Sales 5th Assignment
Sales 5th Assignment
The Narcisos were purchaser-in-value but not The trial court rendered judgment in favor of
purchasers in good faith respondent Maruzzo and held that the Quitclaim
What was the necessity, purpose and reason of Deed is equivalent to a Deed of Sale and, hence,
Pacifico Narciso in still going to the spouses there was a valid conveyance in favor of the
Mapalo and asked them to permit their brother latter.
Maximo to dispose of the above-described land?
To this question it is safe to state that this act Petitioners appealed to the respondent
of Pacifico Narciso is a conclusive manifestation Intermediate Appellate Court. They reiterated
that they (the Narcisos) did not only have prior their argument below and, in addition,
knowledge of the ownership of said spouses contended that the One (P1.00) Peso
over the western half portion in question but consideration is not a consideration at all to
that they also have recognized said ownership. sustain the ruling that the Deed of Quitclaim is
It also conclusively shows their prior knowledge equivalent to a sale.
of the want of dominion on the part of their
vendor Maximo Mapalo over the whole land and Respondent Intermediate Appellate Court
also of the flaw of his title thereto. Under this promulgated its Decision affirming the appealed
situation, the Narcisos may be considered judgment and held that the Quitclaim Deed is a
purchasers in value but certainly not as conveyance of property with a valid cause or
purchasers in good faith. consideration; that the consideration is the One
(P1.00) Peso which is clearly stated in the deed
itself; that the apparent inadequacy is of no
Ong v. Ong 19 SCRA 133 (1985); moment since it is the usual practice in deeds of
conveyance to place a nominal amount although
Facts: there is a more valuable consideration given.
On October 6, 1986, Josefina “Josie” Rey and Alino v. Heirs of Lorenzo, 556 SCRA 139;
private respondent Tan went to the residence of
petitioner in Tacloban City. Josie solicited his Facts:
help to stave her off her prosecution by 1. Petitioners as heirs of Lorenzo Yap filed an
respondent for violation of B. P. 22. Josie asked action against Ramon Yap and co-respondent
petitioner to cede to respondent his 3 lots. Josie for the reconveyance of land, with buildings and
explained to him that he was in no danger of improvement on it. They alleged that the said
losing his property as they will be redeemed by property was held in trust by Ramon and that it
her own funds. After a long discussion, was their father Lorenzo who purchased the said
petitioner agreed to execute a fictitious deed of land and constructed the apartment building on
sale with right to repurchase after 6 months. it. However, alleging that since at that time,
Josie gave petitioner 2 post-dated checks to be Lorenzo was still a Chinese citizen, hence
used in redeeming the property. However, the prohibited from owning land, he caused it to be
checks were both dishonoured. Realizing that he registered in the name of respondent Ramon.
was swindled, he sent a telegram to Josie, and
looked for her in Manila, but she was nowhere
2. The said property was sold by Ramon to his On August 1999, Maniego paid Kapantay’s Loan
co-respondent which caused the petitioners to Account for P448,202.08 and on subsequent
file this action. year he applied for a loan worth P1M from Land
Bank using OCT No. P-12026 as a collateral with
3. The lower court ruled in favor of the a condition that the title must be first
respondents or the ownership of Ramon. This transferred on his name. On August 14, 2000,
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Hence the Registry of Deeds issued TCT No. T-20151
this petition. in Maniego’s name pursuant to a Deed of
Absolute Sale with the signatures of Mrs.
Issue: Whether or not a trust was constituted Poblete and her husband dated August 11, 2000
between Lorenzo and Ramon and Maniego successfully availed the Credit Line
Agreement for P1M and a Real Estate Mortgage
RULING: No, and even it there was an implied over TCT No. T-20151 on August 15, 2000. On
trust, it could not have been valid as it was in November 2002, Land Bank filed an Application
contravention of applicable laws. There is a for an Extra-judicial Foreclosure against the said
basic distinction between implied and express Mortgage stating that Maniego failed to pay his
trusts. Express trusts cannot be proved by loan.
parole evidence. Even then, in order to establish
the existence of an implied trust in real property Poblete filed a complaint for nullification of the
by parole evidence, the prove should be as fully Deed of Sale dated August 11, 2000 and TCT
convincing as the facts as if the acts giving rise No. T-20151, Reconveyance of the Title and
to the trust obligation are proven by an Damages with a Prayer for Temporary
authentic document. The petitioners' evidence Restraining Order and/or Issuance of Writ of
was insufficient to prove clearly that a trust was Preliminary Injunction against Maniego,
constituted between their father and Ramon. Landbank and the Register of Deeds. The
judgment of RTC, affirmed by the CA upon
appeal, favors the plaintiff Poblete. Hence, this
a) Simulated price; petition.
The P1 million “earnest-deposit” could not have In the present case, the parties never got past
been given as earnest money because at the the negotiation stage. The alleged “indubitable
time when petitioner accepted the terms of evidence” of a perfected sale cited by the
respondents’ offer, their contract had not yet appellate court was nothing more than offers
been perfected. This is evident from the and counter-offers which did not amount to any
following conditions attached by respondents to final arrangement containing the essential
their letter. elements of a contract of sale. While the parties
already agreed on the real properties which
The first condition for an option period of 30 were the objects of the sale and on the purchase
days sufficiently shows that a sale was never price, the fact remains that they failed to arrive
perfected. As petitioner correctly points out, at mutually acceptable terms of payment,
acceptance of this condition did not give rise to despite the 45-day extension given by
a perfected sale but merely to an option or an petitioner.
accepted unilateral promise on the part of
respondents to buy the subject properties within
30 days from the date of acceptance of the Co v. CA, 286 SCRA 76 (1998);
offer. Such option giving respondents the
exclusive right to buy the properties within the
period agreed upon is separate and distinct from Amado v. Salvador, 540 SCRA 161;
the contract of sale which the parties may enter.
All that respondents had was just the option to
buy the properties which privilege was not, Navarra v. Planters Development Bank,
however, exercised by them because there was 527 SCRA 562.
a failure to agree on the terms of payment. No
contract of sale may thus be enforced by D. How Price Determined
respondents.
1. By Third Person – 1469
Even the option secured by respondents from 2. By the Courts – 1469
petitioner was fatally defective. Under the 3. By reference to a definite day,
second paragraph of Art. 1479, an accepted particular exchange or market – 1472
unilateral promise to buy or sell a determinate 4. By reference to another thing
thing for a price certain is binding upon the certain
promisor only if the promise is supported by a 5. But never by one party to the
distinct consideration. Consideration in an contract - 1473, 1182
6. Effect of unascertainability - 1474