Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sales Assignment 1
Sales Assignment 1
a. Articles 1458-1474 - Book of De Leon ¶4, that said spouses have agreed to sell the herein mentioned property to Alilano B. Jabil and
condition in ¶5, in which the spouses agreed to sign a final deed of absolute sale upon payment
b. Cases: of the remaining balance of P4,000.00.
FACTS: The bilateral promise to buy and sell and the agency to sell entered into within five years from
Spouses Artates and Pojas sought the annulment of the execution of a homestead issued and the date of the homestead patent was in violation of the Public Land Law, although the
duly registered in their names. A public sale was made to satisfy a judgment against Artates, executed sale was deferred until after the expiration of the five-year prohibitory period.
which amount was awarded to Urbi for physical injuries. Plaintiff spouses alleged that said
sale violated the provision of the Public Land Law exempting said property from execution 5. QUIROGA VS. PARSONS, 38 PHIL. 501
from any debt contracted within the five-year period from the date of the issuance of the
patent. FACTS:
A contract was entered into by and between Quiroga and Parsons for the exclusive sale of
ISSUE: Quiroga beds in the Visayan Islands. The tenor of said contract provides that Quiroga shall
WON the execution sale is valid. furnish beds of his manufacture to Parsons for the latter’s establishment in Iloilo, and shall
invoice them at the same price he fixed for sales in Manila, and in the invoices, shall make an
RULING: allowance of a discount as commission on the sales; and Parsons shall order the beds by the
The execution sale is null and void. As thus prescribed by law, for a period of five years from dozen, whether of the same or different styles. Parsons further binds himself to pay Quiroga
the date of the government grant, lands acquired by free or homestead patent shall not only be for the beds received within 60 days from the date of their shipment, and binds himself not to
incapable of being encumbered or alienated in favour of the government itself or any of its sell any other kind except Quiroga beds.
institutions or of duly constituted banking corporations, but also, they shall not be liable to the
satisfaction of any debt contracted within the said period, whether or not the indebtedness Quiroga contends that Parsons violated the following obligations: not to sell beds at higher
shall mature during or after the prohibited time. This provision is mandatory and a sale made prices than those of the invoices, to have an open establishment in Iloilo; to conduct the
in violation thereof is null and void and produces no effect. agency, to keep the beds on public exhibition, and to pay for the advertisement expenses for
the same, and to order the beds by the dozen and in no other manner. He further alleged that
Though it may be a limitation on the right of ownership of the grantee, the salutary purpose of Parsons was his agent for the sale in Iloilo, and said obligations are implied in a contract of
the provision is to preserve and keep for the homesteader or his family the land given to him commercial agency.
gratuitously by the State, so that being a property owner, he may become and remain a
contented and useful member of the society. ISSUE:
WON Parsons, by reason of the contract, was a purchaser or an agent of Quiroga.
4. HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ZAMBALES VS. CA, 120 SCRA 897 RULING:
The contract entered into by the parties is one of a purchase and sale. In the contract in
FACTS: question, what was essential, as constituting the cause and subject matter, is that Quiroga was
to furnish Parsons with beds which the latter might order, at the price stipulated, and that RULING:
Parsons was to pay the price in the manner stipulated. These features exclude the legal There was no perfected contract of sale of Lot 4. It was conditionally or contingently awarded
conception of an Agency or Order to Sell, whereby the mandatory or agent received the thing to the Mendozas subject to the approval by the city council of the proposed consolidation
to sell it, and does not pay its price, but delivers to the principal the price he obtains from the subdivision plan and the approval of the award by the valuation committee and higher
sale of the thing to a third person, and if he does not succeed in selling it, he returns it. authorities. When the plan with the area of Lot 4 reduced to 2,608.7 square meters was
approved, the Mendozas should have manifested in writing their acceptance of the award for
6. CONCRETE AGGREGATES INC. VS. CTA, 185 SCRA 461 the purchase of Lot 4 just to show that they were still interested in its purchase although the
area was reduced and to obviate ally doubt on the matter. They did not do so. The PHHC
FACTS: board of directors acted within its rights in withdrawing the tentative award. We cannot say
Concrete Aggregates Inc. is a domestic corporation which processes rock aggregates mined by there was a meeting of minds on the purchase of Lot 4
it from private lands and produce ready-mixed concrete and plant-mixed hot asphalt. Upon the
investigation conducted by the CTA, the peitioner is liable to pay taxes which the latter 8. TOYOTA SHAW, INC. VS CA, 244 SCRA 320
disputes. Petitioner contends that it is a contractor subject only to the 3% contractor's tax under
Section 191 of the 1968 National Internal Revenue Code and not a manufacturer subject to the Facts:
7% sales tax under Section 186 of the same Code. Sosa wanted to purchase a Toyota Lite Ace. upon contacting Toyota Shaw, Inc., he was told
that there was an available unit. Sosa and his son, Gilbert, went to the Toyota and met
ISSUE: Bernardo, a sales representative of Toyota. The parties agreed that the car shall be delivered
WON the petitioner is a contractor or a manufacturer. on June 17, 1989 and that the balance of the purchase price would be paid by credit financing
through B.A. Finance. They accomplished a printed Vehicle Sales Proposal (VSP) which
RULING: shows that the customer's name, home address , the model series of the vehicle, the installment
Concrete Aggregates Inc. is a manufacturer. Petitioner's raw materials are processed under a mode of payment with the initial cash outlay down. On the date of the delivery, the vehicle
prescribed formula and thereby changed by means of machinery into a finished product, was not delivered. Toyota alleged that no sale was entered into between it and Sosa.
altering their quality, transforming them into marketable state or preparing them for any of the
specific uses of industry. ISSUE:
A contract to make is a contract of sale if the article is already substantially in existence at the WON the stnadard VSP woulfd represent a contract of sale between the parties.
time of the order and merely requires some alteration, modification or adaptation to the buyer's
wishes or purposes. A contract for the sale of an article which the vendor in the ordinary RULING:
course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether the same is on Neither logic nor recourse to one's imagination can lead to the conclusion that VSP is a
hand at the time or not is a contract for the sale of goods. perfected contract of sale. It is not a contract of sale, thus no obligation on the part of Toyota
to transfer ownership of a determinate thing to Sosa and no correlative obligation on the part
CONTRACTOR of the latter to pay therefor a price certain appears therein.
→ one who undertakes to do a specific job or piece of work for other persons, using his own
means and methods A definite agreement on the manner of payment of the price is an essential element in the
formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. This is so because the agreement as to
→TRUE TEST: renders service in the form of independent occupation, representing the will the manner of payment goes into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment
of his employer only as to the result of his work is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price. Definiteness as to the price is an essential
element of a binding agreement to sell personal property. The VSP was a mere proposal which
7. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. VS. CA, 133 SCRA 777 was aborted in lieu of subsequent
On the other hand, Capitol likewise failed to comply with the terms of the Compromise
Agreement, and a levy was made on the glass and wooden jalousies. Sampaguita filed a third-
party claim alleging that it is the owner of said materials and not Capitol, but Jalwindor filed
an idemnity bond in favor of the Sheriff and the items were sold at public auction, with
Jalwindor as the highest bidder . Sampaguita filed with the CFI of Rizal, Quezon City an
action to nullify the Sheriff's sale and for an injunction to prevent Jalwindor from detaching
the glass and wooden jalousies.
ISSUE:
WON there was a delivery made and, therefore, a transfer of ownership of the thing sold?
RULING:
YES. When the glass and wooden jealousies were delivered and installed in the lease
premises, Capitol became the owner thereof. Ownership is not transferred by perfection of the
contract but by delivery, either actual or constructive.
Capitol entered into a lease contract with Sampaguita, and the latter became the owner of the
items mentioned by virtue of the contract agreement. When levy was made on the items,
Capitol ( the judgment debtor) was no longer the owner thereof.