Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WINIFREDA URSAL v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 150318 2010-11-22	PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is settled that banks, their business being impressed with public interest, are expected to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals in their dealings, even those involving registered lands.[18] The rule that persons dealing with registered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks.[19] Consequently, Philtrust should prove that it exercised extraordinary diligence required of it in approving the mortgage contract in favor of the spouses Claveria.
	GR NO. 156405 2007-02-28	SPS. GIL TORRECAMPO AND BRENDA TORRECAMPO v. DENNIS ALINDOGAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Ursal v. Court of Appeals, et al.,[7] we held:Indeed, in contracts to sell the obligation of the seller to sell becomes demandable only upon the happening of the suspensive condition, that is, the full payment of the purchase price by the buyer. It is only upon the existence of the contract of sale that the seller becomes obligated to transfer the ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. Prior to the existence of the contract of sale, the seller is not obligated to transfer the ownership to the buyer, even if there is a contract to sell between them.
	GR NO. 165724 2006-11-02	ZAMORA REALTY v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES CALLEJO, SR., J.
The contract entered into between petitioner and respondent is a contract to sell a subdivision lot. It bears stressing that a contract to sell is a bilateral contract, whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price.[29] In a contract to sell, the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force. Thus, for its non-fulfillment, there will be no contract to speak of, the obligor having failed to perform the suspensive condition which enforces a juridical relation.[30]