Ahmed-Adhiem B.

Kamlian
LLB II-A, Sales
WMSU College of Law
VILLONCO REALTY V. BORMAHECO (July 25, 1975)
65 SCRA 575
FACTS:
Francisco Cervantes of Bormaheco Inc. agrees to sell to Villonco Realty a parcel of land and its
improvements located in Buendia, Makati. Bormaheco made the terms and condition for the sale and
Villonco returned it with some modifications. The sale is for P400 per square meter but it is only to be
consummated after respondent shall have also consummated purchase of a property in Sta. Ana, Manila.
Bormaheco won the bidding for the Sta.Ana land and subsequently bought the property.
The parcels of land were mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DPB), which was fully
payed on 10 July1969. Francisco Cervantes is the President of Bormaheco Inc. The said company used
theafore mentioned lots for business purposes. The property are situated adjacent to the property of herein
petitioner company. In 1964, the lots were then negotiated for its sale to the brothersVillongco, through
the intervention of Edith Perez de Tagle, a real estae-broker. In the course of the negotiation, Cervantes
did not inform De Tagle and Villongco that the lots were mortgaged to DBP. After negotiations, the sale
was perfected and Villongco sent a check as earnest moneybeing subject to the terms and conditions of
Bormaheco. Cervantes then returned the earnest money having no interest to sell the property. Petitioners
filed an action for specific performance for the sale of the lots. Respondent argued that there was no
perfected sale because they returned the earnest money, thus there was no meeting of the minds.
ISSUE:
WON Bormaheco is bound to perform the contract with Villonco and that there was contact of Sale.
HELD:
The contract is already consummated when Bormaheco accepted the offer by Villonco. The acceptance
can be proven when Bormaheco accepted the check from Villonco and then returned it with 10% interest
as stipulated in the terms made by Villonco. On the other hand, the fact that Villonco did not object when
Bormaheco encashed the check is a proof that it accepted the offer of Bormaheco.
Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as
proof of the perfection of the contract" (Art. 1482, Civil Code).

Velasco vs. Court of Appeals

51 SCRA 439
Facts:
November 10, 1965, Alta Farms secured from the GSIS a Three Million Two Hundred Fifty Five
Thousand Pesos (P3,255,000.00) loan and an additional loan of Five Million Sixty-Two Thousand Pesos
(P5,062,000.00) on October 5, 1967, to finance a piggery project. Alta Farms defaulted in the payment
because of this that Alta Farms executed a Deed of Sale With Assumption of Mortgage with Asian
Engineering Corporation on July 10, 1969 but without the previous consent or approval of the GSIS and
in direct violation of the provisions of the mortgage contracts. Even without the approval of the Deed of
Sale With Assumption of Mortgage by the GSIS, Asian Engineering Corporation executed an Exclusive
Sales Agency, Management and Administration Contract in favor of Laigo Realty Corporation, with the
intention of converting the piggery farm into a subdivision. After developing the area, on December 4,
1969, Laigo entered into a contract with Amable Lumanlan, one of the petitioners, to construct for the
home buyers, 20 houses on the subdivision. Petitioner Lumanlan allegedly constructed 20 houses for the
home buyers and for which he claims a balance of P309,187.76 from the home buyers and Laigo. Out of
his claim, petitioner Lumanlan admits that Mrs. Rhody Laigo paid him in several checks totalling
P124,855.00 but which checks were all dishonoured. On December 29, 1969, Laigo entered into a
contract with petitioner Pepito Velasco to construct houses for the home buyers who agreed with Velasco
on the prices and the downpayment. Petitioner Velasco constructed houses for various home buyers, who
individually agreed with Velasco, as to the prices and the downpayment to be paid by the individual home
buyers. When neither Laigo nor the individual home buyers paid for the home constructed, Velasco wrote
the GSIS to intercede for the unpaid accounts of the home buyers.
Issue:
Whether or not GSIS is liable to the petitioners for the cost of the materials and labor furnished
by them in construction of the 63 houses now owned by the GSIS?
Ruling:
Yes. GSIS should pay the petitioners. GSIS assumed ownership of the houses built by petitioners
and was benefited by the same. Art. 2127, the mortgage extends to the natural accessions, to the
improvements, growing fruits, rents.

Spouses Doromal vs. Court of Appeals

66 SCRA 575
FACTS:
A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5 of the siblings
gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez, who succeeded her father as a co-owner, for the sale of the land
to father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner, herein petitioner, Filomena Javellana however did not
gave her consent to the sale even though her siblings executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners
went on with the sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the Doromals were issued.
Respondent offered to repurchase the land for 30K as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners
declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase. Petitioner also contend that the 30K price was
only placed in the deed of sale to minimize payment of fees and taxes and as such, respondent should pay
the real price paid which was P115, 250.
ISSUE:
WON the period to repurchase of petitioner has already lapsed.
HELD:
Period of repurchase has not yet lapsed because the respondent was not notified of the sale. The
30-day period for the right of repurchase starts only after actual notice not only of a perfected sale but of
actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale.
The letter sent to the respondent by the other co-owners cannot be considered as actual notice
because the letter was only to inform her of the intention to sell the property but not its actual sale. As
such, the 30-day period has not yet commenced and the respondent can still exercise his right to
repurchase. The respondent should also pay only the 30K stipulated in the deed of sale because a
redemptioners right is to be subrogated by the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract.

Spouses Edmundo T. Osea and Ligaya R. Osea vs. Antonio G. Ambrosio and Rodolfo C. Perez
G.R. No. 162774 (April 7, 2016)
Facts:
The Contract to Sell executed by spouses Edmundo T. Osea and Ligaya R. Osea and respondent
Antonio Ambrosio, involves the sale and purchase of a house and lot unit in Villa San Agustin
Subdivision, a lowcost housing and lot project. Even after signing the Deed of Sale on the lot, Spouses
Osea stipulated that the house would be constructed in accordance with, inter alia, the terms of the
Contract to Sell, wherein respondent Ambrosio contracted his co-respondent Rodolfo C. Perez to
construct the Spouses Oseas house in accordance with the Specifications in the Contract to Sell, the Bill
of Materials, and Approved Building Plan by the Building Official of Quezon City.
Ligaya Osea executed a Certificate of Lot and House Acceptance and thereafter occupied it. A
month after occupying the house, its front and back walls cracked. Spouses Osea filed a complaint for
damages against respondents Ambrosio and Perez before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.
Respondent questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC over the complaint for damages, contending
that it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).
Issue:
Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint damages based on the violation or
deviation from the approved subdivision plan
Held:
The Court of Appeals, by Decision which is being challenged in the present petition for review on
certiorari, declared null and void the trial courts Decision for lack of jurisdiction as it is the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) which has jurisdiction over the complaint.
The appellate court did not thus err when it characterized petitioners complaint for damages as
based on the violation or deviation from the approved subdivision plan . Sale and purchase of
subdivision lots under P.D. 957 explicitly include the sale and purchase of buildings and other
improvements thereon which form an integral part of the approved subdivision plan.
The extent to which the HLURB has been vested with quasi-judicial authority must also be
determined by referring to the terms of P.D. No. 957, THE SUBDIVISION AND CONDOMINIUM
BUYERS' PROTECTIVE DECREE. Section 3 of this statute provides the HLUB has the exclusive
jurisdiction to regulate the real estate trade and business in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.