CASE

DOCTRINE

1.

DIGNOS VS. CA

Where time is not of the essence of the agreement, a slight delay on the part of one party in the performance of his obligation is not a sufficient ground for rescission

2.

TAN VS BENORILAO

3.

ARTATES VS. URBI

4.

HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ZAMBALES VS CA

A contract to sell is defined as a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the
property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed, i.e., full payment of the purchase price
All sales and alienations of the homestead property made by the homesteader within the 5-year prohibition are null and void. Similarly, the homestead is held not liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted by
the homesteader within the said period, even though it be contracted that the indebtedness shall mature after the prohibited period
The sale of a homestead lot within the five-year prohibitory period is illegal and void.

5.

QUIROGA VS. PARSONS

INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT. For the classification of contracts, due regard must be paid to their essential clauses.

6.

CONCRETE AGGREGATES INC VS CTA

Selling or distribution is an essential ingredient of manufacturing. The sale of a manufactured product is properly incident to manufacture. The power to sell is an indispensable adjunct to a manufacturing business

7.

PEOPLES HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. VS CA

In conditional obligations, The acquisition of rights, as well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the happening of the event which constitutes the condition

8.

TOYOTA SHAW, INC. VS CA

A definite agreement on the manner of payment of the price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale

9.

ADDISON VS FELIX

Symbolic delivery by execution of a public instrument is equivalent to actual delivery only when the thing sold is subject to the control of the vendor

10.

SAMPAGUITA VS JALWINDOR

Ownership is acquired from the moment the thing sold was delivered to vendee, as when it is placed in his control and possession

11.

TEN FORTY REALTY VS DEVT CORP

The execution of a public instrument gives rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery. Such presumption is destroyed when the delivery is not effected because of a legal impediment.

12.

SOUTHERN SUGAR VS ATLANTIC GULF

A promise to sell to be valid must be supported by a consideration distinct from the price, which means that the option can still be withdrawn, even if accepted, if the same is not supported by any consideration

13.

ATKINGS, KNOLL AND CO. INC. VS CUA HIAN TEK

14.

SANCHEZ VS RIGOS

If an option is given without, it is mere offer of contract of sale, which is not binding until accepted. If, however, acceptance is made before a withdrawal, it constitute a binding contract of sale, even though the option
was not supported by a sufficient consideration
Option unsupported by consideration distinct from the purchase price is not binding upon the promisor

15.

NATINO VS IAC

A unilateral promise may be "binding" upon the promisor upon the concurrence of a condition that the promise be supported by a consideration distinct from the price

16.

SERRA VS IAC

17.

ROMAN VS GRIMALT

For a separate consideration paid, he is given the right to decide to purchase or not, a certain merchandise or property, at any time within the agreed period, at a fixed price. This being his prerogative, he may not be
compelled to exercise the option to buy before the time expires
If no contract of sale was actually executed by the parties the loss of the vessel must be borne by its owner and not by a party who only intended to purchase it

18.

EQUATORIAL REALTY VS MAYFAIR

19.

NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS VS CA

Separate consideration for the option, has no applicability in the right of first refusal. The consideration is built in the reciprocal obligation of the parties. In reciprocal contracts, the obligation or promise of each party
is the consideration for that of the other. (Promise to lease in return of the right to first refusal)
In all forms of delivery, it is necessary that the act of delivery whether constructive or actual, be coupled with the intention of delivering the thing.

20.

SOUTHERN MOTORS VS MOSCOSO

In sales on installments, where the action instituted is for specific performance and the mortgaged property is subsequently attached and sold, the sale thereof does not amount to a foreclosure of the mortgage

21.

PASCUAL & TORRES VS UNIC MOTORS CORP

22.

FILINVEST CREDIT VS CA

What Article 1484 withholds from the vendor is the right to recover any deficiency from the purchaser after the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and not a recourse to the additional security put up by a third party
to guarantee the purchaser's performance of his obligation`
Contract of lease with option to buy is at times resorted to as a means to circumvent Article 1484, particularly paragraph (3) thereof.

23.

RIDAD VS FILIPINAS INVESTMENT

24.

SPS DELA CRUZ VS ASIAN

25.

AGUSTIN VS CA

26.

FIESTAN VS CA

27.

DIZON VS SUNTAY

28.

EDCA PUBLISIHING VS CA

29.

LAYUG VS IAC

30.

POWER COMMERCIAL VS CA

The vendor of personal property sold on the installment basis is precluded, after foreclosing the chattel mortgage on the thing sold from having a recourse against the additional security put up by a third party to
guarantee the purchasers performance of his obligation
Possession of mortgaged property should be returned to mortgagee-vendee upon payment of unpaid balance
Where the mortgagor plainly refuses to deliver the chattel subject of the mortgage upon his failure to pay two or more installments, or if he conceals the chattel to place it beyond the reach of the mortgagee, he may
be held liable to pay expenses as a result of the enforcement of the foreclosure
There is authority to hold that a mortgagee may purchase at a sale under his mortgage to protect his own interest or to avoid a loss to himself by a sale to a third person at a price below the mortgage debt.
The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession
of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price
therefore
ART. 559 is not applicable when there is negligence on the part of those who have sustained loss
Republic Act 6552 governs sales of real estate on installments. It recognizes the vendor's right to cancel such contracts upon failure of the vendee to comply with the terms of the sale, but at the same time gives the
buyer, subject to conditions provided by law, a one month grace period for every year of installment payment made and if the contract is cancelled, a refund of cash surrender value
.It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed in his control When there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the
tenancy of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a public instrument is sufficient