In Tagaytay Realty Co., Inc. vs. Gacutan, the Supreme Court ruled that a developer’s failure to complete subdivision amenities within one year, as mandated by P.D. No. 957, excuses the buyer from paying penalties. However, the buyer remains obligated to pay agreed-upon interest on the purchase price.
Tagaytay Realty Co., Inc. vs. Gacutan [July 1, 2015] Read More »
In the case of Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc., the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that an employee’s resignation must be voluntary. If coerced, it is considered constructive dismissal, entitling the employee to reinstatement and back wages. The Court emphasized the employer’s burden to prove the resignation’s voluntariness.
Lo vs. KJS Eco-Formwork System Phil., Inc. [October 8, 2003] Read More »
In A. Francisco Realty vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a contract labeled as a “pacto de retro sale” was actually an equitable mortgage. The stipulation for automatic transfer of property ownership upon default was deemed a pactum commissorium, which is prohibited under Article 2088 of the Civil Code.
A. Francisco Realty vs. Court of Appeals [October 30, 1998] Read More »
In Roberts vs. Papio, the Supreme Court of the Philippines held that a contract labeled as an absolute sale cannot later be claimed as an equitable mortgage if the seller initially acknowledged it as a pacto de retro sale. The Court emphasized that judicial admissions prevent parties from changing their stance during proceedings.
In PCI Leasing vs. Giraffe-X Creative, the Supreme Court of the Philippines determined that a finance lease, despite lacking an explicit purchase option, was effectively a sale with an option to buy. Consequently, under the Recto Law, the lessor cannot both repossess the property and demand payment of unpaid installments.
PCI Leasing vs. Giraffe-X-Creative [July 12, 2007] Read More »
In Mate vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the validity of a deed of sale with the right to repurchase, despite the buyer’s checks being dishonored. The Court clarified that failure of consideration, such as dishonored checks, does not invalidate a contract but provides grounds for legal action to recover the owed amount.
In Commissioner vs. Engineering Equipment & Supply Company, the Supreme Court of the Philippines determined that Engineering Equipment & Supply Company was a contractor, not a manufacturer, because it designed and installed custom air-conditioning systems per client specifications. Consequently, the company was subject to a 3% contractor’s tax instead of a higher manufacturer’s sales tax.
Commissioner vs. Engineering Equipment & Supply Company [June 30, 1975] Read More »
In Puyat vs. Arco Amusement Co., the Supreme Court clarified that the transaction was a contract of sale, not an agency. Ownership transferred upon delivery of goods, with a commission for sales beyond a specified amount. The Court emphasized that obligations under a sale differ fundamentally from those in an agency agreement.
In Adelfa Properties, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that an “Exclusive Option to Purchase” agreement was actually a contract to sell, not an option contract. The Court emphasized that ownership transfers only upon full payment, and the buyer’s failure to pay justified the seller’s rescission of the contract.
Adelfa Properties, Inc vs. Court of Appeals [January 25, 1995] Read More »
In Dao Heng Bank, Inc. vs. Spouses Laigo, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that a verbal agreement for dacion en pago (debt settlement by property transfer) is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds without written consent from both parties. The Court emphasized that such agreements must meet the formal requirements to be legally binding.
Dao Heng Bank, Inc. vs. Spouses Laigo [November 20, 2008] Read More »
