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 »
In Nonato v. Intermediate Appellate Court, the Supreme Court ruled that when a seller repossesses a vehicle due to the buyer’s default on installment payments, it effectively cancels the sale. Consequently, the seller cannot demand the unpaid balance, as remedies under Article 1484 of the Civil Code are alternative, not cumulative.
Nonato vs. Intermediate Appellate Court [November 22, 1985] Read More »
In Levy Hermanos, Inc. v. Gervacio, the Supreme Court ruled that a sale with an initial payment and a promissory note for the balance is a straight-term sale, not an installment sale. Therefore, the vendor can collect the unpaid balance after repossession, as the protections for installment sales do not apply.
Levy Hermanos, Inc. vs. Gervacio [October 27, 1939] Read More »
In FGU Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled that a vehicle owner is not liable for damages caused by a lessee in the absence of an employer-employee relationship, leading to case dismissal.
FGU Insurance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals [March 31, 2005] Read More »
In Visayan Sawmill Co. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract to sell, contingent upon the buyer opening an irrevocable letter of credit by a specified date, is unenforceable if the buyer fails to meet this condition. The seller may rescind the contract without liability.
Visayan Sawmill Co. vs. Court of Appeals [March 3, 1993] Read More »
In Lawyer’s Cooperative v. Tabora, the Supreme Court held that when a buyer receives goods but the seller retains title to secure payment, the risk of loss transfers to the buyer upon delivery. Therefore, the buyer is liable for the remaining balance even if the goods are later destroyed.
Lawyer’s Cooperative vs. Tabora [April 30, 1965] Read More »
In Chrysler Philippines Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Sambok Motors Co., the Supreme Court held that if a seller fails to deliver goods to the buyer as agreed, the seller bears the risk of loss. Therefore, the seller cannot demand payment for undelivered goods.
Chrysler Philippines Corporation vs. CA and Sambok Motors Co. [December 19, 1984] Read More »
In Norkis Distribution, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that without actual or constructive delivery, ownership—and thus the risk of loss—remains with the seller. Despite issuing a sales invoice and registering the motorcycle in the buyer’s name, Norkis retained ownership when the vehicle was destroyed.
Norkis Distribution, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals [February 7, 1991] Read More »
In Roman v. Grimalt, the Supreme Court held that a sale isn’t perfected without mutual agreement on the object and price. Here, the seller couldn’t prove ownership of the schooner, preventing contract perfection. Consequently, the seller bore the loss when the vessel was destroyed before delivery.
