Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 234 views

    CAse Digest Obligations of Vendee

    Uploaded by

    jetzon2022
    1) The CDB provided a loan to Rodolfo and took a mortgage on property titled under his name as collateral. However, the title was fraudulently obtained and the property was later reconveyed to Rodolfo's father. 2) Sps. Lim purchased the property from CDB but later discovered the reconveyance. They sued for specific performance. 3) The SC ruled the sale was void since consummation was impossible, but CDB was liable for damages for failing to properly investigate the property status.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CAse Digest Obligations of Vendee

    Uploaded by

    jetzon2022
    234 views1 page
    1) The CDB provided a loan to Rodolfo and took a mortgage on property titled under his name as collateral. However, the title was fraudulently obtained and the property was later reconveyed to Rodolfo's father. 2) Sps. Lim purchased the property from CDB but later discovered the reconveyance. They sued for specific performance. 3) The SC ruled the sale was void since consummation was impossible, but CDB was liable for damages for failing to properly investigate the property status.

    Original Description:

    OBLIGATIONS OF VENDEES

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The CDB provided a loan to Rodolfo and took a mortgage on property titled under his name as collateral. However, the title was fraudulently obtained and the property was later reconveyed to Rodolfo's father. 2) Sps. Lim purchased the property from CDB but later discovered the reconveyance. They sued for specific performance. 3) The SC ruled the sale was void since consummation was impossible, but CDB was liable for damages for failing to properly investigate the property status.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    234 views1 page

    CAse Digest Obligations of Vendee

    Uploaded by

    jetzon2022
    1) The CDB provided a loan to Rodolfo and took a mortgage on property titled under his name as collateral. However, the title was fraudulently obtained and the property was later reconveyed to Rodolfo's father. 2) Sps. Lim purchased the property from CDB but later discovered the reconveyance. They sued for specific performance. 3) The SC ruled the sale was void since consummation was impossible, but CDB was liable for damages for failing to properly investigate the property status.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cavite Development Bank vs Sps Lim Facts: Rodolfo Guansing ontained loan from SDB, sister company of FEBTC,

    loam amount 90k with mortgage property, evidenced ith TCT 300809 in Rodolfos name. Not known to the CDB, this title is fraudulently obtained by Rodolfo from his father. Rodolfo in default. CDB foreclosed the property And have ith registerd in their name. Spouses lim, offer to Purchase the property with conditions: Price 300K, 10% option money, balance to be paid in cash, and be cleared from illegal occupants. Sps Lim paid 30K, and CDB issued receipt. After the payment, Lim discovered that the subject property has been reconveyed to the original ownerPerfeto Guansing, the father of Rodolfo. Aggrieved with what they had discovered. They filed a complaint against CDB and FEBTC, for specific performance and Damages with the RTC. RTC rendered in favor to Sps LIM. CA affirmed the RTC ruling. SC: It is a perfected Sale and partly executed by paying 30K. But the fact that CDB is not the owner of the said property will make the contract as Void..because consummation is impossible. But CDB can not be exempted, who was at fault in this Nullity. CDB as a banking institution is obliged to perform extra ordinary diligence in investigating the status of the subject property mortgaged as their business is affected with public interest. Thus, they are liable to return the 30K and to pay damages.

    Heirs of Pangan vs Sps Perreras Facts: Consuelo Pangan, widow of Cayetano, agreed to sell to Sps. Perreras a lot and two-door apaptment in Sampaloc, Manila for 580K. Consuelo received 20K as earnest money and she issued receipt. Sps. Perreras, in compliance of the agreement issued two checks, 200K and 250K on June 15, 1989. But Consueolo refused to accept for the reason that her children never wanted to sell the said property. She offered to return the 20K, but Sps Perreras did not accept it. Consuelo filed aconsignation before the RTC, while Sps. Perreras filed also before the same RTC Specific performance to execute Deed of Sale on their favor. RTC: ruled in favor of Perreras, ratiocinating that there was a perfected Sale, with regards to Consuelos 50% share as conjugal and 6% as heir of the property. CA: Affirmed the RTC. SC: There is perfected Contract of Sale. If it is to be viewed as Contract to Sell, MAceda law will apply. The payment on June 15, late for 1 day from the due date, without demand from the petitioner is controlling, makes the contract a valid contract of Sale. Thus, the petitioner-heirs must accept the payment of the price and convey Consuelos conjugal and hereditary share of the subject property.

    You might also like