Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 275 views

    Spouses Serrano Vs Caguiat

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a contract dispute over the sale of land between Spouses Herrera and Godofredo Caguiat. The key points are: 1) Caguiat paid ₱100k as partial payment for the land and the parties signed a "Receipt for Partial Payment". Caguiat was to pay the balance by a certain date. 2) When Caguiat attempted to pay the balance, the Herreras cancelled the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the "Receipt for Partial Payment" constituted a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership was retained by the sellers until full payment. As such

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Serrano Vs Caguiat

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    275 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a contract dispute over the sale of land between Spouses Herrera and Godofredo Caguiat. The key points are: 1) Caguiat paid ₱100k as partial payment for the land and the parties signed a "Receipt for Partial Payment". Caguiat was to pay the balance by a certain date. 2) When Caguiat attempted to pay the balance, the Herreras cancelled the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the "Receipt for Partial Payment" constituted a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership was retained by the sellers until full payment. As such

    Original Title

    Spouses Serrano vs Caguiat

    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 document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a contract dispute over the sale of land between Spouses Herrera and Godofredo Caguiat. The key points are: 1) Caguiat paid ₱100k as partial payment for the land and the parties signed a "Receipt for Partial Payment". Caguiat was to pay the balance by a certain date. 2) When Caguiat attempted to pay the balance, the Herreras cancelled the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the "Receipt for Partial Payment" constituted a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership was retained by the sellers until full payment. As such

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Serrano Vs Caguiat

    Uploaded by

    phgmb
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a contract dispute over the sale of land between Spouses Herrera and Godofredo Caguiat. The key points are: 1) Caguiat paid ₱100k as partial payment for the land and the parties signed a "Receipt for Partial Payment". Caguiat was to pay the balance by a certain date. 2) When Caguiat attempted to pay the balance, the Herreras cancelled the transaction. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the "Receipt for Partial Payment" constituted a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership was retained by the sellers until full payment. As such

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Spouses Serrano vs Caguiat reiterated the same intent to pursue the sale

    in a letter dated April 6, 1990.


    GR 139173 , February 28, 2007
    Third, Caguiat had the balance of the
    purchase price ready for payment.
    Facts: Spouses Onnie and Amparo Herrera, Defendants’ mere allegation that it was
    petitioners, are the registered owners of a plaintiff who did not appear on March 23,
    lot located in Las Piñas, covered by Transfer 1990 is unavailing. Defendants’ letters
    Certificate of Title. appear to be mere afterthought.

    Godofredo Caguiat, respondent, offered to CA:


    buy the lot. Petitioners agreed to sell it at CA affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
    ₱1,500.00 per square meter.
    Issue:
    Caguiat then gave ₱100K as partial payment. Whether or not the document entitled
    In turn, petitioners gave Caguiat the "Receipt for Partial Payment" signed by both
    corresponding receipt stating that Caguiat parties earlier mentioned is a contract to sell
    promised to pay the balance of the purchase or a contract of sale.
    price on or before March 23, 1990

    On March 28(5 days after), Caguiat, through Ruling: Contract to sell.


    his counsel Atty. Ponciano Espiritu, wrote Generally, the findings of fact of the lower
    petitioners informing them of his readiness courts are entitled to great weight and
    to pay the balance of the contract price and should not be disturbed except for cogent
    requesting them to prepare the final deed of reasons.14 Indeed, they should not be
    sale changed on appeal in the absence of a
    clear showing that the trial court
    Petitioners, through Atty. Ruben V. Lopez, overlooked, disregarded, or
    sent a letter to respondent stating that misinterpreted some facts of weight and
    petitioner Amparo Herrera is leaving for significance, which if considered would
    abroad on or before April 15, 1990 and have altered the result of the case. In
    that they are canceling the transaction. the present case, we find that both the trial
    court and the Court of Appeals interpreted
    Petitioners also informed Caguiat that he can some significant facts resulting in an
    recover the earnest money of ₱100K erroneous resolution of the issue involved.
    anytime.
    In holding that there is a perfected contract
    In view of the cancellation of the contract by of sale, both courts mainly relied on the
    petitioners, CAGUIAT filed with the RTC a earnest money given by Caguiat to
    complaint against them for specific petitioners. They invoked Article 1482 of the
    performance and damages. Civil Code which provides that "Whenever
    earnest money is given in a contract of sale,
    RTC: Caguiat’s position deserves more it shall be considered as part of the price
    weight and credibility. and as proof of the perfection of the
    contract."
    First, the ₱100K that Caguiat paid
    whether as downpayment or earnest It is a canon in the interpretation of
    money showed that there was already a contracts that the words used therein should
    perfected contract (to sell) be given their natural and ordinary meaning
    unless a technical meaning was intended.
    Second, Caguiat was the first to react to
    show his eagerness to push through with the Thus, when petitioners declared in the said
    sale by sending defendants the letter and "Receipt for Partial Payment"– there can be
    no other interpretation than that they agreed considered as part of the price and proof of
    to a conditional contract of sale, the perfection of the contract."
    consummation of which is subject only to the
    full payment of the purchase price. However, this article speaks of earnest
    money given in a contract of sale. In this
    A contract to sell is akin to a conditional case, the earnest money was given in a
    sale where the efficacy or obligatory force of contract to sell. The earnest money forms
    the vendor's obligation to transfer title is part of the consideration only if the sale is
    subordinated to the happening of a future consummated upon full payment of the
    and uncertain event, so that if the purchase price. Now, since the earnest
    suspensive condition does not take place, money was given in a contract to sell, Article
    the parties would stand as if the conditional 1482, which speaks of a contract of sale,
    obligation had never existed. The does not apply.
    suspensive condition is commonly full
    payment of the purchase price.

    The differences between a contract to sell


    and a contract of sale are well-settled in
    jurisprudence. As early as 1951, in Sing Yee
    v. Santos, we held that:

    x x x [a] distinction must be made between


    a contract of sale in which title passes to the
    buyer upon delivery of the thing sold and a
    contract to sell x x x where by agreement
    the ownership is reserved in the seller and is
    not to pass until the full payment, of the
    purchase price is made. In the first case,
    non-payment of the price is a negative
    resolutory condition; in the second case, full
    payment is a positive suspensive condition.
    Being contraries, their effect in law cannot
    be identical. In the first case, the vendor has
    lost and cannot recover the ownership of the
    land sold until and unless the contract of sale
    is itself resolved and set aside. In the second
    case, however, the title remains in the
    vendor if the vendee does not comply with
    the condition precedent of making payment
    at the time specified in the contract.

    In other words, in a contract to sell,


    ownership is retained by the seller and is not
    to pass to the buyer until full payment of the
    price.

    In this case, the "Receipt for Partial


    Payment" shows that the true agreement
    between the parties is a contract to sell.

    It is true that Article 1482 of the Civil Code


    provides that "Whenever earnest money is
    given in a contract of sale, it shall be

    You might also like