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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 526 views

    Dichoso V Roxas

    Uploaded by

    monmonmonmon21
    Roxas sold land to Dichoso and Hernandez subject to a condition allowing Roxas to repurchase the land within 5 years. Dichoso paid Roxas in installments, with the agreement that Roxas would then sell the land to Dichoso by absolute sale. Dichoso informed the original owners, Borja and Alanguilan, that they were ready to repurchase, but Roxas failed to execute the deed of absolute sale or deed of resale. The Supreme Court held that there was no double sale because the contract between Dichoso and Roxas was merely a promise to sell, as Roxas only promised to sell once payment was complete, and on the date

    Copyright:

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

    Dichoso V Roxas

    Uploaded by

    monmonmonmon21
    526 views1 page
    Roxas sold land to Dichoso and Hernandez subject to a condition allowing Roxas to repurchase the land within 5 years. Dichoso paid Roxas in installments, with the agreement that Roxas would then sell the land to Dichoso by absolute sale. Dichoso informed the original owners, Borja and Alanguilan, that they were ready to repurchase, but Roxas failed to execute the deed of absolute sale or deed of resale. The Supreme Court held that there was no double sale because the contract between Dichoso and Roxas was merely a promise to sell, as Roxas only promised to sell once payment was complete, and on the date

    Original Description:

    Dichoso v Roxas

    Original Title

    Dichoso v Roxas

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Roxas sold land to Dichoso and Hernandez subject to a condition allowing Roxas to repurchase the land within 5 years. Dichoso paid Roxas in installments, with the agreement that Roxas would then sell the land to Dichoso by absolute sale. Dichoso informed the original owners, Borja and Alanguilan, that they were ready to repurchase, but Roxas failed to execute the deed of absolute sale or deed of resale. The Supreme Court held that there was no double sale because the contract between Dichoso and Roxas was merely a promise to sell, as Roxas only promised to sell once payment was complete, and on the date

    Copyright:

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

    Dichoso V Roxas

    Uploaded by

    monmonmonmon21
    Roxas sold land to Dichoso and Hernandez subject to a condition allowing Roxas to repurchase the land within 5 years. Dichoso paid Roxas in installments, with the agreement that Roxas would then sell the land to Dichoso by absolute sale. Dichoso informed the original owners, Borja and Alanguilan, that they were ready to repurchase, but Roxas failed to execute the deed of absolute sale or deed of resale. The Supreme Court held that there was no double sale because the contract between Dichoso and Roxas was merely a promise to sell, as Roxas only promised to sell once payment was complete, and on the date

    Copyright:

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

    Dichoso v. Roxas GR No.

    L-17441 July 31, 1962 5 SCRA 781 FACTS: Roxas sold to Dichoso and Hernandez a parcel of unregistered coconut land, subject to the condition that the vendor could repurchase the land within 5 years from the date of sale. Roxas received from Dichoso several sums of money as initial or advance payments, with the agreement that Roxas would sell the same property, by absolute sale, to Dichoso. Out of their remaining balance, they would use P850 to repurchase the property from Borja and Alanguilan within the period stipulated. Dichoso informed Borja of their readiness to repurchase and sent Roxas a check. Roxas returned the check with the request that they indorsed it to Borja and Alanguilan when they make the repurchase. Despite the repeated demands and representations, Roxas and Borja had deliberately failes to execute the corresponding deed of absolute sale and deed of resale. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a double sale. HELD: No. The contract between the petitioners and Roxas was a mere promise to sell because Roxas merely promised to execute a deed of absolute sale upon Dichoso s completion of payment. On the date that Roxas could possibly sell sell or convey in relation to the property in question was her right to repurchase the same from Borja. The private document executed between Roxas and Dichoso can be considered as an assignment by Roxas to Dischoso of her right to repurchase which Roxas only had knowledge thereof when Dichoso attempted to make the repurchase. Such being its condition, it could not possibly give rise to the case of one and the same property having been sold to two different purchasers. The sale in favor of Borja was of the property itself, while the one in favor of Dichoso, if not a mere promise to assign, was at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the same property. Art. 1544, par. 3 of the CC do not apply.

    You might also like