERN MOTORS v MOSCOSO

    PASCUA v UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORP

    FILINVEST CREDIT CORP v CA

    RIDAD v FILIPINAS INVESTMENTS

    SPS DELA CRUZ v CA

    LEOVILLO AGUSTIN v CA

    FIESTAN v CA

    BORBON II v SERVICEWIDE SPECIALIST

    ART 1493 1520

    DIZON v SUNTAY

    EDCA PUBLISHING v SANTOS

    LAYUG v IAC

    POWER COMMERCIAL vs CA

    ADDISON v FELIX AND TIOCO

    TEN FORTY REALTY v CRUZ

    You might also like