1.
As a general rule, no one can sell something they do not own, following the principle "Nemo dat
quod non habet", meaning a person cannot give what they do not have. This principle is
reflected in Article 1459 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which requires that a seller must
own the thing being sold or have the right to transfer ownership. A sale by a non-owner is
generally void, but the law recognizes exceptions. For instance, an agent may sell property with
the owner's authorization (Article 1878), and executors, administrators, or guardians may do so
with legal or court approval. The sale of future goods is also valid if the seller expects to acquire
them (Article 1462). Additionally, a person with a voidable title may still transfer ownership
before annulment (Article 1506), and under estoppel, an owner who knowingly allows another
to sell their property may be prevented from contesting the sale. While ownership remains a
key requirement in sales, these exceptions ensure fairness and commercial flexibility.
2. No, the sale is void. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically
Article 1491, guardians are prohibited from purchasing property
belonging to their wards due to the potential for conflict of interest and
abuse of trust. In this case, the buyer (the aunt) is also the legal guardian
of the minor, creating a clear conflict of interest.
Moreover, under Article 320 of the Family Code, any sale of a minor’s
property must have prior approval from the court to ensure that the
transaction serves the best interests of the minor. Since the sale was made
without court approval, it lacks legal validity. Additionally, under Article
1409, contracts that violate legal prohibitions are considered void and
produce no legal effect.
Therefore, the sale of the grandmother’s house to the aunt, without judicial
consent, is null and void from the beginning.
3. Under Article 1491 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, certain individuals are
prohibited from entering into a contract of sale due to the potential for
conflict of interest or abuse of trust. These individuals include:
1. Guardians – They cannot buy property of their wards, even at a public or
judicial auction, to prevent self-dealing and protect the minor’s interests.
2. Agents – They cannot purchase the property they are managing for their
principal to avoid a conflict of interest.
3. Executors and administrators – They cannot acquire property of the estate
they are administering to prevent unfair advantages over the heirs or
beneficiaries.
4. Public officers, employees, judges, and justices – They cannot acquire
government property or properties under their jurisdiction to prevent
corruption and abuse of authority.
5. Lawyers – They cannot buy property that is subject to litigation in which they
are involved, to avoid exerting undue influence over their clients.
These prohibitions exist to maintain fairness, protect vulnerable parties, and uphold
ethical business and legal practices.
4. A. a. Is there a valid contract of sale between Ana and Ben?
Yes, there is a valid contract of sale between Ana and Ben. According to Article 1458 of the
Civil Code, a contract of sale is perfected as soon as there is agreement on the subject matter (the
land) and the price (₱1,500,000). In this case, Ana and Ben mutually agreed on these elements,
and they performed an act of consent. Even though the agreement was verbal, the essential
elements of consent, object, and cause were present, thus making the contract legally valid.
Therefore, Ana and Ben’s agreement forms a valid contract of sale.
4.B. b. Is the contract enforceable even if it was not in writing?
Normally, no — the contract would not be enforceable because of the Statute of Frauds
outlined in Article 1403. This statute mandates that contracts for the sale of real property, such
as land, must be in writing to be enforceable in court. However, there is an important exception
here. Ben made a down payment of ₱500,000, which constitutes part performance of the
contract. According to Article 1357, part performance can make an oral contract enforceable,
even when the Statute of Frauds typically requires a written agreement. Therefore, despite the
absence of a written document, Ben's down payment acts as evidence of the agreement and can
make the contract enforceable.
a. Did Maria fulfill her obligations?
No, Maria did not fulfill her obligations. The seller is bound to deliver the exact item agreed
upon. In this case, Maria delivered a different refrigerator model (an older model with dents
and a faulty cooling system) than what was agreed upon. Therefore, she failed to deliver the
correct item as stipulated in the contract, and thus, did not fulfill her obligations.
b. b. What are the legal remedies available to Luis under the Civil Code?
Luis has several legal remedies available under the Civil Code. First, he may seek rescission of
the sale under Article 1191. Since Maria failed to deliver the refrigerator as agreed, Luis can
return the defective unit and request the cancellation of the contract. Second, under Article 1566,
Luis can demand a substitution of the item, which means Maria should deliver the correct
refrigerator model that was originally agreed upon. Lastly, under Article 1170, Luis may also
claim damages if he incurred any additional costs or suffered losses due to the breach of
contract. This provision holds the seller liable for any damage caused by failing to fulfill their
obligations.
