In Cavite Development Bank v. Lim, the Supreme Court ruled that a seller must own the property at the time of ownership transfer. Here, the bank’s sale was void because it never acquired valid title due to a defective foreclosure process, highlighting the importance of due diligence in property transactions.
Cavite Development Bank vs. Lim [February 1, 2000] Read More »
In Francisco v. Boiser, the Supreme Court held that under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, the co-owner-vendor must notify other co-owners of a sale for the redemption period to commence. Notification by the buyer is insufficient. However, actual knowledge, such as receiving a summons, can trigger the redemption period.
In Abilla v. Gobonseng, the Supreme Court held that a seller who consistently claims a transaction is an equitable mortgage cannot later exercise the right to repurchase under Article 1606 of the Civil Code after the contract is judicially declared a pacto de retro sale.
In Cebu State College of Science and Technology v. Misterio, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to repurchase in a pacto de retro sale, contingent on a suspensive condition, must be exercised within four years from the condition’s occurrence or ten years from the contract’s execution, whichever comes first.
Cebu State College of Science and Technology vs. Misterio [June 17, 2015] Read More »
In Gatchalian Realty, Inc. v. Angeles, the Supreme Court ruled that for a seller to validly cancel a contract under the Maceda Law, they must provide a notarized notice of cancellation and refund the buyer’s cash surrender value. Failure to refund invalidates the cancellation, allowing the buyer to retain rights over the property.
Gatchalian Realty, Inc. vs. Angeles [November 27, 2013] Read More »
In Jestra Development and Management Corp. v. Pacifico, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Maceda Law, a buyer who has paid less than two years of installments is entitled to a 60-day grace period to settle overdue payments. Failure to pay within this period allows the seller to cancel the contract after proper notice.
Jestra Development and Management Corp vs. Pacifico [January 30, 2007] Read More »
In Cruz v. Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation, the Supreme Court ruled that under Article 1484 of the Civil Code, if a seller forecloses on a chattel mortgage for a buyer’s default, they cannot pursue additional remedies, such as foreclosing on a real estate mortgage provided as extra security.
Cruz vs. Filipinas Investment and Finance Corporation [May 27, 1968] Read More »
In Northern Motors Inc. v. Sapinoso, the Supreme Court clarified that under the Recto Law, a seller is barred from recovering the unpaid balance of the purchase price only after an actual foreclosure sale of the chattel. Mere filing of a replevin action does not preclude accepting payments from the buyer.
Northern Motors Inc. vs. Sapinoso [May 29, 1970] Read More »
In Tajanlangit v. Southern Motors, the Supreme Court ruled that under Article 1484 of the Civil Code, a seller can choose to sue for the full purchase price if a buyer defaults on installment payments. This choice allows the seller to seek the entire amount owed, even if the purchased goods are repossessed.
In Delta Motors v. Niu Kim Duan and Chan Fue Eng, the Supreme Court ruled that installment payments in a conditional sale can be treated as rental payments if specified in the contract. However, once the seller opts for rescission and repossession, they cannot also demand the unpaid balance, as remedies under Article 1484 of the Civil Code are alternative, not cumulative.
Delta Motors vs. Niu Kim Duan and Chan Fue Eng [September 2, 1992] Read More »
