Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 288 views

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Shervilyn Jaradil
    1. Gaite vs. Fonacier (2 SCRA 830) This case involved the sale of a parcel of land. The Supreme Court ruled that the contract of sale was perfected since the parties agreed on the thing and price, even if the deed of sale had not yet been executed. Delivery of possession is not necessary for perfection of the contract. 2. Schmid & Oberly vs. RJL Martinez Fishing Corp. (166 SCRA 493) This case dealt with the sale of a fishing vessel. The Supreme Court held that the contract of sale was an absolute sale, not a conditional sale, since the

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Shervilyn Jaradil
    288 views6 pages
    1. Gaite vs. Fonacier (2 SCRA 830) This case involved the sale of a parcel of land. The Supreme Court ruled that the contract of sale was perfected since the parties agreed on the thing and price, even if the deed of sale had not yet been executed. Delivery of possession is not necessary for perfection of the contract. 2. Schmid & Oberly vs. RJL Martinez Fishing Corp. (166 SCRA 493) This case dealt with the sale of a fishing vessel. The Supreme Court held that the contract of sale was an absolute sale, not a conditional sale, since the

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Gaite vs. Fonacier (2 SCRA 830) This case involved the sale of a parcel of land. The Supreme Court ruled that the contract of sale was perfected since the parties agreed on the thing and price, even if the deed of sale had not yet been executed. Delivery of possession is not necessary for perfection of the contract. 2. Schmid & Oberly vs. RJL Martinez Fishing Corp. (166 SCRA 493) This case dealt with the sale of a fishing vessel. The Supreme Court held that the contract of sale was an absolute sale, not a conditional sale, since the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    288 views6 pages

    Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Shervilyn Jaradil
    1. Gaite vs. Fonacier (2 SCRA 830) This case involved the sale of a parcel of land. The Supreme Court ruled that the contract of sale was perfected since the parties agreed on the thing and price, even if the deed of sale had not yet been executed. Delivery of possession is not necessary for perfection of the contract. 2. Schmid & Oberly vs. RJL Martinez Fishing Corp. (166 SCRA 493) This case dealt with the sale of a fishing vessel. The Supreme Court held that the contract of sale was an absolute sale, not a conditional sale, since the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    THE FILIPINO NATIONAL BANK, plaintiff-appellant, vs. AH SING, defendant and appellant.

    GR No. L-46419 February 20, 1940

    FACTS:

    The plaintiff brought the action to obtain the nullity of the contract concluded between him
    and the defendant on April 4, 1934. The plaintiff claims that the contract is a promise of sale of real
    estate and that being forbidden by the Constitution the transfer of agricultural land to a foreigner, the
    promised sale is no longer feasible and it must be annulled, both parts being reintegrated the land
    and the price, with their legal interests. The defendant contends that the contract is an absolute
    sale; That it fulfilled all the conditions stipulated, paying the agreed terms, and that the prohibition of
    the Constitution is not applicable because it has no retroactive effect and because, in addition,
    already had acquired a right that the same Constitution protects. The plaintiff appealed the part of
    the decision issued by the Davao Court of First Instance that he ordered him to pay the defendant
    the sum of P2,877.50 as value of the useful and necessary expenses made by the latter on the land,
    ,Because the defendant was not condemned to pay him the value of the fruits of the lands that
    perceived. The defendant's appeal of the part of the same judgment that declared that the contract is
    a promise of sale; That the improvements which he has introduced into the land may be acquired by
    the plaintiff through payment by him of his value; That the contract is null and void; And that the
    parties must reciprocally return the land and the amortizations paid, with legal interests over the
    latter since

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the contract is a promise of sale or an absolute sale with the stipulation that the rest of
    the price would be paid within the time limits set.

    HELD:

    The contract clearly demonstrate that it is a promise of sale because it expressly stipulates
    that after payment of the last term is when the definitive deed of sale will be granted, and cites in its
    support article 1451 of the Civil Code Which provides, in part, that the promise to sell or buy, having
    conformity in the thing and the price, will entitle the contractors to claim reciprocally the fulfillment of
    the contract. In our opinion the contract concluded by the parties is the actual sale of the properties
    that were the subject of the contract. According to their terms the parties agreed on both the land
    that was the object of the contract and the price and the way in which the latter was to be paid. Not
    only this, But the parties agreed that the land would be delivered to the defendant and that the
    landowner actually took possession of the land, introduced improvements thereto and benefited from
    its fruits, and also paid the agreed installments as they expired. Article 1450 of the Civil Code is
    strictly applicable to the case, which provides that the sale is perfected between buyer and seller and
    is mandatory for both, since they have agreed on the thing object of the contract and the price,
    although neither the one nor the Another have been delivered. Moreover, the sale was also
    consummated from the moment the lands were delivered to the defendant and the latter entered into
    possession and enjoyment of them (article 1462 of the Civil Code). Introduced improvements in
    them and benefited from their fruits, paying, in addition, the agreed terms as they expire. Article
    1450 of the Civil Code is strictly applicable to the case, which provides that the sale is perfected
    between buyer and seller and is mandatory for both, since they have agreed on the thing object of
    the contract and the price, although neither the one nor the Another have been delivered. Moreover,
    the sale was also consummated from the moment the lands were delivered to the defendant and the
    latter entered into possession and enjoyment of them (article 1462 of the Civil Code).
    CASES IN SALES
    Part 1
    Case Digests
    ( 1 - 50 )

    Submitted By:

    JARADIL, SHERVILYN A.
    (LLB-2B)
    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    1. GAITE vs. FONACIER 2 SCRA 830


    2. KERR & CO. vs. LINGAD 38 SCRA 524
    3. SCHMID & OBERLY vs. RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORP., 166 SCRA 493
    4. FILINVEST CREDIT CORP. vs. CA, 178 SCRA 188
    5. LUZON BROKERAGE CO. MARITIME BLDG. 43 SCRA 93
    6. DIGNOS vs. CA, 158 SCRA 375
    7. MARTIN vs. REYES ET. AL., G.R. No. L-4402, July 20, 1952
    8. MINDANAO ACADEMY vs. YAP, 13 SCRA 190
    9. ESTOQUE vs. PAJIMULA, 24 SCRA 59
    10. SEGURA vs. SEGURA, 165 SCRA 368
    11. REPUBLIC vs. CA, 148 SCRA 480
    12. TEODORO vs. CA, 170 SCRA 620
    13. YU TEK & CO. vs. GONZALES, 29 PHIL 384
    14. ONG JANG CHUAN vs. WISE & CO., 33 PHIL 339
    15. BUNGE CORP., ET AL., vs. ELENA CAMENFORTE & CO. 48 OFF. GAZ. 3377
    16. PATERNO vs. SALUD, 9 SCRA 81
    17. SANTA ANA vs. HERNANDEZ, 18 SCRA 973
    18. SIBAL vs. VALDEZ, 50 PHIL. 512
    19. PICKEL vs. ALONZO, 111 SCRA 341
    20. BUCTON vs. GABAR, 55 SCRA 499
    21. REPUBLIC vs. LICHAUCO, 46 SCRA 305
    22. DEL ROSARIO vs. SANTOS, 108 SCRA 43
    23. LUTERO vs. SIULIONG & CO. 54 PHIL. 272
    24. KERR & CO. vs. LINGAD, 38 SCRA 524
    25. INCHAUSTI & CO. vs. CROMWELL, 20 PHIL. 345
    26. MAJARABAS vs. LEONARDO, 11 PHIL 272
    27. MITSUI BUSSAN KAISHA vs. MANILA E. R. & L CO., 39 PHIL. 624
    28. MCCULLOUGH vs. AENLLE & CO., 3 PHIL. 285
    29. ROBLES vs. LIZARRAGA, 50 PHIL. 387
    30. ASKAY vs. COSALAN, 46 PHIL. 179
    31. WARNER BARNES & CO. vs. SANTOS, 14 PHIL 446
    32. NATIONAL BANK vs. GONZALES, 45 PHIL 693
    33. DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. ABARCA, 61 PHIL 70
    34. DE LEON vs. SALVADOR, 36 SCRA 567
    35. BORROMEO vs. BORROMEO ET. AL., 52 OFF. GAZ. 1932
    36. CRUZADO vs. BUSTOS AND ESCALER, 34 PHIL. 17
    37. GADNER vs. CA., 131 SCRA 585
    38. ODEGAR vs. ZUICO, 180 SCRA 372
    39. CASTILLO vs. SALVAN, 85 SCRA 526
    40. DE BELEN vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, 46 PHIL. 241
    41. GOYENA vs. TAMBUNTING, 1 PHIL., 490
    42. FILIPINAS COLLEGES INC. vs. TIMBANG, ET. AL., CA 52 OFF. GAZ 3624
    43. BARRETTO vs. SANTA MARINA, 26 PHIL. 200
    44. NATIONAL BANK vs. AH SING, 69 PHIL 611
    45. OBARIA vs. CA, 135 SCRA 557
    46. CAMPILLO vs. CA, 129 SCRA 513
    47. KERR & CO. LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
    48. SORONGAN, ET. AL. vs. PARRENAS ET.AL., (CA) 54 OFF. GAZ. 1860
    49. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE vs. CA., 133 SCRA 777
    50. ANG vs. CA., 170 SCRA 286

    You might also like