In EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corp. v. Santos, the Supreme Court ruled that EDCA’s sale of books to an impostor was valid despite payment with dishonored checks. Ownership transferred upon delivery, as there was no agreement retaining ownership until full payment. Thus, EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the books.
EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corp. vs. Santos [April 26, 1990] Read More »
In Aznar v. Yapdiangco, the Supreme Court ruled that the original owner, Santos, who was unlawfully deprived of his car, retains the right to recover it from Aznar, a buyer in good faith. Under Article 559 of the Civil Code, ownership remains with the original owner if the property was stolen.
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 »
