Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

80. Forniliar et. al. vs Branch 164 RTC of Pasig et. al. GR No. 7206 !

cto"er 6# 1$88
Facts% Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari seeking the reversal of the orders of the RTC granting a Writ
of Possession and demolition of the houses of the petitioners; the said being granted to respondent lawyer
who represented petitioners in the settlement of the estate of the latter's grandfather in 1!"# The Court
later approved the Pro$ect of Partition of the land left by their grandfather% and after & days the sub$ect land
was mortgaged to the lawyer as security for the payment of his attorney's fees# Petitioners were unable to
pay the mortgage indebtedness so respondent had their land foreclosed# 'n 1()% the respondent lawyer
won the auction sale as the sole bidder#
&ss'e% Whether or not the mortgage in favor of the respondent lawyer is within the scope of the prohibition
in *rticle 1+1 of the Civil Code
(el)% ,es# Petition is granted# * lawyer is prohibited from ac-uiring either by purchase or assignment the
property or rights that are the ob$ect of litigation in which they intervene by virtue of their profession# This
prohibition includes not only sales to private individuals but also public or $udicial sales% as public policy
disallows the transactions because of the fiduciary relationship involved# 'n this case% the mortgage was
e.ecuted while the relationship between lawyer and client still e.isted# /oreover% the mortgage was
e.ecuted merely & days after the approval of the Pro$ect of Partition% clearly showing the intention of the
Respondent lawyer to protect his interests# The auction sale held long after the termination of the
proceedings will not save it from the prohibition# *nd since the mortgage contract is void as being prohibited
by law% actions to declare it a nullity is imprescriptible#
81. R'"ias vs Batiller *1 +CR, 120 GR No. -.*702 /a0 2$# 1$7
Facts% Petitioner lawyer purchased the sub$ect land from his father0in0law while the application for
registration of the property initiated by the latter was still on appeal# The C* later dismissed the application
but petitioner continued to pay for the ta.es of the land# 1imultaneously% respondent also declared the land
as his own for ta. purposes% was paying its ta.es and later surveyed the land# Petitioner then filed a
2orcible 3ntry and 4etainer case against the respondent but the court ruled that the former had no cause of
action since the property was bought when it was the sub$ect matter of a land case in which the petitioner
was the counsel on record of his father0in0law#
&ss'e% Whether or not petitioner lawyer had no cause of action against respondent as his purchase of the
sub$ect land is within the scope of the prohibition in *rticle 1+1 of the Civil Code
(el)% ,es# Petition is denied# The sale is void as it was made while the case for the application for
registration of the sub$ect land was still on appeal# Petitioner was part of the litigation by virtue of his
profession and is barred from ac-uiring the sub$ect land#
82. Fa"illo vs &,C GR No. 6888 /arch 11# 1$$1
Facts% Petitioner sought the assistance of private respondent lawyer for the recovery of the property
be-ueathed to him by his sister in her last will and testament# The said property% along with another parcel
of land given by his sister to her husband% was under the control of the same husband# Petitioner and
respondent lawyer then entered into a contract which stipulated that the latter shall represent the former
and in consideration of his services% the lawyer shall be paid +56 of what he may ac-uire from a favorable
$udgment# Pursuant to the contract% respondent filed a case against the brother0in0law of the petitioner% but
the case was terminated when the parties came into a compromise agreement that declared the petitioner
as the lawful owner of not only the land be-ueathed to him but also the property given by his sister to her
husband# 7pon this success% respondent lawyer took possession and e.ercised rights of ownership over
+56 of the properties# Petitioner refused to give the lawyer his share of the properties and claimed
e.clusive right of ownership over the same# The lower court ruled in favor of respondent lawyer hence this
petition#
&ss'e% Whether or not the stipulation that part of the properties sub$ect to litigation be considered as the
contingent fee of the respondent lawyer falls within the scope of the prohibition in *rticle 1+1 of the Civil
Code
(el)% 8o# Petition is denied# The contract of service did not violate the prohibition against the ac-uisition by
lawyers of properties and rights which are the ob$ects of litigation in which they take part in by virtue of their
profession# The said prohibition only applies if the sale or assignment takes place during the pendency of
the litigation# 't does not cover a contract between a lawyer and his client stipulating a contingent fee% as it
was not made during the pendency but only after $udgment has been rendered# 9owever% such contingent
fee must not be clearly e.cessive as to amount to e.tortion; in this case% the Court disagrees that the
contingent fee stipulated by the parties should be +56 of the properties#
8. -a10er2s Coo3erative P'"lishing Co vs Ta"ora GR No. -.2126 ,3ril 0# 1$6*
Facts% Petitioner sold several books to the respondent with the sales contract which provided that :Title to
and ownership of the books shall remain with the seller until the purchase price shall have been fully paid#
;oss or damage to the books after delivery to the buyer shall be borne by the buyer#: Petitioner only made
a partial payment to responder but the latter delivered the books to the former# <n the same day% a fire
broke out which burned petitioner's law office and library# 9e did not pay the balance of the books%
contending that ownership still belonged with the respondent as the purchase price was not yet fully paid%
and even if the ownership was transferred% he should not answer for the loss as it was due to force
ma$eure#
&ss'e% Whether or not petitioner should bear the loss of the books as said loss was due to force ma$eure
(el)% ,es# Petition is granted# The general rule is that the loss of the ob$ect of the contract of sale is borne
by the owner% and in case of force ma$eure the one under obligation to deliver the ob$ect is e.empt from
liability# 9owever% the contract between the parties stipulated that the loss or damage after delivery shall be
borne by the buyer# The defense of force ma$eure fails as the said only holds true when his obligation is the
delivery of a determinate thing and there is no stipulation holding him liable even in case of fortuitous event#
There being a stipulation holding him liable% and the ob$ect being generic% respondent bears the loss#
84. To4as 5. Ch'a vs Co'rt of ,33eals et. al. GR No. 11$2** ,3ril $# 200
Facts% Petitioner was offered to purchase the house and lot belonging to respondent# They had reached an
agreement% e.ecuting a contract to sell% but a disagreement came up as to when and how the balance of
payment should be done# Petitioner sought to compel respondent to effect the sale which the trial court
granted but was later reversed by the C* in favor of the respondent#
&ss'e% Whether or not petitioner can compel respondent to transfer ownership to the former even before
the payment of the full purchase price
(el)% 8o# Petition is denied# The contract between the two was a contract to sell and not a contract of sale#
'n a contract of sale% the title to property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; in a
contract to sell% ownership is% by agreement% retained by the vendor until full payment of the purchase price#
1ince petitioner refused to pay the consideration in full on the agreed date% which was the suspensive
condition% he could not compel the respondent to consummate the sale of the property# *lso% transfer of
property is effected not by mere consent; ownership is derived only from the delivery of the thing# <nce the
seller is ready% able and willing to sign the deed of absolute sale before a notary public% having been
satisfied with the full payment made by the vendee% he is now in a position to transfer ownership to the
buyer# Prior to that% he is not obligated to transfer ownership# The seller% however% is obligated to put all his
papers in proper order to the point that he is in a position to transfer ownership to the buyer upon full
payment#
8*. To3acio vs C, et. al. GR No. 102606 6'l0 # 1$$2 211 +CR, 2$1
Facts% Petitioner negotiated with the respondent for the sale of property which the latter won from an
auction sale# The said property was formerly owned by the parents0in0law of the petitioner but was
foreclosed for non0payment by the parents0in0law of a mortgage of which the property was the security# The
respondent received the initial payment made by the petitioner with the balance to be paid upon e.ecution
of the 4eed of 1ale# ;ater% the respondent informed the petitioner of the terms and conditions of the sale%
which% among other things% gives the latter up to a month to pay the balance# The petitioner asked for
several e.tensions which the respondent agreed to% provided that there be an interest of =+6 per annum
on the unpaid balance# *t the due date of the last e.tension% the respondent wrote to the petitioner
declaring itself free to sell the property to other buyers and informed the latter to claim his initial payment#
The petitioner continually refused to accept the initial payment and insisted that he be allowed to pay the
balance# Respondent% on the other hand% refused the plea of the petitioner and told him that the property is
now being sold at a higher price# The trial court ruled in favor of petitioner but was reversed by C*#
&ss'e% Whether or not the contract between the parties was perfected so as to prevent the refusal of the
respondent to have the petitioner pay the balance of the purchase price
(el)% ,es# Petition is granted# 8owhere in transaction did the respondent reserve its title on the property
nor did it provide for automatic rescission in case of default% making the contract a contract of sale# *lso%
initial payment by the petitioner is earnest money# 't is considered part of the purchase price in a contract of
sale and as proof of the perfection of the contract# ;ikewise% the contract of sale is deemed perfected at the
moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the sub$ect thing and its price% and from that moment they
may reciprocally demand performance# The perfected contract of sale then is still enforceable because the
respondent failed to rescind the same either by $udicial or notarial rescission#
86. +antos vs +antos 66 +CR, $* GR No. 18$* !cto"er 2# 2001
Facts% Petitioner is the wife of the late 1alvador and the sister0in0law of respondents# The parents of the
respondents owned a parcel of land with an apartment which they later sold to 1alvador and one of the
respondents Rosa who then sold her share to 1alvador# 4espite his registering the property to himself%
1alvador's parents still continued to lease and receive rentals from the apartment units# When both the
parents and 1alvador died% the respondents instituted an action for reconveyance of property alleging that
the sale of property by 1alvador's parents as well as the sale of Rosa's share to the said were simulated for
lack of consideration# The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents reasoning that notwithstanding the
deeds of sale% the parents continued to possess and e.ercise their rights of ownership over the property%
even paying for its ta.es% up to their deaths# Petitioner% in this petition% argues that 1alvador merely allowed
his mother to use the property out of generosity and respect#
&ss'e% Whether or not there was transfer of ownership to 1alvador even when he did not take actual
possession of the realty bought by him
(el)% 8o# Petition is denied# <wnership is presumed to remain with the seller if the said seller continues to
possess and administer the property and en$oy its fruits# 1alvador did not e.ercise any right of ownership
over it and even surrendered the title to his mother after registration# 4elivery% although presumed when
there is an e.ecution of a deed of sale% can be negated by failure of the vendee to take actual possession
of the property sold# What gives legal effect to the act is the actual intention of the vendor to deliver% and its
acceptance by the vendee# Without that intention% there is no tradition#
87. !ce7o Pere8 an) Co. vs &nternational Ban9 7 Phil. 61 GR No. -.106*8 Fe"r'ar0 14# 1$18
Facts% Chua Teng Chong e.ecuted and delivered to respondent a promissory note for a loan# *ttached to it
were private documents stating that Chua Teng Chong deposited with respondent% as security for the said
note% "%555 piculs of sugar stored in a warehouse in >inondo# The bank did not take possession of the
sugar when the document was e.ecuted% and Chua Teng Chong continued to retain the sugar under his
possession and control# ;ater% the petitioner sold a lot of sugar to Chua Teng Chong to be stored in a
second warehouse# *fter delivery% Chua Teng Chong refused to pay# <n the same date as the delivery by
the petitioner of the sugar% the bank sent an employee to the first warehouse where he discovered that the
amount was significantly less than the "%555 piculs assigned by Chua Teng Chong as security# The bank
employee informed Chua Teng Chong of the discovery and the latter told him that the rest of it were in the
second warehouse# When the promissory note was left unpaid on the due date% bank employee took
immediate possession of the sugar and closed the second warehouse with the bank's padlocks# The
petitioner then sought to recover from the bank the sugar that they delivered to Chua Teng Chong# While
the demand was being heard by the bank% Chua Teng Chong was $udicially declared insolvent and that
1eco was assignee of the insolvency# Petitioner then filed a complaint against the respondent bank praying
for the recovery of the sugar# They subse-uently agreed that the sugar be sold and the proceeds deposited
in the bank until the final disposition of the case# While the case was pending% 1eco filed a complaint in
intervention arguing that the insolvent estate had preferential right to the proceeds upon the ground that the
delivery of the sugar by the petitioner had the effect of transmitting the title of the said to Chua Teng Chong#
The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioner hence this review#
&ss'e% Whether or not the title to the sugar pass to the buyer upon its delivery to him by the petitioner
(el)% ,es# Petition is denied# Where the terms of the contract of sale of goods are that the purchase price
is payable upon demand after delivery% the title to the goods passes to the buyer as soon as delivery is
made# The payment of the purchase price is not a condition precedent to the transfer of title to the buyer%
but title passes by the delivery of the goods# 1uch delivery is made when possession and control thereof is
given by the seller to the buyer# The insolvent estate is entitled to the product of the sale of sugar% with
interest% reserving to the petitioner the right to file their claim in the insolvency proceedings# !#^@#$ itong
mga mandurugas na intsik, napakaraming actor na bumibida.
88. +oler vs Chesle0 4 Phil *2$ GR No. -.171*0 6'ne 20# 1$22
Facts% Petitioner purchased machinery to be delivered from the 7#1# in 11# 'n 11&% before the delivery
was made% he sold to the respondent his rights to the purchase of machinery% The machinery% however%
were not delivered on their due dates so the respondent advised the petitioner that the former was
rescinding the contract% it appearing that the machinery that the latter asserted were on the way were not#
The parties were unable to come into a compromise; thus% respondent raised the matter in court#
&ss'e% Whether or not the petitioner vendor can compel the respondent to receive the machinery in
-uestion and pay for the same even when an assurance made by the former in regards to delivery was not
fulfilled
(el)% 8o# Petition is denied# When the vendee consents to the sale on the assertion by the vendor that the
purchased goods are on the way% this assertion is an essential element of the contract# 'ts non0fulfillment
deprives the vendor of his right to demand payment from the vendee# The vendor is responsible% even if the
delay was caused not by him but by the importers% for he who contracts and assumes an obligation is
presumed to know the circumstances under which it can be complied with# The contract is thus rescinded#
8$. Gon8ales vs Cali4"as 61 Phil ** GR no. -.27878 :ece4"er 1# 1$27
Facts% Petitioner owned and lived in a house and lot which became the ob$ect of an e.ecution sale for the
payment of a sum of money awarded to the private respondent in a previous civil case between them#
Respondent then won in the auction sale as the highest bidder and instructed the deputy sheriff to e$ect the
petitioner from the premises and deliver the property to him# The e$ection was made less than five months
from the sale% against which the petitioner supposes that she had the right to retain possession for the
entire year allowed by law for the redemption of her property and that she was unlawfully dispossessed#
The respondent counters that he had the right to immediate possession upon completion of the sale#
&ss'e% Whether or not the
(el)% 8o# Petition is granted# The $udgment debtor in possession is entitled to remain in possession of a
land sold under e.ecution issued for a sum of money% so long as the period of redemption has still not
lapsed ?1ections +!) and +! of the Code of Civil Procedure@# 9ence% the respondent is incorrect in his
contention as the rights secured by him at the sale are inchoate before the deed# 't is necessary for him to
procure his deed to complete his title which will only be given to him once the period of redemption given to
the debtor has lapsed# The mere purchase and certificate of sale alone do not confer any right to the
possession or beneficial use of the property# Petitioner in this case having been improperly dispossessed
before the e.piration of the said period is entitled to recover damages from the sheriff and respondent% as
trespassers#
$0. ,lfre)o vs Borras 404 +CR, 14* GR No. 14422* 6'ne 17# 200
Facts% Petitioner spouses were the registered owners of the sub$ect land which they sold to respondent
spouses# Thereafter% the respondents took possession of the land but discovered that the petitioners re0
sold the land to other persons# When the respondents filed an adverse claim% petitioners argued that the
action was unenforceable under the 1tatute of 2rauds as there was no written instrument evidencing the
sale# 2urther% the alleged subse-uent buyers were buyers in good faith#
&ss'e% Whether or not the contract was consummated by the payment of the respondents for the property%
and their subse-uent control and possession thereof% which would then remove it from the scope of the
1tatute of 2rauds
(el)% ,es# Petition is denied# The contract of sale between the parties was not only a perfected contract but
also a consummated contract# Thus% 1tatute of 2rauds does not apply as it only does so to e.ecutory
contracts and not those partially or totally performed# * contract is deemed consummated when the
contracting parties have complied with their respective obligations# 't is not necessary that the seller deliver
the title of the property to the buyer because ownership of the thing sold is transferred to the buyer upon its
actual or constructive delivery 0 in this case% constructive delivery when the land was placed in the control
and possession of the buyers# <n the alleged good faith of the subse-uent buyers% the same was belied by
the fact that the respondents registered their adverse claim earlier than the subse-uent buyer's date of
purchase and registration; thus% the latter had constructive notice of the defect in title#

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen