Assignment of Credit vs. Subrogation (1993)
Peter Co, a trader from Manila, has dealt business with Allied Commodities in Hongkong for five years. All through the years, Peter Co accumulated an indebtedness of P500,000.00 with Allied Commodities. Upon demand by its agent in Manila, Peter Co paid Allied Commodities by check the amount owed. Upon deposit in the payee’s account in Manila, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. For and in consideration of P1.00, Allied Commodities assigned the credit to Hadji Butu who brought suit against Peter Co in the RTC of Manila for recovery of the amount owed. Peter Co moved to dismiss the complaint against him on the ground that Hadji Butu was not a real party in interest and, therefore, without legal capacity to sue and that he had not agreed to a subrogation of creditor.
Will Peter Co’s defense of absence of agreement to a subrogation of creditor prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Co’s defense will not prosper. This is not a case of subrogation, but an assignment of credit. ASSIGNMENT OF CREDIT is the process of transferring the right of the assignor to the assignee. The assignment may be done either gratuitously or onerously, in which case, the assignment has an effect similar to that of a sale (Nyco Sales Corp. v.BA Finance Corp. G.R No.71694. Aug.16, 1991 200 SCRA 637). As a result of the assignment, the plaintiff acquired all the rights of the assignor including the right to sue in his own name as the legal assignee. In assignment, the debtor’sconsent is not essential for the validity of the assignment
(Art.1624; 1475, CC; Rodriguez v. CA, et al, G.R. No. 84220, March 25, 1992, 207 SCRA 553).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the defense of Peter Co will not prosper. Hadji Butu validly acquired his right by an assignment of credit under Article 1624 of the Civil Code. However, the provisions on the contract of sale (Article 1475 Civil Code) will apply, and the transaction is covered by the Statute of Frauds. (Art.1 403 par. (2) Civil Code)
Conditional Sale vs.Absolute Sale (1997)
Distinguish between a conditional sale, on the one hand, and an absolute sale, on the other hand.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A CONDITIONAL SALE is one where the vendor is granted the right to unilaterally rescind the contract predicated on the fulfillment or non-fulfillment, as the case may be, of the prescribed condition. An ABSOLUTE SALE is one where the title to the property is not reserved to the vendor or if the vendor is not granted the right to rescind the contract based on the fulfillment or non- fulfillment, as the case may be, of the prescribed condition.
Contract of Sale vs.Agency to Sell (1999)
A granted B the exclusive right to sell his brand of Maong pants in Isabela, the price for his merchandise payable within 60 days from delivery, and promising B a commission of 20% on all sales. After the delivery of the merchandise to B but before he could sell any of them, B’s store in Isabela was completely burned without his fault, together with all of A’s pants. Must B pay A for his lost pants? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contract between A and B is a sale not an agency to sell because the price is payable by B upon 60 days from delivery even if B is unable to resell it. If B were an agent, he is not bound to pay the price if he is unable to resell it.
As a buyer, ownership passed to B upon delivery and, under Art. 1504 of the Civil Code, the thing perishes for the owner. Hence, B must still pay the price.
Contract of Sale; Marital Community Property; Formalities (2006)
Spouses Biong and Linda wanted to sell their house. They found a prospective buyer, Ray. Linda negotiated with Ray for the sale of the property. They agreed on a fair price of P2 Million. Ray sent Linda a letter confirming his intention to buy the property. Later, another couple, Bernie and Elena, offered a similar house at a lower price of P 1.5 Million. But Ray insisted on buying the house of Biong and
Linda for sentimental reasons. Ray prepared a deed of sale to be signed by the couple and a manager’s check for P2 Million. After receiving the P2 Million, Biong signed the deed of sale. However, Linda was not able to sign it because she was abroad. On her return, she refused to sign the document saying she changed her mind. Linda filed suit for nullification of the deed of sale and for moral and exemplary damages against Ray.
Will the suit prosper? Explain.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the suit will not prosper. The contract of sale was perfected when Linda and Ray agreed on the object of the sale and the price [Art. 1475, New Civil Code]. The consent of Linda has already been given, as shown by her agreement to the price of the sale. There is therefore consent on her part as the consent need not be given in any specific form. Hence, her consent may be given by implication, especially since she was aware of, and participated in the sale of the property (Pelayo v. CA, G.R. No. 141323, June 8, 2005). Her action for moral and exemplary damages will also not prosper because the case does not fall under any of those mentioned in Art. 2219 and 2232 of the Civil Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The suit will prosper. Sale of community property requires written consent of both spouses. The failure or refusal of Linda to affix her signature on the deed of sale, coupled with her express declaration of opposing the sale negates any valid consent on her part. The consent of Biong by himself is insufficient to effect a valid sale of community property (Art. 96, Family Code; Abalos v. Macatangay, G.R. No. 155043, september 30, 2004).
Does Ray have any cause of action against Biong and Linda? Can he also recover damages from the spouses? Explain.
Considering that the contract has already been perfected and taken out of the operation of the statute of frauds, Ray can compel Linda and Biong to observe the form required by law in order for the property to be registered in the name of Ray which can be filed together with the action for the recovery of house [Art. 1357 New Civil Code]. In the alternative, he can recover the amount of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) that he paid. Otherwise, it would result in solutio indebiti or unjust enrichment.
Ray can recover moral damages on the ground that the action filed by Linda is clearly an unfounded civil suit which falls under malicious prosecution (Ponce v. Legaspi, G.R.No.79184, May 6,1992).
Contract to Sell (2001)
Arturo gave Richard a receipt which states:
Receipt
Received from Richard as down payment for my 1995
Toyota Corolla with plate No. XYZ-1 23………….. P50.000.00
Balance payable: 12/30/01…….. P50 000.00
September 15, 2001.
(Sgd.) Arturo
Does this receipt evidence a contract to sell? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is a contract of sale because the seller did not reserve ownership until he was fully paid.
Contract to Sell vs.Contract of Sale (1997)
State the basic difference (only in their legal effects) between a contract to sell, on the one hand, and a contract of sale, on the other.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a CONTRACT OF SALE, ownership is transferred to the buyer upon delivery of the object to him while in a CONTRACT TO SELL, ownership is retained by the seller until the purchase price is fully paid. In a contract to sell, delivery of the object does not confer ownership upon the buyer. In a contract of sale, there is only one contract executed between the seller and the buyer, while in a contract to sell, there are two contracts, first the contract to sell (which is a conditional or preparatory sale) and a second, the final deed of sale or the principal contract which is executed after full payment of the purchase price.
Contract to Sell; Acceptance; Right of First Refusal (1991)
A is the lessee of an apartment owned by Y. A allowed his married but employed daughter B, whose husband works in Kuwait, to occupy it. The relationship between Y and A soured. Since he has no reason at all to eject A, Y, in connivance with the City Engineer, secured from the latter an order for the demolition of the building. A immediately filed an action in the Regional Trial Court to annul the order and to enjoin its enforcement. Y and A were able to forge a compromise agreement under which A agreed to a twenty percent (20%) increase in the monthly rentals. They further agreed that the lease will expire two (2) years later and that in the event that Y would sell the property, either A or his daughter B shall have the right of first refusal. The Compromise Agreement was approved by the court. Six (6) months before the expiration of the lease, A died. Y sold the property to the Visorro Realty Corp. without notifying B. B then filed an action to rescind the sale in favor of the corporation and to compel Y to sell the property to her since under the Compromise Agreement, she was given the right of first refusal which, she maintains is a stipulation pour atrui under Article 1311 of the Civil Code. Is she correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B is not correct. Her action cannot prosper. Article 1311 requires that the third person intended to be benefited must communicate his acceptance to the obligor before the revocation. There is no showing that B manifested her acceptance to Y at any time before the death of A and before the sale. Hence, B cannot enforce any right under the alleged stipulation pour atrui.
Double Sales (2001)
On June 15, 1995, Jesus sold a parcel of registered land to Jaime. On June 30, 1995, he sold the same land to Jose. Who has a better right if:
a) the first sale is registered ahead of the second sale, with knowledge of the latter. Why?
b) the second sale is registered ahead of the first sale, with knowledge of the latter? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The first buyer has the better right if his sale was first to be registered, even though the first buyer knew of the second sale. The fact that he knew of the second sale at the time of his registration does not make him as acting in bad faith because the sale to him was ahead in time, hence, has a priority in right. What creates bad faith in the case of double sale of land is knowledge of a previous sale.
b) The first buyer is still to be preferred, where the second sale is registered ahead of the first sale but with knowledge of the latter. This is because the second buyer, who at the time he registered his sale knew that the property had already been sold to someone else, acted in bad faith. (Article 1544, C.C.)
Double Sales (2004)
JV, owner of a parcel of land, sold it to PP. But the deed of sale was not registered. One year later, JV sold the parcel again to RR, who succeeded to register the deed and to obtain a transfer certificate of title over the property in his own name.
Who has a better right over the parcel of land, RR or PP? Why? Explain the legal basis for your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends on whether or not RR is an innocent purchaser for value. Under the Torrens System, a deed or instrument operated only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make the registration. It is the registration of the deed or the instrument that is the operative act that conveys or affects the land. (Sec. 51, P.D. No. 1529).
In cases of double sale of titled land, it is a well-settled rule that the buyer who first registers the sale in good faith acquires a better right to the land. (Art. 1544, Civil Code).
Persons dealing with property covered by Torrens title are not required to go beyond what appears on its face. (Orquiola v. CA 386 SCRA 301, [2002]; Domingo v. Races, 401 SCRA 197, [2003]). Thus, absent any showing that RR knew about, or ought to have known the prior sale of the land to PP or that he acted in bad faith, and being first to register the sale, RR acquired a good and a clean title to the property as against PP.
Equitable Mortgage (1991)
On 20 December 1970, Juliet, a widow, borrowed from Romeo P4,000.00 and, as security therefore, she executed a deed of mortgage over one of her two (2) registered lots which has a market value of P15,000.00. The document and the certificate of title of the property were delivered to Romeo.
On 2 June 1971, Juliet obtained an additional sum of P3,000 from Romeo. On this date, however, Romeo caused the preparation of a deed of absolute sale of the above property, to which Juliet affixed her signature without first reading the document. The consideration indicated is P7,000.00. She thought that this document was similar to the first she signed. When she reached home, her son X, after reading the duplicate copy of the deed, informed her that what she signed was not a mortgage but a deed of absolute sale. On the following day, 3 June 1971, Juliet, accompanied by X, went back to Romeo and demanded the reformation it, Romeo prepared and signed a document wherein, as vendee in the deed of sale above mentioned, he obligated and bound himself to resell the land to Juliet or her heirs and successors for the same consideration as reflected in the deed of sale (P7,000) within a period of two (2) years, or until 3 June 1973. It is further stated therein that should the Vendor (Juliet) fail to exercise her right to redeem within the said period, the conveyance shall be deemed absolute and irrevocable. Romeo did not take possession of the property. He did not pay the taxes thereon.
Juliet died in January I973 without having repurchased the property. Her only surviving heir, her son X, failed to repurchase the property on or before 3 June 1973. In 1975, Romeo sold the property to Y for P50,000.00. Upon learning of the sale, X filed an action for the nullification of the sale and for the recovery of the property on the ground that the so-called deed of absolute sale executed by his mother was merely an equitable mortgage, taking into account the inadequacy of the price and the failure of Romeo to take possession of the property and to pay the taxes thereon. Romeo and Y maintain that there was a valid absolute sale and that the document signed by the former on 3 June 1973 was merely a promise to sell.
a) If you were the Judge, would you uphold the theory of X?
b) If you decide in favor of Romeo and Y, would you uphold the validity of the promise to sell?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. I will not uphold the theory of X for the nullification of the sale and for the recovery of the property on the ground that the so-called sale was only an equitable mortgage. An equitable mortgage may arise only if, in truth, the sale was one with the right of repurchase. The facts of the case state that the right to repurchase was granted after the absolute deed of sale was executed. Following the rule in Cruzo vs. Carriaga (174 SCRA 330), a deed of repurchase executed independently of the deed of sale where the two stipulations are found in two instruments instead of one document, the right of repurchase would amount only to one option granted by the buyer to the seller. Since the contract cannot be upheld as a contract of sale with the right to repurchase, Art. 1602 of the Civil Code on equitable mortgage will not apply. The rule could have been different if both deeds were executed on the same occasion or date, in which case, under the ruling in spouses Claravall v. CA (190 SCRA 439),the contract may still be sustained as an equitable mortgage, given the circumstances expressed in Art. 1602. The reserved right to repurchase is then deemed an original intention.
B. If I were to decide in favor of Romeo and Y, I would not uphold the validity of the promise to sell, so as to enforce it by an action for specific performance. The promise to sell would only amount to a mere offer and, therefore, it is not enforceable unless it was sought to be exercised before a withdrawal or denial thereof.
Even assuming the facts given at the end of the case, there would have been no separate consideration for such promise to sell. The contract would at most amount to an option which again may not be the basis for an action for specific performance.
Equitable Mortgage vs. Sale (2005)
On July 14, 2004, Pedro executed in favor of Juan a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 6245. It appears in the Deed of Sale that Pedro received from Juan P120,000.00 as purchase price. However, Pedro retained the owner’s duplicate of said title. Thereafter, Juan, as lessor, and Pedro, as lessee, executed a contract of lease over the property for a period of one (1) year with a monthly rental of Pl,000.00. Pedro, as lessee, was also obligated to pay the realty taxes on the property during the period of lease.
Subsequently, Pedro filed a complaint against Juan for the reformation of the Deed of Absolute Sale, alleging that the transaction covered by the deed was an equitable mortgage. In his verified answer to the complaint, Juan alleged that the property was sold to him under the Deed of Absolute Sale, and interposed counterclaims to recover possession of the property and to compel Pedro to turn over to him the owner’s duplicate of title.
Resolve the case with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint of Pedro against Juan should be dismissed. The instances when a contract — regardless of its nomenclature — may be presumed to be an equitable mortgage are enumerated in Article 1602 of the Civil Code: “Art. 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:
1. When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate:
2. When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;
3. When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed;
4. When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price;
5. When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;
6. In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.
“In any of the foregoing cases, any money, fruits, or other benefit to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered as interest which shall be subject to the usury laws.”
Article 1604 states that “the provisions of article 1602 shall also apply to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale.”
For Articles 1602 and 1604 to apply, two requisites must concur: 1) the parties entered into a contract denominated as a contract of sale; and 2) their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage (Heirs of Balite v. Lim, G.R. No. 152168, December 10, 2004).
In the given case, although Pedro retained possession of the property as lessee after the execution of the Deed of Sale, there is no showing that the intention of the parties was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage. Hence, the complaint of Pedro should be dismissed.
Immovable Property; Rescission of Contract (2003)
X sold a parcel of land to Y on 01 January 2002, payment and delivery to be made on 01 February 2002. It was stipulated that if payment were not to be made by Y on 01 February 2002, the sale between the parties would automatically be rescinded. Y failed to pay on 01 February 2002, but offered to pay three days later, which payment X refused to accept, claiming that their contract of sale had already been rescinded. Is X’s contention correct? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, X is not correct. In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated, as in this case, that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act (Article 1592, New Civil code). Since no demand for rescission was made on Y, either judicially or by a notarial act, X cannot refuse to accept the payment offered by Y three (3) days after the expiration of the period.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This is a contract to sell and not a contract of absolute sale, since as there has been no delivery of the land. Article 1592 of the New Civil code is not applicable. Instead, Article 1595 of the New Civil Code applies. The seller has two alternative remedies: (1) specific performance, or (2) rescission or resolution under Article 1191 of the New Civil code. In both remedies, damages are due because of default.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the contract was automatically rescinded upon Y’s failure to pay on 01 February 2002. By the express terms of the contract, there is no need for X to make a demand in order for rescission to take place. (Article 1191, New Civil Code, Suria v. IAC, 151 SCRA 661 [1987]; U.P. v. delos Angeles, 35 SCRA 102 [1970]).
Maceda Law (2000)
Priscilla purchased a condominium unit in Makati City from the Citiland Corporation for a price of P10 Million, payable P3 Million down and the balance with interest thereon at 14% per annum payable in sixty (60) equal monthly installments of P198,333.33. They executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in which it is stipulated that should the vendee fail to pay three (3) successive installments, the sale shall be deemed automatically rescinded without the necessity of judicial action and all payments made by the vendee shall be forfeited in favor of the vendor by way of rental for the use and occupancy of the unit and as liquidated damages. For 46 months, Priscilla paid the monthly installments religiously, but on the 47th and 48th months, she failed to pay. On the 49th month, she tried to pay the installments due but the vendor refused to receive the payments tendered by her. The following month, the vendor sent her a notice that it was rescinding the Deed of Conditional Sale pursuant to the stipulation for automatic rescission, and demanded that she vacate the premises. She replied that the contract cannot be rescinded without judicial demand or notarial act pursuant to Article 1592 of the Civil Code.
a) Is Article 1592 applicable?
b) Can the vendor rescind the contract?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Article 1592 of the Civil Code does not apply to a conditional sale. In Valarao v. CA, 304 SCRA 155, the Supreme Court held that Article 1592 applies only to a contract of sale and not to a Deed of Conditional Sale where the seller has reserved title to the property until full payment of the purchase price. The law applicable is the Maceda Law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) No, the vendor cannot rescind the contract under the circumstances. Under the Maceda Law, which is the law applicable, the seller on installment may not rescind the contract till after the lapse of the mandatory grace period of 30 days for every one year of installment payments, and only after 30 days from notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by a notarial act. In this case, the refusal of the seller to accept payment from the buyer on the 49th month was not justified because the buyer was entitled to 60 days grace period and the payment was tendered within that period. Moreover, the notice of rescission served by the seller on the buyer was not effective because the notice was not by a notarial act. Besides, the seller may still pay within 30 days from such notarial notice before rescission may be effected. All these requirements for a valid rescission were not complied with by the seller. Hence, the rescission is invalid.
Maceda Law; Recto Law (1999)
What are the so-called “Maceda” and “Recto” laws in connection with sales on installments? Give the most important features of each law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The MACEDA LAW (R.A. 655) is applicable to sales of immovable property on installments. The most important features are (Rillo v. CA, 247 SCRA 461):
(1) After having paid installments for at least two years, the buyer is entitled to a mandatory grace period of one month for every year of installment payments made, to pay the unpaid installments without interest.
If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall refund to the buyer the cash surrender value equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the total payments made, and after five years of installments, an additional five percent (5%) every year but not to exceed ninety percent (90%) of the total payments made.
(2) In case the installments paid were less than 2 years, the seller shall give the buyer a grace period of not less than 60 days. If the buyer fails to pay the installments due at the expiration of the grace period, the seller may cancel the contract after 30 days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or demand for rescission by notarial act.
The RECTO LAW (Art. 1484} refers to sale of movables payable in installments and limiting the right of seller, in case of default by the buyer, to one of three remedies:
a) exact fulfillment;
b) cancel the sale if two or more installments have not been paid;
c) foreclose the chattel mortgage on the things sold, also in case of default of two or more installments, with no further action against the purchaser.
Option Contract (2002)
Explain the nature of an option contract.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An OPTION CONTRACT is one granting a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at a determined price. It must be supported by a consideration distinct from the price. (Art. 1479 and 1482, NCC)
Option Contract; Earnest Money (1993)
LT applied with BPI to purchase a house and lot in Quezon City, one of its acquired assets. The amount offered was P1,000,000.00 payabale, as follows: P200,000.00 down payment, the balance of P800,000.00 payable within 90 days from June 1, 1985. BPI accepted the offer, whereupon LT drew a check for P200,000.00 in favor of BPI which the latter thereafter deposited in its account. On September 5, 1985, LT wrote BPI requesting extension until October 10, 1985 within which to pay the balance, to which BPI agreed. On October 5, 1985, due to the expected delay in the remittance of the needed amount by his financier from the United States, LT wrote BPI requesting a last extension until October 30, 1985, within which to pay the balance. BPI denied LTs request because another had offered to buy the same property for P1,500,000.00. BPI cancelled its agreement with LT and offered to return to him the amount of P200,000.00 that LT had paid to it. On October 20, 1985, upon receipt of the amount of P800,000.00 from his US financier, LT offered to pay the amount by tendering a cashier’s check therefor but which BPI refused to accept. LT then filed a complaint against BPI in the RTC for specific performance and deposited in court the amount of P800,000.00. Is BPI legally correct in canceling its contract with LT?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
BPI is not correct in canceling the contract with LT. In Lina Topacio v Court of Appeals and BPI Investment (G.R. No. 102606, July 3, 1993, 211 SCRA 291) the Supreme Court held that the earnest money is part of the purchase price and is proof of the perfection of the contract. Secondly, notarial or judicial rescission under Art. 1592 and 1991 of the Civil Code is necessary (Taguba v. de Leon, 132 SCRA 722.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
BPI is correct in canceling its contract with LT but BPI must do so by way of judicial rescission under Article 1191 Civil Code. The law requires a judicial action, and mere notice of rescission is insufficient if it is resisted. The law also provides that slight breach is not a ground for rescission (Song Fo & Co. vs. Hawaiian Phil Co., 47 Phil. 821). Delay in the fulfillment of the obligation (Art. 1169, Civil Code) is a ground to rescind, only if time is of the essence. Otherwise, the court may refuse the rescission if there is a just cause for the fixing of a period.
Perfected Sale; Acceptance of Earnest Money (2002)
Bert offers to buy Simeon’s property under the following terms and conditions: P1 million purchase price, 10% option money, the balance payable in cash upon the clearance of the property of all illegal occupants. The option money is promptly paid and Simeon clears the property of illegal occupants in no time at all. However, when Bert tenders payment of the balance and ask Simeon for the deed for absolute sale, Simeon suddenly has a change of heart, claiming that the deal is disadvantageous to him as he has found out that the property can fetch three time the agreed purchase price. Bert seeks specific performance but Simeon contends that he has merely given Bert an option to buy and nothing more, and offers to return the option money which Bert refuses to accept.
B. Will Bert’s action for specific performance prosper? Explain.
C. May Simeon justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is financially disadvantageous to him? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. Bert’s action for specific performance will prosper because there was a binding agreement of sale, not just an option contract. The sale was perfected upon acceptance by Simeon of 10% of the agreed price. This amount is in really earnest money which, under Art. 1482, “shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.” (Topacio v. CA, 211 SCRA 291 [1992]; Villongco Realty v. Bormaheco, 65 SCRA 352 [1975]).
C. Simeon cannot justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is financially disadvantageous to him. Having made a bad bargain is not a legal ground for pulling out a biding contract of sale, in the absence of some actionable wrong by the other party (Vales v.Villa, 35 Phi l769 [1916]), and no such wrong has been committed by Bert.
Redemption; Legal; Formalities (2001)
Betty and Lydia were co-owners of a parcel of land. Last January 31, 2001, when she paid her real estate tax, Betty discovered that Lydia has sold her share to Emma on November 10, 2000. The following day, Betty offered to redeem her share from Emma, but the latter replied that Betty’s right to redeem has already prescribed. Is Emma correct or not? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Emma, the buyer, is not correct. Betty can still enforce her right of legal redemption as a co-owner. Article 1623 of the Civil Code gives a co-owner 30 days from written notice of the sale by the vendor to exercise his right of legal redemption. In the present problem, the 30-day period for the exercise by Betty of her right of redemption had not even begun to run because no notice in writing of the sale appears to have been given to her by Lydia.
Redemption; Legal; Formalities (2002)
Adela and Beth are co-owners of a parcel of land. Beth sold her undivided share of the property to Xandro, who promptly notified Adela of the sale and furnished the latter a copy of the deed of absolute sale. When Xandro presented the deed for registration, the register of deeds also notified Adela of the sale, enclosing a copy of the deed with the notice. However, Adela ignored the notices. A year later, Xandro filed a petition for the partition of the property. Upon receipt of summons, Adela immediately tendered the requisite amount for the redemption. Xandro contends that Adela lost her right of redemption after the expiration of 30 days from her receipt of the notice of the sale given by him.
May Adela still exercise her right of redemption? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Adela may still exercise her right of redemption notwithstanding the lapse of more than 30 days from notice of the sale given to her because Article 1623 of the New Civil Code requires that the notice in writing of the sale must come from the prospective vendor or vendor as the case may be. In this case, the notice of the sale was given by the vendee and the Register of Deeds. The period of 30 days never tolled. She can still avail of that right.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Adela can no longer exercise her right of redemption. As co-owner, she had only 30 days from the time she received written notice of the sale which in this case took the form of a copy of the deed of sale being given to her (Conejero v.CA,16 SCRA 775 [1966]). The law does not prescribe any particular form of written notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner (Etcuban v.CA, 148 SCRA 507 [1987]).So long as the redemptioner was informed in writing, he has no cause to complain (Distrito v. CA, 197 SCRA 606, 609 [1991]). In fact, in Distrito, a written notice was held unnecessary where the co-owner had actual knowledge of the sale, having acted as middleman and being present when the vendor signed the deed of sale.
Right of First Refusal; Lessee; Effect (1996)
Ubaldo is the owner of a building which has been leased by Remigio for the past 20 years. Ubaldo has repeatedly assured Remigio that if he should decide to sell the building, he will give Remigio the right of first refusal. On June 30, 1994, Ubaldo informed Remigio that he was willing to sell the building for P5 Million. The following day, Remigio sent a letter to Ubaldo offering to buy the building at P4.5 Million. Ubaldo did not reply. One week later, Remigio received a letter from Santos informing him that the building has been sold to him by Ubaldo for P5 Million, and that he will not renew Remigio’s lease when it expires. Remigio filed an action against Ubaldo and Santos for cancellation of the sale, and to compel Ubaldo to execute a deed of absolute sale in his favor, based on his right of first refusal.
a) Will the action prosper? Explain.
b) If Ubaldo had given Remigio an option to purchase the building instead of a right of first refusal, will your answer be the same? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action to compel Ubaldo to execute the deed of absolute sale will not prosper. According to Ang Yu v. Court of Appeals (238 SCRA 602), the right of first refusal is not based on contract but is predicated on the provisions of human relations and, therefore, its violation is predicated on quasi-delict. Secondly, the right of first refusal implies that the offer of the person in whose favor that right was given must conform with the same terms and conditions as those given to the offeree. In this case, however, Remigio was offering only P4.5 Million instead of P5 Million.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the action will not prosper. The lessee’s right of first refusal does not go so far as to give him the power to dictate on the lessor the price at which the latter should sell his property. Upon the facts given, the lessor had sufficiently complied with his commitment to give the lessee a right of first refusal when he offered to sell the property to the lessee for P5 Million, which was the same price he got in selling it to Santos. He certainly had the right to treat the lessee’s counter-offer of a lesser amount as a rejection of his offer to sell at P5 Million. Thus, he was free to find another buyer upon receipt of such unacceptable counter-offer (Art. 1319. NCC).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the answer will be the same. The action will not prosper because an option must be supported by a consideration separate and distinct from the purchase price. In this case there is no separate consideration. Therefore, the option may be withdrawn by Ubaldo at any time. (Art. 1324, NCC)
Right of First Refusal; Lessee; Effect (1998)
In a 20-year lease contract over a building, the lessee is expressly granted a right of first refusal should the lessor decide to sell both the land and building. However, the lessor sold the property to a third person who knew about the lease and in fact agreed to respect it. Consequently, the lessee brings an action against both the lessor-seller and the buyer (a) to rescind the sale and (b) to compel specific performance of his right of first refusal in the sense that the lessor should be ordered to execute a deed of absolute sale in favor of the lessee at the same price. The defendants contend that the plaintiff can neither seek rescission of the sale nor compel specific performance of a “mere” right of first refusal. Decide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action filed by the lessee, for both rescission of the offending sale and specific performance of the right of first refusal which was violated, should prosper. The ruling in Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, Inc. (264 SCRA 483), a case with similar facts, sustains both rights of action because the buyer in the subsequent sale knew the existence of right of first refusal, hence in bad faith.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
The action to rescind the sale and to compel the right to first refusal will not prosper. (Ang Yu Asuncion vs. CA, 238 SCRA 602).The Court ruled in a unanimous en banc decision that the right of first refusal is not founded upon contract but on a quasi-delictual relationship covered by the principles of human relations and unjust enrichment (Art. 19, et seq. Civil Code). Hence the only action that will prosper according to the Supreme Court is an “action for damages in a proper forum for the purpose.”
Right of Repurchase (1993)
On January 2, 1980, A and B entered into a contract whereby A sold to B a parcel of land for and in consideration of P10.000.00. A reserving to himself the right to repurchase the same. Because they were friends, no period was agreed upon for the repurchase of the property.
1) Until when must A exercise his right of repurchase?
2) If A fails to redeem the property within the allowable period, what would you advise B to do for his better protection?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) A can exercise his right of repurchase within four (4)
years from the date of the contract (Art. 1606, Civil Code).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) I would advise B to file an action for consolidation of title and obtain a judicial order of consolidation which must be recorded in the Registry of Property (Art. 1607. Civil Code).
Transfer of Ownership; Non-Payment of the Price (1991)
Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a postdated check in full payment therefor. Before the maturity of the check, Alfonso sold the car to Gregorio who later sold it to Gabriel. When presented for payment, the check issued by Alfonso was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that he, Alfonso, had already closed his account even before he issued his check.
Pablo sued to recover the car from Gabriel alleging that he (Pablo) had been unlawfully deprived of it by reason of Alfonso’s deception. Will the suit prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The suit will not prosper because Pablo was not unlawfully deprived of the car although he was unlawfully deprived of the price. The perfection of the sale and the delivery of the car was enough to allow Alfonso to have a right of ownership over the car, which can be lawfully transferred to Gregorio. Art. 559 applies only to a person who is in possession in good faith of the property, and not to the owner thereof. Alfonso, in the problem, was the owner, and, hence, Gabriel acquired the title to the car.
Non-payment of the price in a contract of sale does not render ineffective the obligation to deliver. The obligation to deliver a thing is different from the obligation to pay its price. EDCA Publishing Co. v .Santos (1990)
Transfer of Ownership; Risk of Loss (1990)
D sold a second-hand car to E for P150,000.00 The agreement between D and E was that half of the purchase price, or P75,000.00, shall be paid upon delivery of the car to E and the balance of P75,000.00 shall be paid in five equal monthly installments of P15,000.00 each. The car was delivered to E, and E paid the amount of P75.000.00 to D. Less than one month thereafter, the car was stolen from E’s garage with no fault on E’s part and was never recovered. Is E legally bound to pay the said unpaid balance of P75.000.00? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, E is legally bound to pay the balance of P75,000.00. The ownership of the car sold was acquired by E from the moment it was delivered to him. Having acquired ownership, E bears the risk of the loss of the thing under the doctrine of res perit domino (Articles 1496. 1497, Civil Code).
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in CIVIL LAW by the UP LAW COMPLEX and PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS.
