Bloodshot eyes and mood changeChapter1 – Nature and Form of
the Contract Articles 1458 to 1488
Article 1474. Effect If the Price Cannot be Determined
Where the price cannot be determined in accordance with the preceding
articles, or in any other manner, the contract is inefficacious. However, if
the thing or any part thereof has been delivered to an appropriated by
the buyer, he must pay a reasonable price therefore. What is a
reasonable price is a question of fact, dependent on the circumstance of
each particular case.
•
•
•
If the price cannot really be determined, the sale is void for the
buyer cannot fulfil his duty to pay
Of course, if the buyer has made use of it, he should not be allowed
to enrich himself unjustly at another’s expense. So he must pay a
“reasonable price.” The seller’s price, however, must be the one paid
if the buyer knew how much the seller was charging and there was
an acceptance of the goods delivered. Here, there is an implied
assent to the price fixed.
minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the
price.
From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance,
subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.
•
Sale is a consensual contract (perfected by mere consent).
Therefore, delivery or payment is not essential for perfection.
(Warner, Barnes v. Inza, 43 Phil. 404)
•
The contract of sale is consummated upon delivery and payment.
(Naval v. Enriquez, 3 Phil. 669)
•
Pacific Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Central Bank, L-23391, Feb 27,
1971
The sale of foreign exchange of foreign currency is perfected from
the moment the contract of such sale is EXECUTED, not from the
moment of payment or delivery of the amount of foreign currency to
the creditor.
•
Obana v. Court of Appeals, GR 36249, March 29, 1985
FACTS:
A rice miller accepted the offer of a person to buy 170
cavans of clean rice at P37.26 per cavan. They agreed that the rice
will be delivered the following day at the buyer’s store, where the
buyer will pay the purchase price to the miller’s representative. As
agreed upon, the miller did deliver the 170 cavans of rice to the
buyer’s store but the buyer was nowhere to be found when the
miller’s representative tried to collect the purchase price.
PROBLEM:
Romy sells his Land Rover SUV (2012 model) to Oscar and leaves it
to Oscar to determine the price. If Oscar refuses to fix a price and
simply take the 4-wheeler, is he still obliged t pay the price? Explain.
ANS:
Yes, Oscar is bound to pay the reasonable value thereof
on the basis of quasi-contract. Article 1474 of the Civil Code provides
that where the price has not been fixed by the parties and the thing
or part thereof has been delivered to an appropriate buyer, he must
pay a reasonable price therefore. What is reasonable price is a
question of fact dependent on the circumstance of each particular
case.
Article 1475. Nature of Contract
The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of
•
HELD:
There was a perfected sale. Ownership of the rice, too,
was transferred to the buyer when the miller’s representative
delivered it to the buyer’s store. At the very least, the buyer had a
rescissible title to the goods, since he did not pay the purchase price
when the rice was delivered to him.
Lu v. IAC, Heirs of Santiago Bustos and Josefina Alberto, GR 70149,
Jan. 30, 1989
If the condition precedent for the sale of the property fails to
materialize, there can be no perfected sale.
The decisive legal circumstance is not where the private receipts
bore the elements of a sale. The real controversy is on whether the
contract arising from said receipts can be enforced in the light of the
priority right of petitioner under the registered contract. It is wellsettled in this jurisdiction that prior registration of a lien creates a
preference, since the act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey and affect the land.
•
•
Requirements for Perfection
a) When parties are face to face, when a offer is accepted without
conditions and without qualifications
A conditional acceptance is a counter-offer
If negotiated through a phone, it is as if the parties are
face to face
b) When contract is through correspondence or through telegram,
there is perfection when the offeror receives or has knowledge
of the acceptance by the offeree.
If the buyer has already accepted, but the seller does
not know yet of the acceptance, the seller may still
withdraw.
c) When a sale is made subject to a suspensive condition,
perfection is had from the moment the condition is fulfilled.
•
Before perfection of the contract of sale, no mutual rights and
obligations exist between the would-be buyer and the would-be
seller. The same thing is true when perfection is conditioned upon
something, and that thing is not performed. (Roman v. Grimalt, 6
Phil. 96)
•
It has been held that in our country, an accepted bilateral promise to
buy and sell is in a sense similar to, but not exactly the same as, a
perfect contract of sale. This is expressly permitted under the Civil
Code, Art. 1479, first paragraph, which reads: “A promis to buy and
sell a determinate thing for a price certain is reciprocally
demandable.”
•
Formalities for Perfection
Under the Statute of Frauds, the sale of:
a) Real property (regardless of amount)
b) Personal property – if P500 or more must be in writing to be
enforceable. (Art. 1403, No. 2, Civil Code)
If orally made, it cannot be enforced by a judicial action, except
if it has been completely or partially executed, or except if the
defense of the Statute of Frauds is waived. (Art. 1405, Civil
Code)
Atkins, Kroll and Co., Inc. v. B. CuaHianTek, L-9871, Jan. 31, 1958
The sale was perfected in view of the acceptance of the offer. The
acceptance of an offer to sell by promising to pay creates a bilateral
contract, so much so that if the buyer had backed out after
accepting by either refusing to get the thing sold or refusing to pay
the price, he could be sued.
•
Roque v. Lapuz, L-32811, March 31, 1980
In a contract to sell where ownership is retained by the seller and is
not to pass until the full payment of the price, such payment is a
positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach,
casual or serious, but simply an event that prevented the obligation
of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force.
•
Republic v. CA, L-52774, Nov. 29, 1984
Since NEDA kept the check proceeds of a sale for 7 months without
any comment, it cannot now express its objections to the sale
Also in writing should be sales which are to be performed only
after more than 1 year (from the time the agreement was
entered into) – regardless as to whether the property is real or
personal, and regardless of the price involved.
•
Cirilo Paredes v. Jose L. Espino, L-23351, March 13, 1968
The contract is enforceable. The Statute of Frauds does not require
that the contract itself be in writing. A written note or memorandum
signed by the party charged (Espino) is enough to make the oral
agreement enforceable. The letters written by Espino together
constitute a sufficient memorandum of the transaction; they are
signed by Espino, refers to the property sold, give its area, and the
purchase price – the essential terms of the contract. A “sufficient
memorandum” does not have to be a single instrument – it may be
found in 2 or more documents.
•
B could have the same registered in the Registry if Property. Is
B given the right to demand the execution of the public
instrument?
PROBLEMS:
a) A sold to B orally a particular parcel of land for P5 million.
Delivery and payment were to be made four months later. When
the date arrived, A refused to deliver. So B sued to enforce the
contract. If you were A’s attorney, what would you do?
ANS: Yes. Under Art. 1357: “If the law requires a document or
other special form, as in the acts and contracts enumerated in
Art. 1358, the contracting parties may compel each other to
observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This
right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the
contract.”
ANS: I would file a motion to dismiss on the ground that there
is no cause of action in view of the Statute of Frauds. If I do not
file said motion, I still have another remedy. In my answer, I
would allege as a defense the fact that there is no written
contract. If I still do not do this, I have one more chance: I can
object to the presentation of evidence – oral testimony – on the
point – but only if it does not appear on the face of the
complaint that the contract was ORAL.
Article 1357 can be availed provided:
1) The contract is VALID; and
2) The contract is ENFORCEABLE, that is, it does not
violate the Statute of Frauds.
If the contract is oral but already executed completely or
partially, Art. 1357 can be availed of, for in this case the
Statute of Frauds is not deemed violated.
b) Give the effect of failure to do any of the things enumerated in
the preceding paragraph.
ANS: The defense of the Statute of Frauds is deemed waived,
and my client would be now compelled to pay, if the judge
believes the testimony of the witnesses.
If a parcel of land is given by way of donation inter vivos,
to be valid it must be in public instrument. Now then, if
land is donated orally, Art. 1357 cannot be used whether or
not the land has been delivered. This is because the
donation is VOID. Before Art. 1357 is availed of, the
contract must first of all be valid and perfected.
c) A sold to B orally a particular parcel of land for P5,000. Delivery
was made of the land. The payment of the price was to be made
3 months later. At the end of the period, B refused to pay, and
claimed in his defense the Statute of Frauds. Is B correct?
Exempted from the rule is the case of donation propter
nuptiasof land, because here the law expressly provides
that as to formalities, such a donation must merely comply
with the Statute of Frauds. (Art. 127, Civil Code) Therefore,
even if made orally, a donation propter nuptias of land, if
already delivered, is enforceable and valid and Art. 1357
applies. Of course, if there has been no delivery yet, the
oral wedding gift of land is still unenforceable and Art. 1357
cannot apply.
ANS: B is wrong because the contract in this case has already
been executed. It is well known that the Statute of Frauds refers
only to executory contracts.
It is clear in the problem that the delivery of the land had been
made and that there had been due acceptance thereof. Indeed,
to allow B to refuse to pay would amount to some sort of fraud.
As has been well said by the Supreme Court, the Statute of
Frauds was designed to prevent, and not to protect fraud.
d) A sold to B in a private instrument a parcel of land for P5,000. B
now wants A to place the contract in a public instrument so that
•
Advertisements are mere invitations to make an offer (Art. 1325,
Civil Code) and, therefore, one cannot compel the advertiser to sell.
•
•
Transfer of ownership
a) Mere perfection of the contract does not transfer ownership.
Ownership of the object sold is transferred only after delivery
(tradition), actual, legal or constructive. The rule is, therefore
this: After delivery of the object, ownership is transferred.
b) A stipulation that even with delivery there will be no change or
transfer of ownership till the purchase price has been fully paid
is valid but the stipulation is not binding on innocent third
persons such as customers at a store. The customers must not
be prejudiced.
EarnshawDocks and HI Works v. Coll. Of Int. Rev., 54 Phil. 696
Even if the object sold has not yet been delivered, once there has
been a meeting of the minds, the sale is perfected and, therefore,
the sales tax is already due. It accrues on perfection, not on the
consummation of the sale.
Retail sales of flour to bakeries to be manufactured into bread are
subject to tax; if wholesale, they are not subject to tax. To
determine if the sale is wholesale or retail, we must not consider the
quantity sold, but the character of the purchase. If the buyer buys
the commodity for his own consumption, the sale is retail and is
subject to tax; if for resale, the sale is deemed wholesale, regardless
of the quantity, and is not subject ti the particular tax referred to.
•
•
After perfection the parties must now comply with their mutual
obligations. Thus, the buyer can now compel the seller to deliver to
him the object purchased. In the meantime, the buyer has only the
personal, not a real right. Hence, if the seller sells again a parcel of
land to a stranger who is in good faith, the proper remedy of the
buyer would be to sue for damages. He cannot successfully bring an
accion reivindicatoria against the stranger for he cannot recover
ownership over something he had never owned.
Bucton, et. al v. Gabar, et. al, L-36359, Jan. 31, 1974
No, the action has not really prescribed. The error of the Court of
Appeals is that it considered the execution of the receipt (1946) as
the basis of the action. The real basis of the action is Bucton’s
ownership (and the possession of the property). No enforcement of
the contract of sale is needed because the property has already
been delivered to Bucton, and ownership thereof has already been
transferred by operation of law under Art. 1434, referring to the
property sold by a person (Gabar), who subsequently becomes the
owner thereof. The action here, therefore, is one to quite title, and
as Bucton is in possession, the action is imprescriptible.
Article 1476. Sale by Auction
In the case of a sale by auction:
1) Where goods are put up for sale by auction in lots, each lot is the
subject of a separate contract of sale.
2) A sale by auction is perfected when the auctioneer announces its
perfection by the fall of the hammer, or in other customary manner.
Until such announcement is made, any bidder may retract his bid; and
the auctioneer may withdraw the goods from the sale unless the
auction has been announced to be without reserve.
3) A right to bid may be reserved expressly by on behalf of the seller,
unless otherwise provided by law or by stipulation
4) Where notice has not been given that a sale by auction is subject to a
right to bid in behalf of the seller, it shall not be lawful for the seller to
bid himself or to employ or induce any person to bid at such sale on
his behalf or for the auctioneer, to employ or induce any person to bid
at such sale on behalf of the seller or knowingly to take any bid from
the seller or any person employed by him. Any sale contravening this
rule may be treated as fraudulent by the buyer.
•
The sale is perfected when the auctioneer announces its perfection
by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner.
•
Before the hammer falls:
a) The bidder may retract his bid (Art. 1476[2]) Reason: Every
bidding is merely an offer and, therefore, before it is accepted,
it may be withdrawn. The assent is signified on the part of the
seller by knocking down the hammer.
b) The auctioneer may withdraw the goods from the sale (Art.
1476[2]) Reason: This bid is merely an offer, not an acceptance
of an offer to sell. Therefore it can be rejected. What the
auctioneer does in withdrawing is merely reject the offer.
•
Under what conditions may the seller bid? (Art. 1476, pars. 3 and 4)
a) When such a right to bid was reserved;
b) And notice was given that the sale by auction is subject to a
right to bid on behalf of the seller
•
The seller may employ others to bid for him provided he has notified
the public that the auction is subject to the right to bid on behalf of
the seller. (Art. 1476, par. 4) People who bid for the seller, but are
not themselves bound, are called “by-bidders” or “puffers.” Without
the notice, any sale contravening the rule may be treated by the
buyer as fraudulent.
•
•
•
It may happen that the owner is not himself the auctioneer. Now
then if the auctioneer employs puffers and gives no notice to the
public, the sale would still be fraudulent, whether or not the owner
of the goods knew what the auctioneer had done. (Carreta v.
Castillo, 209 NYS. 257)
Veazie v. Williams, et. al, 12 L. Ed. 1081
The sale can be annulled in view of the fraud. Had the public been
informed of the puffers, this would have been different. To escape
censure, notice of by bids is essential. By-bidding, if secret, deceives
and involves a falsehood and is, therefore, bad. It is not enough to
apologize and say that by-bidding is after all common. It does not
matter that the owner did not know of the auctioneer’s fraud. After
all, the auctioneer was merely the agent.
Leoquico v. Postal Savings Bank, 47 Phil. 772
Action will not prosper for there was really no sale. By participating
in the auction and offering his bid, he voluntarily submitted to the
terms and conditions of the auction sale announced in the notice
and he, therefore, clearly acknowledged the right of the Board to
reject any or all bids. The owner of the property offered for sale
either at public or private auction has the right to prescribe the
manner, conditions and terms if such sale. He may even provide that
all of the purchase price shall be paid at the time of the sale, or any
portion thereof, or that time will be given for the payment. The
conditions are binding upon the purchaser, whether he knew them
or not.
•
CFI of Rizal and Elena Ong Escutin v. CA and Felix Ong, July 25,
1981
A private sale authorized by a probate court cannot be assailed by a
person who is not an “interested party” one who merely offered a
higher price (without actually buying the property) is not an
“interested party.” It would have been different had there been a
public auction.
•
Republic v. Reyes-Bakunawa, 704 SCRA 163
A negotiated contract is one that is awarded on the basis of a direct
agreement between the Government and the contractor without
going through the normal procurement process, like obtaining the
prior approval from another authority, or a competitive bidding
process.
Article 1477. When Ownership is transferred
The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon
the actual or constructive delivery thereof.
•
Ownership is not transferred by perfection but by delivery. This is
true even if the sale has been made on credit; payment of the
purchase price is NOT essential to the transfer of ownership, as long
as the property sold has been delivered.
•
Kinds of delivery
a) Actual (Art. 1497, Civil Code)
b) Constructive (Arts. 1498-1601, Civil Code), including “any other
manner signifying an agreement that the possession is
transferred.” (Art. 1496, Civil Code)
•
C.N. Hodges, et. al. v. Jose Manuel Lezama, et.al. L-20630, Aug. 31,
1965
If upon the sale by Hodges to Borja, Borja became the owner
thereof, then, upon Hodge’s purchase of the shares at the
foreclosure proceedings, Hodges acquired ownership over the same.
Stock Certificate 18 must be cancelled; a new one must be given to
Hodges; and eventually, a new one also issued to Gurrea after the
deal between Hodges and Gurrea is finally settled.
Article 1478. When Ownership is not transferred despite delivery
The parties may stipulate that ownership in the thing shall not pass to
the purchaser until he has fully paid the price.
•
•
Generally, ownership is transferred upon delivery, but even if
delivered, the ownership may still be with the seller till full payment
of the price is made, if there is a stipulation to his effect. But, of
course, innocent third parties cannot be prejudiced. The stipulation
is usually known as pactum reservati dominii and is common in
sales on the installment plan. (Perez v. Erlanger and Galinger, Inc.,
[C.A] 54 OG 6088) Usually, if such a stipulation is present the sale is
technically referred to not as a contract of sale, but a contract to
sell, the payment of the price being a condition precedent. If no
payment is made, the buyer can naturally be ejected. And here, the
seller is truly enforcing, not rescinding the contractual agreement.
(Santos, et. al. v. Santos, [CA] 47 OG 6372)
The Court held that the stipulation regarding the payment of the
balance is NOT the same as the stipulation that “ownership in the
thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the
price.” Hence, the purchaser in this case still becomes the owner of
the object sold upon its actual or constructive delivery to him, in
accordance with the general rule.
Mutual Promise
There is a promise to buy and sell,
clearly a bilateral reciprocal
contract.
Accepted Unilateral Promise
Only one makes the promise. This
promise is accepted by the other.
This is as good as a perfected sale.
Of course, no title of dominion is
transferred yet, the parties, being
given the right only to demand
fulfilment or damages.
It is binding on the promissory only
if the promise is supported by a
consideration distinct from the
price, which means that the option
can still be withdrawn, even if
accepted, if the same is not
supported by any consideration.
•
Atkins, Kroll and Co., Inc. v. B. Cua Hian Tek, L-9871, Jan. 31, 1958
(Also cited under Art. 1476)
If the option is given without a consideration, it is a mere offer of a
contract of sale, which is not binding until accepted. If, however,
acceptance (of the sale) is made before withdrawal, it constitutes a
binding contract of sale, even though the option was not supported
by a sufficient consideration.
•
Policitacion is a unilateral promise to buy or sell which is not
accepted. This produces no juridical effect and creates no legal
bond. This is a mere offer, and has not yet been conversed into a
contract.
•
A bilateral promise to buy and sell a certain thing for a price certain
gives to the contracting parties personal rights in that each has the
right to demand from the other the fulfilment of the obligation.
(Borromeo v. Franco, et. al., 5 Phil. 49)
•
Borromeo v. Franco, et. al., 5 Phil. 49
The agreement on B’s part to complete the title papers is not a
condition precedent of the sale, but a mere incidental stipulation.
This is so because the duty to deliver depends on the payment of
the price, and vice versa, but not on the perfection of the title
papers. It may be assumed that B is willing to but the property even
with a defective title.
Article 1479. Mutual Promise and Accepted Unilateral Promise
A promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is
reciprocally demandable.
An accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a
price certain is binding upon the promissory if the promise is supported
by a consideration distinct from the price.
•
Distinction between the First (Mutual Promise) and the Second
Paragraphs (Accepted Unilateral Promise)
•
•
•
A mere executor sale, one where the seller merely promises to
transfer the property at some future date, or where some conditions
have to be fulfilled before the contract is converted from an executor
to an executed one, does not pass ownership over the real estate
that may have been sold. (McCullough and Co. v. Berger, 43 Phil.
823) The parties can, however, demand specific performance or
damages for the breach. (Mas v. Lanuza, et. al., 5 Phil. 457)
Palay, Inc. v. Clave, GR 56076, Sept. 21, 1983
The seller of the subdivision lot unilaterally rescinded the contract to
sell but failed to give notice to the buyer of said rescission. The
judge declared the rescission illegal for want of the necessary notice
and ordered the seller to return the lot or an adequate substitute to
the buyer. If the property has been sold to a 3rd person, and no
other lot is available, the buyer is entitled to a refund of instalments
paid plus 12% interest from date suit was filed.
The acceptance of a unilateral promise to sell must be plain, clear
and unconditional. Therefore, if there is a qualified acceptance with
terms different from the offer, there is no acceptance, that is, there
is no promise to buy and there is no perfected sale. (Beaumonth v.
Prieto, 41 Phil. 670)
•
An Option is an contract granting a person the privilege to buy or
not to buy certain objects at any time within the agreed period at a
fixed price. The contract of option is a separate and distinct contract
from the contract which the parties may enter into upon the
consummation of the contract; therefore, an option must have its
own cause or consideration. (Enriquez de la Cavada v. Diaz, 37 Phil.
1982)
•
Filemon H. Mendoza, et.al. v. Aquilina Comple, L-19311, Oct. 29,
1965
Comple is not required to sell the property to Mendoza, for this was
merely a unilateral promise on the part of Comple to sell, without a
corresponding promise on the part of Mendoza to buy. Comple’s
promise is not binding on him since there was NO CONSIDERATION
DISTINCT from the price. Hence, even if Comple’s promise had
already been accepted by the would-be buyer, Comple could still
legally withdraw from the agreement. The answer would have been
different, if Mendoza had himself promised to buy.
Article 1480. Who Bears the Risk of Loss
Any injury to or benefit from the thing sold, after the contract has been
perfected, from the moment of the perfection of the contract to the time
of delivery, shall be governed by Articles 1163 to 1166, and 1262.
This rule shall apply to the sale of fungible things, made independently
and for a single price, or without consideration of their weight, number
or measure.
Should fungible things be sold for a price fixed according to weight,
number or measure, the risk shall not be imputed to the vendee until
they have been weighed, counted or measured, and delivered, unless the
latter has incurred in delay.
•
Who bears the risk of loss?
If object is lost BEFORE PERFECTION, the SELLER bears the loss.
→ Reason: There was no contract, for there was no cause or
consideration. Being the owner, the seller bears the loss.
This means that he cannot demand payment of the price.
If the object was lost AFTER DELIVERY to the buyer, clearly, the
BUYER bears the loss. (Res perit domino – the owner bears the
loss)
If the object is lost AFTER PERFECTION BUT BEFORE DELIVERY,
the BUYER bears the loss, as exception to the rule of res perit
domino.
→ Reasons:
a) Had the sale been perfected, the buyer would have borne
the loss, that is, he would still have to pay for the object
even if no delivery has been made.
b) Article 1480 (pars. 1 and 2) clearly, states that injuries
between perfection and delivery shall be governed by Art.
1272, among others. And Art. 1262 says that “an
obligation which consists of a determinate thing shall be
extinguished if it should be lost or destroyed without the
fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay.”
(This means that the obligation of the seller to deliver is
extinguished, but the obligation to pay is not
extinguished.)
c) Article 1583 says: “In case of loss, deterioration, or
improvement of the thing before its delivery, the rule in
Article 1189 shall be observed, the vendor being
considered the debtor.” Article 1189, in turn, says in part:
“If the thing is lost without the fault of the debtor, the
obligation shall be extinguished.”
d) Since the buyer gets the benefits during the intervening
period, it is clear that he must also shoulder the loss.
→ Exceptions:
a) If the object sold consist of fungibles sold for a price fixed
according to weight, number or measure. (Art. 1480, Civil
Code)
b) If the seller is guilty of fraud, negligence, default or
violation of contractual term. (Arts. 1165, 1262, 1170,
Civil Code)
c) When the object is generic because “genus never
perishes” (genus nunquam perit)
•
Fungibles are personal property which may be replaced with
equivalent things.
Article 1481. Sale by Description or By sample
In the contract of goods by description or by sample, the contract may
be rescinded if the bulk of the goods delivered do not correspond with
the description or the sample, and if the contract be by sample as well as
by description, it is not sufficient that the bulk of goods correspond with
sample if they do not also correspond with the description.
The buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk
with the description or the sample.
•
Definitions
Sale by description – where seller sells things as being of a
certain kind, the buyer merely relying on the seller’s
representation or descriptions
→ Generally, the buyer has not previously seen the goods
or even if he as seen them, he believes that the
description tallies with the goods he has seen
Sale by sample – that where the seller warrants that the bulk
of the goods shall correspond with the sample in kind,
quality and character.
→ Only the sample is exhibited. The bulk is not present,
and so there is an opportunity to examine and inspect
Sale by description and sample – must satisfy the
requirements in both, and not in only one
•
The mere exhibition of the sample does not necessarily make it a
sale by sample. This exhibition must have been the sole basis or
inducement of the sale.
A sale by sample may still be had even if the sample was
shown only in connection with a sale to the first purchaser.
There can be a sale by sample even if the sale is “as is.”
•
Bell purchased a quantity of bed sheets which were wrapped up in
bales. The sale was done in a warehouse. Some bed sheets were
pulled out, displayed and found to be all right. Bella then purchased
100 bales, which she later discovered to be bug-eaten. What, if any,
are Bella’s rights?
ANS:
This is a sale by sample. Bella is allowed:
1) To return the bed sheets and recover the money paid; or
2) She may retain said sheets and still sue for the breach of
warranty.
Article 1482. Earnest Money
Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be
considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the
contract.
•
Earnest Money (Arras) is something of value t show that the buyer
was really earnest, and given to the seller to bind the bargain.
of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth, or may be
inferred from the conduct of the parties.
•
Under the Civil Code, earnest money is considered:
a) Part of the purchase price
→ From the total price must be deducted the arras; the
balance is all that has to be paid.
b) As proof of the perfection of the contract
•
See comments under Article 1475
•
The sale of a piece of land or interest therein when made through
an agent is void unless the agent’s authority is in writing.
•
If the deed of sale of land is notarized by a notary public whose
authority had expired, the sale would still be valid, since for validity
of the sale, a public instrument is not even essential.
Earnest money
 Applies to a PERFECTED sale
 The money is part of the
purchase price
 The buyer is required to pay
the balance
•
•
Money given as consideration for
an option
 Option money applies to a sale
NOT yet perfected
 The money is NOT part of the
purchase price
 The would-be buyer is not
required to buy
Vicente and Michael Lim v CA and Liberty H. Luna, GR 118347,
October 24, 1996
He agreement Luna and the Lims amounted to a perfected contract
if sale with the earnest money being proof of the perfection of the
contract. Failure of Luna to comply with the condition imposed on
the performance of the obligation gave the Lims the right to choose
whether to demand the return of the earnest money paid or to
proceed with the sale. When the Lims chose to proceeds with the
sale, private respondent could not refuse to do so.
If merchandise cannot be delivered, the arras must be returned. Of
course, this right may be renounced since neither the law nor public
policy is violated.
Article 1484. Sale of personal property on the installment plan
In a contract of sale of personal property the price of which is payable in
instalments, the vendor may exercise any of the following remedies:
1) Exact fulfilment of the obligation, should the vendee fail to pay;
2) Cancel the sale, should the vendee’s failure to pay cover 2 or more
instalments;
3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, if one has been
constituted, should the vendee’s failure to pay cover 2 or more
instalments. In this case, he shall have no further action against the
purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the price. Any
agreement to the contrary shall be void.
•
•
Requisites before Art. 1484 may be applied: PICS
1) What is sold is a Personal Property
2) The sale must be on the Instalment plan
3) There must be a Contract
4) The contract must be one of Sale (absolute sale)
An instalment is any part or portion of the buying price, including the
down payment
Article 1483. Statute of Frauds
•
If the sale is for cash or on straight terms, Art. 1484 does not apply.
Subject to the provisions of the Statute of Frauds and of any other
applicable statute, a contract of sale may be made in writing, or by word
•
To prevent abuse in the foreclosure of chattel mortgages by selling
at a low price and then suing for the deficiency is the precise
purpose of the article.
•
•
cannot be foreclosed upon if they are not subject of the
instalment sale.
If the seller selects remedy [foreclosure], but the mortgage is
not actually foreclosed, he can still avail himself of the other
remedies, such as the fulfilment of the obligation to pay.
Where there has been no foreclosure of the chattel mortgage or
a foreclosure sale, the prohibition against further collection of
the balance of the price does not apply.
The remedies enumerated are not cumulative. They are
ALTERNATIVE, and if one is exercised, the others cannot be made
use of. Indeed the election of one is a waiver of the right to resort to
others. (Pacific Commercial Co. v. De la Rama, 72 Phil. 380) But for
this doctrine to apply, the remedy must already have been fully
exercised. If after retaking possession of the chattel, the seller
desists from the foreclosure, he can still avail himself of another
remedy.
PROBLEM: B bought a particular automobile on the instalment plan.
B defaulted in the payment of one of the instalments. Has the seller,
S, the right to exact fulfilment of the obligation to pay? How much
can be successfully demanded?
The law says that any of the aforementioned remedies “may” be
exercised by the seller. Therefore, he is not obliged to foreclose
the chattel mortgage even if there be one. He may still sue for
fulfilment or for cancellation (if he does not want to foreclose).
•
ANS:
Yes. Remedy 1 does not require default in 2 or more
instalments, unlike in remedies nos. 2 and 3. Generally, only the
instalments defaulted can be recovered, unless there is an
acceleration clause or if the debtor loses the benefit of the term.
Should there be a DEFICIENCY in the amount collected at the levy
on execution; said deficiency can still be collected. Here, there is no
foreclosure of any chattel mortgage.
•
•
Zayco v. Luneta Motor Co., L-30583, Oct. 23, 1982
If the unpaid vendor of a vehicle sold on the instalment plan
forecloses the chattel mortgage executed on the property, but is not
able to fully collect the debt, there is no right to recover the
deficiency, and a stipulation to the contrary is void. If the vendor
assigns its right to a financing company, the latter may be regarded
as a mere collecting agency of the vendor and cannot, therefore,
recover any deficiency. And even if the financing company is a
“distinct and separate entity” from the seller, the same result
obtains, for an assignee cannot exercise any right not given to the
assignor itself.
Ridad v. Filipinas Investment and Finance Corporation, GR 39806,
Jan. 28, 1983
If a foreclosure of the mortgage is resorted to, there can be
recovery in case of deficiency. Other chattels given as security
Borbon II v. Servicewide Specialists, Inc., 72 SCAD 111 (1996)
The remedies under Art. 1484 of the Civil Code are not commutative
but alternative and exclusive. When the assignee forecloses the
mortgage, there can be no further recovery of the deficiency, and
the seller-mortgagee is deemed to have renounced any right
thereto.
There is an ordinary alternative obligation, a mere choice
categorically and unequivocally made and then communicated by the
person entitled to exercise the option. The creditor may not
thereafter exercise any other option, unless the chosen alternative
proves to be ineffectual or unavailing due to no fault on his part.
In alternative remedies, the choice generally becomes conclusive
only upon the exercise of the remedy. For instance, in one of the
remedies expressed in Art. 1484 of the Civil Code, it is only when
there has been foreclosure of the chattel mortgage that the vendeemortgagor escape from a deficiency liability.
•
It is clear that when the remedy of cancellation is availed of, there
must be mutual restitution of whatever received by either party.
In case the thing or property to be returned has been
deteriorated, the aggrieved party may resort to either:
 Special performance plus damages; or
 Rescission plus damages
The buyer must return the equivalent of what he has received
in its damaged condition plus the amount of damages.
On the part of the vendor, he should return all the instalments
that has been received by him except when in the contract
there is a proviso that instalments already paid shall be
forfeited. Such stipulation is valid, provided that it is not
unconscionable under the circumstances. Of course what is
unconscionable is a question of fact.
•
•
Instances when Art. 1484 cannot be applied
a) Article 1484 does not apply to a real estate mortgage
b) Article 1484 does not apply to the sale of personal property
on straight terms.
→ A sale on straight terms is one which the balance , after
the payment of the initial sum should be paid in its
totality at the time specified.
Sps. Romulo de la Cruz and Delia de la Cruz, et. al. v. ASIAN
Consumer of Industrial Finance Corp. and the Court of Appeals, GR
94828, Sept 20, 1992
It is clear that while ASIAN eventually succeeded in taking
possession of the mortgaged vehicle, it did not pursue the
foreclosure of the mortgage as shown by the fact that no auction
sale of the vehicle was ever conducted. Thus, under the law, the
delivery of possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee,
the herein appellee, can only operate to extinguish appellant’s
liability if the appellee had actually caused the foreclosure sale of the
mortgaged property when it recovered possession thereof. It is the
fact of foreclosure and actual sale of the mortgaged chattel that bar
recovery by the vendor of any balance of the purchaser’s
outstanding obligation not satisfied by the sale.
The preceding article shall be applied to contracts purporting to be leases
of personal property with option to buy, when the lessor has deprived
the lessee of the possession or enjoyment of the thing.
•
This may really be considered a sale of personal property
instalments. Therefore, the purpose of Art. 1485 is to prevent an
indirect violation of Art. 1484.
•
Even if the word “lease” is employed, when a sale on installment is
evidently intended, it must be construed as a sale. (Abello v.
Gonzaga, 56 Phil. 132)
Article 1486. Non-Return of Installments Paid
In the cases referred to in the two preceding articles, a stipulation that
the installments or rents paid shall not be returned to the vendee or
lessee shall be valid insofar as the same may not be unconscionable
under the circumstances.
•
As a general rule, it is required that a case of rescission or
cancellation of the sale requires mutual restitution, that is, all partial
payments of price or “rents” must be returned.
•
However, by way of exception, it is valid t stipulate that there should
be NO returning of the price hat has been partially paid or the
“rents” given, provided the stipulation is not unconscionable.
SALE OF REAL PROPERTY IN INSTALLMENT
REPUBLIC ACT 6552
(The Maceda Law)
AN ACT TO PROVIDE PROTECTION TO BUYERS OF REAL ESTATE
ON INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS
Article 1485. Leases of Personal Property with Option to Buy
Known as the “Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act.”
(Section 1)
Purpose: A public policy to protect buyers of real estate on
installment payments against onerous and oppressive conditions.
(Section 2)
Coverage: All transactions or contracts involving the sale or
financing of real estate on installment payments, including
condominium apartments where the buyer has paid at least 2 years
of installments (Section 3)
Excludes: Industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants
under RA 344 as amended by RA 6389 (Section 3)
The buyer is entitled to the following rights in case he defaults in the
payment of succeeding installments: (Section 3)
a) To pay, without additional interest, the unpaid installments
due within the total grace period earned by him, which is
fixed at the rate of 1 month grace period for every 1 year of
installment payments made
→ This right shall be exercised by the buyer only once in
every 5 years of the life of the contract and its
extensions, if any
b) If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall refund to the
buyer the cash surrender value (CSV) on the property
equivalent to 50% of the total payments made and, after 5
years of installments, an additional 5% every year but not to
exceed 90% of the total payments made
→ The actual cancellation of the contract shall take place
after 30 days from the receipt of the buyer of the notice
of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the
contract by a notarial act and upon full payment of the
CSV to the buyer
→ Downpayments, deposits or options on the contract shall
be included in the computation of the total number of
installments made
In the case where less than 2 years of installments were paid, the
seller shall give the buyer a grace period of 60 days from the date
the installment became due. (Section 4)
→ If the buyer fails to pay the installments due at
expiration of the grace period, the seller may cancel
contract after 30 days from the receipt of the buyer of
notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of
contract by a notarial act. (Section 4)
the
the
the
the
Under Secs. 3 and 4, the buyer shall have the right to SELL his rights
or ASSIGN the same to another person or to REINSTATE the
contract by updating the account during the grace period and before
the actual cancellation of the contract. The deed of sale or
assignment shall be done by notarial act. (Section 5)
The buyer shall have the right to PAY IN ADVANCE any installment
or the FULL unpaid balance of the purchase price any time without
interest and to have such full payment of the purchase price
annotated in the certificate of title covering the property. (Section 6)
Raison d’ Etre of The Maceda Law
→ To help especially the low income lot buyers delineating the
rights and remedies of lot buyers and protect them from
one-sided and pernicious contract stipulations
→ To buyers of real estate on installment payments against
onerous and oppressive conditions. More specifically, the Act
provided for the rights of the buyer in case of default in the
payment of succeeding installments, where he has already
paid at least 2 years of installments.
Problem: What are the so-called “Maceda” and “Recto” Laws,
respectively, in connection with sales on installments. In the process
of defining, give the most important features of each law.
The Maceda Law
RA 655
The Maceda Law is applicable to sales
of immovable property on
installments.
In Rillo v. CA, 247 SCRA 461, the
most important features, have been
laid down, namely:
The Recto Law
Art. 1484, Civil Code
The Recto Law refers to the
sale of movables payable in
installments and limiting the
right of seller, in case if
default by the buyer to one
of the remedies, namely:
ForCE
After having paid installment for
at least 2 years, the buyer is
entitled to a mandatory grace
period of 1 month for every year
of installment payments made, to
pay the unpaid installments
without interest. If the contract is
cancelled, the seller shall refund
to the buyer the CSV equivalent
to 50% of the total payments
made, and after 5 years of
installments, an additional 5% for
every year but not to exceed
90% of the total payment made;
and
In case the installments paid
were less than 2 years, the seller
shall give the buyer a grace
period of 60 days. If that buyer
fails to pay the installments due
at the expiration of the grace
period, the seller may cancel the
contract after 30 days from
receipt by the buyer of the notice
of cancellation or demand for
rescission by notarial act.
Article 1488. Expropriation
Forclose the chattel
mortgage. On the
things sold, in case of 2
or more installments,
with no further action
against the purchaser
Cancel the sale if 2 or
more installments have
not been paid; and
Exact (or specific)
fulfilment.
The expropriation of property for public use is governed by special laws.
•
Expropriation is involuntary in nature that is, he owner may be
compelled to surrender the property after all the essential requisites
have been complied with. Therefore, generally expropriation does
not result in a sale.
•
If the property owner voluntarily sells the property to the
government, this would be a sale, and not an example of
expropriation.
•
Gutierrez v. CA, L-9738, May 31, 1957
The Supreme Court held that the acquisition by the government of
private properties through the exercise of eminent domain, said
properties being justly compensated, is a sale or exchange within
the meaning of the income tax laws and profits derived therefrom
are taxable as capital gain; and this is although the acquisition was
against the will of the owner of the property and there was no
meeting of the minds between the parties.
•
Essential requisites of Expropriation
a) Taking by competent authority
b) Observance of due process of law
c) Taking for public use
d) Payment of just compensation
•
Just compensation is the market value PLUS the consequential
damages, if any, MINUS, the consequential benefits, if any. BUT the
benefits may be set off only against the consequential damages, and
not against the basic value of the property taken.
Article 1487. Expenses in Execution and Registration
The expenses for the execution and registration of the sale shall be
borne by the vendor; unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
•
The seller pays for the expenses of:
a) The execution (of the deed) of sale;
b) Its registration.
•
There can however be a contrary stipulation.