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 »
In Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a double sale of immovable property. The Court ruled that the buyer who first registers the sale in good faith has the superior right. Since Carbonell registered her adverse claim before Infante’s registration, and acted in good faith, she was declared the rightful owner.
Carbonnell vs. Court of Appeals [January 26, 1976] Read More »
In Consolidated Rural Bank vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that when two sales involve the same property but are executed by different sellers, the principle of “he who is first in time is preferred in right” applies. The Court emphasized that a seller cannot convey what they do not own, and subsequent buyers must exercise due diligence to verify the property’s ownership.
Consolidated Rural Bank vs. Court of Appeals [January 17, 2005] Read More »
In Abrigo vs. De Vera, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that in cases of double sales, the buyer who first registers the property in good faith with the proper registry has the superior right. Since De Vera registered the property under the Torrens system before the Abrigos, her claim was upheld.
In Roman Catholic Church vs. Pante, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Church’s sale of a property to Pante was valid, as there was no misrepresentation to invalidate the contract. The Court emphasized that actual occupancy was not a necessary qualification for the sale, and Pante’s use of the lot as a passageway constituted possession in good faith.
Roman Catholic Church vs. Pante [April 11, 2012] Read More »
In Rosaroso vs. Doria, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a double sale of property. The Court upheld the validity of the first sale to Luis Rosaroso’s children, citing the presumption of sufficient consideration. It declared the subsequent sale to Meridian Realty void, noting that Meridian was not a buyer in good faith, as it failed to investigate the property’s actual occupants.
