sales digest gomez vs ca

Sales Case Digests #1 (Atty. Espejo) DEFINITION OF SALE Polytechnic University vs. CA (G.R. No. 143513 November 14, 2001) All three (3) essential elements of a valid sale, without which there can be no sale, were attendant in the “disposition” and “transfer” of the property from NDC to PUP – consent of the parties, determinate subject matter, and consideration therefor. The defendants-appellants’ interpretation that there was a mere transfer, and not a sale, apart from being specious sophistry and a mere play of words, is too strained and hairsplitting. For it is axiomatic that every sale imposes upon the vendor the obligation to transfer ownership as an essential element of the contract. Transfer of title or an agreement to transfer title for a price paid, or promised to be paid, is the very essence of sale (Kerr & Co. v. Lingad, 38 SCRA 524; Schmid & Oberly, Inc., v. RJL Martinez Fishing Corp., 166 SCRA 493). At whatever legal angle we view it, therefore, the inescapable fact remains that all the requisites of a valid sale were attendant in the transaction between co-defendants-appellants NDC and PUP concerning the realities subject of the present suit. Acap vs. CA (G.R. No. 118114 December 7, 1995) In a Contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other party to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, the modes of acquiring ownership are generally classified into two (2) classes, namely, the original mode (i.e., through occupation, acquisitive prescription, law or intellectual creation) and thederivative mode (i.e., through succession mortis causa or tradition as a result of certain contracts, such as sale, barter, donation, assignment or mutuum). Hence, there is a marked difference between a sale of hereditary rights and a waiver of hereditary rights. The first presumes the existence of a contract or deed of sale between the parties. The second is, technically speaking, a mode of extinction of ownership where there is an abdication or intentional relinquishment of a known right with knowledge of its existence and intention to relinquish it, in favor of other persons who are co-heirs in the succession. Private respondent, being then a stranger to the succession of Cosme Pido, cannot conclusively claim ownership over the subject lot on the sole basis of the waiver document which neither recites the elements of either a sale, or a donation, or any other derivative mode of acquiring ownership. A notice of adverse claim, by its nature, does not however prove private respondent’s ownership over the tenanted lot. “A notice of adverse claim is nothing but a notice of a claim adverse to the registered owner, the validity of which is yet to be established in court at some future date, and is no better than a notice of lis pendens which is a notice of a case already pending in court.” Velarde vs. CA (G.R. No. 108346 July 11, 2001) In a contract of sale, the seller obligates itself to transfer the ownership of and deliver adeterminate things, and the buyer to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. Private respondents had already performed their obligation through the execution of the Deed of Sale, which effectively transferred ownership of the property to petitioner through constructive delivery. Prior physical delivery or possession is not legally required, and the execution of the Deed of Sale is deemed equivalent to delivery. Petitioners, on the other hand, did not perform their correlative obligation of paying the contract price in the manner agreed upon. Worse, they wanted private respondents to perform obligations beyond those stipulated in the contract before fulfilling their own obligation to pay the full purchase price. Gomez vs. CA (G.R. No. 120747 September 21, 2000) Cancellation of the award of Lot 4, Block 1, through the expediency of Resolution No. 015-86, was

sales digest gomez vs ca

Documents