Civil Law – Sales
Case Digests
, DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
LIST OF CASES
Sales
Cruz v. Fernando Dec. 9, 2005
Pingol vs. CA 226 SCRA 118
Portugal v. CA 159 SCRA 179
NFF Industrial v. G & L AssociatedG.R. NO. 178169 12 January, 2015 (1496)
Sanchez vs. Rigos 45 SCRA 368
Rosario v. PCI Nov. 11, 2005
Fornilda v. RTC Jan 24, 1989
Norkis vs. CA 193 SCRA 694
Gaisano v. ICNA June 8, 2006
Lawyers Publishing vs. Tabora 13 SCRA 762
Duran vs. IAC 138 SCRA 489
Aznar vs. Yapdiangco 13 SCRA 486
Noynay v. Citihomes G.R. No. 204160 (Maceda) 22 September 2014
Radiowealth v.Palileo 197 SCRA 245
Skunac Corp. v. Sylianteng G.R. No. 205879 April 23, 2014
Nuguid vs. CA 171 SCRA 213
Spring Homes v. Lumbres G.R. No. 200009 January 23, 2017 (1544)
Rosaroso v. Soria G.R. No. 194846 June 19, 2013 (1544)
Gurrea vs. Suplico Apr. 26, 2006
Arcaina and Banta vs. IngramG.R. No. 196444 February 15, 2017 (1542)
Phil. Steel Coating Corp. vs. QuinonesG.R. No. 194533 April 19, 2017 (1546)
Pilipinas Makro vs. Coco Charcoal et.al G.R. No. 196419 October 4, 2017 (1548)
Moles vs. IAC 169 SCRA 777
Villostas vs. CA 210 SCRA 491
Spouses Uy v. Arriza Aug. 17, 2006
De Guzman v. Toyota Nov. 29, 2006
Goodyear v. Sy Nov. 9, 2005
Villarica vs. CA 26 SCRA 189
Leal vs. CA 155 SCRA 395
Buce vs. CA 157 SCRA 330
Santos vs. CA 179 SCRA 363
Adorable vs. Inacala 103 Phil vs. 481
Bandong vs. Austria 31 Phil 470
Bayquen vs. Boloro 143 SCRA 412
Uy vs. CA 246 SCRA 703
Verdad vs. CA 256 SCRA 593
1
, DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
Extrajudicial Rescission under Art 1191
Nissan Car Lease Philippines vs. Lica Management GR No. 176896 13 January 2016
Adverse Claim vs. Lis Pendens
Valderama vs. Arguelles GR No. 223660 02 April 2018
Unconscionable stipulated interest rate
Isla vs. Estorga GR No. 233974 02 July 2018
Floating Rate of Interest
Security Bank vs. Spouses Mercado GR Nos. 192934 & 197010 27 July 2018
Expiration of Redemption Period and Right to the Fruits
Spouses Teves vs. Integrated Credit Corporation GR No. 216714 04 April 2018
Earnest Money in Contract to Sell
Raceles vs. Spouses Javier GR No. 189609 29 January 2018
Mistake as Fraud
Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank, GR No. 205838, 29 November 2017
Prescription of Undated Checks
Evangelista vs. Screenex, Inc. GR No. 211564, 20 November 2017
2
, DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
SALES
SPS. LUIS V. CRUZ AND AIDA CRUZ v. SPS. ALEJANDRO FERNANDO, SR. AND RITA FERNANDO
G.R. No. 145470, 9 December 2005, Second Division, Austria-Martinez, J.
Although the Civil Code does not expressly state that the minds of the parties must also meet on the
terms or manner of payment of the price, the same is needed, otherwise there is no sale.
FACTS
Spouses Fernando filed a complaint for accion publiciana against petitioners, demanding the Spouses
Cruz to vacate the property which the Spouses Fernando had purchased from the previous owner
when Spouses Cruz did not exercise their option to purchase. Spouses Cruz filed a motion to dismiss
claiming that the offer to sell embodied in the Kasunduan is a perfected contract of sale. The RTC and
the CA ruled that the Agreement between the parties was a mere offer to sell. The Kasunduan does
not establish any definite agreement between the parties concerning the terms of payment. What it
merely provides is the purchase price for the 213-square meter property at P40 per square meter.
Also that the previous owner only agreed to sell a portion of the property and that the portion to be
sold measures 213 square meters.
ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in holding that the Agreement between the parties was a “mere offer to sell,”
and not a perfected “Contract of Purchase and Sale”
RULING
NO. Under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, a contract of sale is a contract by which one of the
contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing
and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. Article 1475 of the Code
further provides that the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is meeting of the times
upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. The conspicuous absence of a
definite manner of payment of the purchase price in the agreement confirms the conclusion that it is
a contract to sell. This is because the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element
before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist. Although the Civil Code does not expressly state
that the minds of the parties must also meet on the terms or manner of payment of the price, the
same is needed, otherwise there is no sale.
In this case, The Kasunduan provides for the following terms and conditions: (a) that the Gloriosos
agreed to sell to petitioners a portion of the property with an area of 213 meters at the price of P40.00
per square meter; (b) that in the title that will be caused to be issued, the aggregate area is 223 square
meters with 10 meters thereof serving as right of way; (c) that the right of way shall have a width of
1.75 meters from Lopez Jaena road going towards the back of the lot where petitioners will build
their house on the portion of the lot that they will buy; (d) that the expenses for the survey and for
the issuance of the title will be divided between the parties with each party giving an amount of no
less than P400.00; and (e) that petitioners will definitely relocate their house to the portion they
bought or will buy by January 31, 1984. The foregoing terms and conditions show that it is a contract
to sell and not a contract of sale. For one, the conspicuous absence of a definite manner of payment
of the purchase price in the agreement confirms the conclusion that it is a contract to sell. This is
3
Case Digests
, DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
LIST OF CASES
Sales
Cruz v. Fernando Dec. 9, 2005
Pingol vs. CA 226 SCRA 118
Portugal v. CA 159 SCRA 179
NFF Industrial v. G & L AssociatedG.R. NO. 178169 12 January, 2015 (1496)
Sanchez vs. Rigos 45 SCRA 368
Rosario v. PCI Nov. 11, 2005
Fornilda v. RTC Jan 24, 1989
Norkis vs. CA 193 SCRA 694
Gaisano v. ICNA June 8, 2006
Lawyers Publishing vs. Tabora 13 SCRA 762
Duran vs. IAC 138 SCRA 489
Aznar vs. Yapdiangco 13 SCRA 486
Noynay v. Citihomes G.R. No. 204160 (Maceda) 22 September 2014
Radiowealth v.Palileo 197 SCRA 245
Skunac Corp. v. Sylianteng G.R. No. 205879 April 23, 2014
Nuguid vs. CA 171 SCRA 213
Spring Homes v. Lumbres G.R. No. 200009 January 23, 2017 (1544)
Rosaroso v. Soria G.R. No. 194846 June 19, 2013 (1544)
Gurrea vs. Suplico Apr. 26, 2006
Arcaina and Banta vs. IngramG.R. No. 196444 February 15, 2017 (1542)
Phil. Steel Coating Corp. vs. QuinonesG.R. No. 194533 April 19, 2017 (1546)
Pilipinas Makro vs. Coco Charcoal et.al G.R. No. 196419 October 4, 2017 (1548)
Moles vs. IAC 169 SCRA 777
Villostas vs. CA 210 SCRA 491
Spouses Uy v. Arriza Aug. 17, 2006
De Guzman v. Toyota Nov. 29, 2006
Goodyear v. Sy Nov. 9, 2005
Villarica vs. CA 26 SCRA 189
Leal vs. CA 155 SCRA 395
Buce vs. CA 157 SCRA 330
Santos vs. CA 179 SCRA 363
Adorable vs. Inacala 103 Phil vs. 481
Bandong vs. Austria 31 Phil 470
Bayquen vs. Boloro 143 SCRA 412
Uy vs. CA 246 SCRA 703
Verdad vs. CA 256 SCRA 593
1
, DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
RECENT JURISPRUDENCE
Extrajudicial Rescission under Art 1191
Nissan Car Lease Philippines vs. Lica Management GR No. 176896 13 January 2016
Adverse Claim vs. Lis Pendens
Valderama vs. Arguelles GR No. 223660 02 April 2018
Unconscionable stipulated interest rate
Isla vs. Estorga GR No. 233974 02 July 2018
Floating Rate of Interest
Security Bank vs. Spouses Mercado GR Nos. 192934 & 197010 27 July 2018
Expiration of Redemption Period and Right to the Fruits
Spouses Teves vs. Integrated Credit Corporation GR No. 216714 04 April 2018
Earnest Money in Contract to Sell
Raceles vs. Spouses Javier GR No. 189609 29 January 2018
Mistake as Fraud
Poole-Blunden vs. Union Bank, GR No. 205838, 29 November 2017
Prescription of Undated Checks
Evangelista vs. Screenex, Inc. GR No. 211564, 20 November 2017
2
, DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
SALES
SPS. LUIS V. CRUZ AND AIDA CRUZ v. SPS. ALEJANDRO FERNANDO, SR. AND RITA FERNANDO
G.R. No. 145470, 9 December 2005, Second Division, Austria-Martinez, J.
Although the Civil Code does not expressly state that the minds of the parties must also meet on the
terms or manner of payment of the price, the same is needed, otherwise there is no sale.
FACTS
Spouses Fernando filed a complaint for accion publiciana against petitioners, demanding the Spouses
Cruz to vacate the property which the Spouses Fernando had purchased from the previous owner
when Spouses Cruz did not exercise their option to purchase. Spouses Cruz filed a motion to dismiss
claiming that the offer to sell embodied in the Kasunduan is a perfected contract of sale. The RTC and
the CA ruled that the Agreement between the parties was a mere offer to sell. The Kasunduan does
not establish any definite agreement between the parties concerning the terms of payment. What it
merely provides is the purchase price for the 213-square meter property at P40 per square meter.
Also that the previous owner only agreed to sell a portion of the property and that the portion to be
sold measures 213 square meters.
ISSUE
Whether the CA erred in holding that the Agreement between the parties was a “mere offer to sell,”
and not a perfected “Contract of Purchase and Sale”
RULING
NO. Under Article 1458 of the Civil Code, a contract of sale is a contract by which one of the
contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing
and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. Article 1475 of the Code
further provides that the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is meeting of the times
upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. The conspicuous absence of a
definite manner of payment of the purchase price in the agreement confirms the conclusion that it is
a contract to sell. This is because the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element
before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist. Although the Civil Code does not expressly state
that the minds of the parties must also meet on the terms or manner of payment of the price, the
same is needed, otherwise there is no sale.
In this case, The Kasunduan provides for the following terms and conditions: (a) that the Gloriosos
agreed to sell to petitioners a portion of the property with an area of 213 meters at the price of P40.00
per square meter; (b) that in the title that will be caused to be issued, the aggregate area is 223 square
meters with 10 meters thereof serving as right of way; (c) that the right of way shall have a width of
1.75 meters from Lopez Jaena road going towards the back of the lot where petitioners will build
their house on the portion of the lot that they will buy; (d) that the expenses for the survey and for
the issuance of the title will be divided between the parties with each party giving an amount of no
less than P400.00; and (e) that petitioners will definitely relocate their house to the portion they
bought or will buy by January 31, 1984. The foregoing terms and conditions show that it is a contract
to sell and not a contract of sale. For one, the conspicuous absence of a definite manner of payment
of the purchase price in the agreement confirms the conclusion that it is a contract to sell. This is
3
