This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-07-31 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| First, the agreement between the parties is a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. In a contract to sell, ownership is reserved by the vendor, not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. On the other hand, in a contract of sale, the vendor loses ownership over of the property and cannot recover it unless and until the contract is rescinded.[4] | |||||
|
2005-10-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is different from contracts of sale, since ownership in contracts to sell is reserved by the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price, while in contracts of sale, title to the property passess to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold. In contracts of sale the vendor loses ownership over the property and cannot recover it unless and until the contract is resolved or rescinded, while in contracts to sell, title is retained by the vendor until full payment of the price.[38] In contracts to sell, full payment is a positive suspensive condition while in contracts of sale, non-payment is a negative resolutory condition.[39] | |||||
|
2005-10-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Since the contract in this case is a contract to sell, the ownership of the property remained with the Monesets even after petitioner has paid the down payment and took possession of the property. In Flancia vs. Court of Appeals,[44] where the vendee in the contract to sell also took possession of the property, this Court held that the subsequent mortgage constituted by the owner over said property in favor of another person was valid since the vendee retained absolute ownership over the property.[45] At most, the vendee in the contract to sell was entitled only to damages.[46] | |||||