BASED ON PINEDA/VILLANUEVA BOOK OUTLINE
I. A. Contract of Sale; definition
Acap vs. CA 251 SCRA 30
Roberts vs. Papio, GR. No. 166714 Feb. 9, 2007
B. Phases or stages of a contract of sales
(Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. CA, 250 SCRA 523)
C. Characteristics or Features of Contract of Sale
Romero vs. CA G.R. No. 107207, November 23, 1995
Coronel vs. CA G.R. No. 103577 (October 7, 1996)
Binan Steel Corp. Vs. CA, 391 SCRA 90
PUP Vs. CA and Firestone Ceramics
NDC vs Firestone Ceramics, GR No. 143513/143590 Nov. 14, 2001
Gaite v. Fonacier 2 scra 831
Sps. Buenaventura v. CA G.R. No. 126376, 20 November 2003
D. Elements of contract of sale
Jovan Land vs. CA, 268 SCRA 160
Sanchez vs. Mapalad Realty Corp., 541 SCRA 397
Akang vs. Municipality of Isulan (GR No. 186014, June 26, 2013)
Spouses Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126376, November
2003
E. Absolute and Conditional Sales; Concept; Distinctions
Romero vs. CA, 250 SCRA 223
Dignos vs. CA, 158 SCRA 375
F. Contract of Sale vs. Contract to Sell
G. Contract to sell; concept
Coronel vs. CA 263 S 29
H. Contract of sale effect
People’s Industrial vs. CA 281 S 206
II. PARTIES TO A CONTRACT OF SALE (Arts. 1489 and 1492)
A. MINORS, INSANE AND DEMENTED PERSONS, DEAF-MUTES
(Arts. 1327, 1397, 1399)
1. Necessaries (Arts. 1489 and 290)
Mercado vs. Espiritu, 37 Phil 265
Bambalan vs. Maramba 51 Phil 417
2. Emancipation (Arts. 399 and 1397, Art 234 and 236, Family Code)
B. SALES BY AND BETWEEN SPOUSES
1. Contracts with Third Parties (Arts. 73, 96, and 124, Family Code) –
Sps. Domingo v. Reed, G.R. No. 157701, December 9, 2005;
2. Between Spouses (Arts. 133, 1490, 1492)
Medina v. Collector, 1 SCRA 302
Cook vs. Mc Micking, 27 Phil. 10
3. Applicability to Common-Law Spouses (Art. 133) –
Calimlim Canullas v. Fortun, 129 SCRA 675 (1984);
Ching v. Goyanko, 506 SCRA 735
4. Is in Pari Delicto Doctrine Applicable to Prohibit Recovery?
C. SCENARIOS INVOLVING CONFLICT OF INTEREST DUE TO TRUST
RELATIONSHIPS (Arts. 1491 and 1492)
1. Status of such contracts - Rubias v. Batiller, 51 S 120 (1973)
2. Guardians, agents and administrators-
Phil. Trust Co. v. Roldan, 99 P 39 (1956)
Cui vs. Cui, 100 Phil 913
Distajo vs. Distajo, G.R. No. 112954, Aug. 25, 2000
Lao vs. Genato, 137 SCRA 77
4. Public Officials and Employees
Maharlika Broadcasting Corp. vs. Tagle, 142 SCRA 553
5. Judges and Lawyers/Attorneys –
Fabillo v. lAC, 195 S 28 (1991)
Gan Tingco vs. Pabinguit, 35 Phil 81
Macariola vs. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77
D. SALES BY ADMINISTRATORS/EXECUTORS –
Lee v. RTC, G.R. No. 146006, February 23, 2004
III. SUBJECT MATTER OF SALE (Arts. 1459 to 1465)
A. MUST BE EXISTING, FUTURE OR CONTIGENT (Arts. 1347, 1348 and
1462)
1. The thing must be capable of existence
a. Emptio Rei Speratae (1461 and 1347)
b. Emptio Spei (1461)
c. Subject to resolutory condition (1465)
Quijada v. CA, GR. No. 126444, December 4, 1988.
2. Seller’s obligation to transfer ownership at the time of delivery (Arts. 1459,
1462, 1505, 1434 and 1462) –
Nool v. CA, 276 S 3149 (1997);
Arra Realty Corp. v. Guaranty Corp. and Insurance Agency, 438 S 441(2004); x
Heirs of Jesus M. Marcuña v. CA, 461 S 186 (2005).
B. MUST BE LICIT (Arts. 1347, 1459 and 1575)
C. MUST BE DETERMINATE OR DETERMINABLE (1460) –
Melliza v. City of llo-ilo, 23 S 477 (1968);
Heirs of San Andres v. Rodriguez, 332 S 769 (2000);
1. Generic things as objects of sale (Arts. 1246 and 1409[6]) -
Yu Tek & co., v. Gonzales, 29 Phil. 384 (1915)
2. Undivided Interest (1463, 1464)
3. Undivided Share in a mass of fungible goods may be object of sale. (Art.
1464)
D. WHETHER QUANTITY OF OBJECT IS ESSENTIAL FOR PERFECTION
(Art. 1349) –
National Grains Authority v. IAC, 171 SCRA 131 (1989);
Johannes Schuback & Sons Phil. Trading Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA
719 (1993).
E. LEGALITY OF SUBJECT MATTER
(Arts. 1409, 1458, 1461, 1462 and 1575)
1. Special laws
2. Absolutely simulated sale –
IV. PRICE
A. Meaning of Price
B. Requisites for valid Price
6. The Price Must Be Real - 1471 –
Mapalo v. Mapalo, 17 SCRA 114 (1966);
Toyota Shaw Inc. vs. CA, 244 SCRA 320
Bagnas vs. CA 176 SCRA 159
Mate v. CA, 290 SCRA 463 (1998);
a) Simulated price –
Penalosa vs. Santos, 363 SCRA 545
Manila Banking Corporation v. Silverio 466 SCRA 438 (2005)
b) False consideration - 1353 and 1354
Effect to the parties
Effect to third persons
c) Non-payment of price –
Penalosa vs. Santos, 363 SCRA 545 (Supra)
7. The Price Must Be in Money or Its Equivalent - 1458, 1468
Republic v. Phil. Resources Development, 102 Phil. 960 (1958)
Bagnas vs. CA 176 SCRA 159 (Supra)
3. The Price Must be Certain or Ascertainable at the Time of Perfection
- 1469
C. Manner of Payment of Price must be Agreed Upon –
Velasco v. CA, 51 SCRA 439 (1973);
San Miguel Properties Philippines v. Huang, 336 SCRA 737 (2000);
Edrada v. Ramos, 468 SCRA 597 (2005)
Navarra v. Planters Development Bank, 527 SCRA 562.
D. How Price Determined
1. By Third Person – 1469
2. By the Courts – 1469
3. By reference to a definite day, particular exchange or market – 1472
4. By reference to another thing certain
5. But never by one party to the contract - 1473, 1182
6. Effect of unascertainability - 1474
E. Gross Inadequacy of Price -1355, 1386, 1470 and 1602.
Bravo-Guerrero v. Bravo, 465 S 244 (2005)
F. Judicial Sale
G. Rescissible Contracts of Sale
H. Sales With Right to Purchase
V. FORMATION OF CONTRACT SALE (Arts. 1475-1488)-
A. PREPARATORY (Art. 1479)
1. Policitation
Gabelo v. CA, 316 SCRA 386 (1999)
MANILA METAL CONTAINER CORP. v. PNB G.R. No. 166862
December 20, 2006
2. Option Contract –
Carcellar v. CA, 302 SCRA 718 (1999);
Soriano v. Bautista, 6 SCRA 946 (1962);
Co vs. CA GR No. 112330
Sanchez v. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368 (1972)
1. Distinguishing Option From Right of First Refusal –
Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc. 264 SCRA 483;
B. PERFECTION, Arts. 1325 & 1326 - Fule v. CA, 286 SCRA 685 (1998)
Limketkai Sons vs. CA, 250 SCRA 523
1. Perfection - (Arts. 1475)
2. When Deviation Allowed - Villonco v. Bormacheco, 65 SCRA 352 (1975)
3. Sale by Auction - (Arts. 1476, 1403 (2)(d) & 1326)
4. Earnest Money - (Art. 1482) -
Serrano v. Caguiat, 517 SCRA 57
5. Place of Perfection (Art. 1319)
C. CONSUMMATION
FORM OF SALES (Arts. 1375, 1358, 1405, 1406 and 1483)
1. Really No Form- Dalion v. CA, 182 SCRA 872 (1990);
Secuya v. Vda. De Selma, 326 SCRA 244 (2000)
8. Exceptions: When Form Important - Arts. 1403, 1405 and 1874 –
Yuviengco v. Dacuycuy, 104 SCRA 668 (1981);
Ortega v. Leonardo, 103 Phil. 870 (1958);
Claudel v. CA, 199 SCRA 113 (1991);
Alfredo v. Boras, 404 SCRA 145 (2003);
Remedies; Nature (Nonato vs. Investor’s Finance Corp. 140 SCRA 255)
Expenses
Expropriation; Nature
