This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-10-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have held in numerous cases[18] that the remedy of rescission under Article 1191 cannot apply to mere contracts to sell. We explained the reason for this in Santos v. Court of Appeals,[19] where we said: [I]n a contract to sell, title remains with the vendor and does not pass on to the vendee until the purchase price is paid in full. Thus, in a contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition. Failure to pay the price agreed upon is not a mere breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. This is entirely different from the situation in a contract of sale, where non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition. The effects in law are not identical. In a contract of sale, the vendor has lost ownership of the thing sold and cannot recover it, unless the contract of sale is rescinded and set aside. In a contract to sell, however, the vendor remains the owner for as long as the vendee has not complied fully with the condition of paying the purchase price. If the vendor should eject the vendee for failure to meet the condition precedent, he is enforcing the contract and not rescinding it. x x x Article 1592 speaks of non-payment of the purchase price as a resolutory condition. It does not apply to a contract to sell. As to Article 1191, it is subordinated to the provisions of Article 1592 when applied to sales of immovable property. Neither provision is applicable [to a contract to sell]. [Emphasis supplied.] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| To be sure, a contract of sale may either be absolute or conditional. One form of conditional sale is what is now popularly termed as a "Contract to Sell," where ownership or title is retained until the fulfillment of a positive suspensive condition normally the payment of the purchase price in the manner agreed upon.[28] It would seem that the Kasunduan, showing payment by installment, embodied a contract to sell or a conditional sale, reserving ownership in the vendor Bernabe until the full payment by respondent of the purchase price. However, the fact that the Kasunduan was a contract to sell does not necessarily mean that the Court of Appeals erred when it said "a portion of 75 square meters of which was in turn sold by Bernabe to petitioner Condez, is described as Lot 1, Psu-55940, and covered by TCT No. 272." Patently, the Court of Appeals implied only that ownership had transferred to the respondent when it said this, a fact which is not inconsistent with the Deed of Sale being conditional at first. That the Court of Appeals concluded that the document of sale or the Kasunduan in favor of respondent transferred ownership cannot be inferred in its assailed Decision or Resolution. | |||||
|
2006-08-09 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, there is no legal basis for the rescission. The remedy of rescission under Art. 1191 of the Civil Code[15] is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party that violates the reciprocity between them.[16] We have held in numerous cases that the remedy does not apply to contracts to sell.[17] We explained the reason in Santos v. Court of Appeals,[18] viz - | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Normally, in a contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is the positive suspensive condition upon which the transfer of ownership depends.[13] The parties, however, are not prohibited from stipulating other lawful conditions that must be fulfilled in order for the contract to be converted from a contract to sell or at the most an executory sale into an executed one.[14] | |||||
|
2005-06-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the Deeds of Absolute Sale dated 15 April 1975 and 10 March 1982 and the Deed of Sale with Real Estate Mortgage dated 09 August 1990 as null and void. Accordingly, Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 17746,[28] 17747[29] and 13402[30] issued in the name of Raul Santos and TCT No. 20747[31] in the name of Amado Sanao are ordered cancelled and new titles corresponding thereto be issued in the name of the heirs of Irene P. Mariano. | |||||
|
2004-10-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| A contract is defined as a juridical convention manifested in legal form, by virtue of which one or more persons bind themselves in favor of another, or others, or reciprocally, to the fulfillment of a prestation to give, to do, or not to do.[32] There can be no contract unless the following requisites concur: (a) consent of the contracting parties; (b) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (c) cause of the obligation which is established.[33] Contracts are perfected by mere consent, which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.[34] | |||||