This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-09-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On 24 July 2007, the RTC issued summons[6] addressed to Wong at his residence, No. 21 West Riverside Street, San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City. However, the original summons and the accompanying copy of the Complaint and its Annexes were eventually returned to the RTC by Sheriff IV Renebert B. Baloloy (Sheriff Baloloy), who indicated in his Sheriff's Return dated 14 August 2007 that said court process should already be deemed "DULY SERVED." According to his Return,[7] Sheriff Baloloy had repeatedly attempted to serve the summons at Wong's residential address on 27 July 2007, 8 August 2007, and 10 August 2007, but Wong was always not around according to the latter's housemaids, Marie Sandoval (Sandoval) and Loren Lopez (Lopez). Sheriff Baloloy then attempted to leave the summons with Criz Mira (Mira), Wong's caretaker, who is of legal age, and residing at the same address for two and a half years, but Mira refused to acknowledge or receive the same. | |||||
|
2008-08-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case at bar, we find that petitioners Orden and respondents Cobile entered into a contract to sell. The real character of the contract is not the title given, but the intention of the parties.[37] Although there is a document denominated as "Deed of Absolute Sale," and there is no provision therein of reservation of ownership to the seller, we are persuaded that the true intent of the parties was to transfer the ownership of the properties only upon the buyer's full payment of the purchase price. This is evident from the promissory note executed by respondents Cobile. It is only upon payment of the full purchase price that title to the properties shall be transferred to their names. Furthermore, circumstances show ownership over the properties was never transferred to respondents Cobile. Respondents neither had possession of nor title to the properties. In fact, petitioners Orden, per their letter to respondents Cobile, even gave the latter the chance to pay the balance of the purchase price before they would sell the properties to other interested persons. From the foregoing, it is evident that the true agreement of the parties is for the petitioners Orden to retain ownership over the properties until respondents shall have fully paid the purchase price. | |||||