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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    Cruz Vs Fernando

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    The Kasunduan between Cruz and Glorioso was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, because it did not specify the manner of payment for the property. For a valid contract of sale, the minds of the parties must meet on terms like manner of payment. Since there was no consummated sale, Fernandos were not buyers in bad faith when they later bought the whole lot from Gloriosos. The absence of specifying manner of payment and Cruz's failure to transfer their house meant ownership was never transferred, so it remained a contract to sell rather than a contract of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cruz Vs Fernando

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    98 views1 page
    The Kasunduan between Cruz and Glorioso was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, because it did not specify the manner of payment for the property. For a valid contract of sale, the minds of the parties must meet on terms like manner of payment. Since there was no consummated sale, Fernandos were not buyers in bad faith when they later bought the whole lot from Gloriosos. The absence of specifying manner of payment and Cruz's failure to transfer their house meant ownership was never transferred, so it remained a contract to sell rather than a contract of sale.

    Original Description:

    Cruz vs Fernando

    Original Title

    Cruz vs Fernando

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Kasunduan between Cruz and Glorioso was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, because it did not specify the manner of payment for the property. For a valid contract of sale, the minds of the parties must meet on terms like manner of payment. Since there was no consummated sale, Fernandos were not buyers in bad faith when they later bought the whole lot from Gloriosos. The absence of specifying manner of payment and Cruz's failure to transfer their house meant ownership was never transferred, so it remained a contract to sell rather than a contract of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views1 page

    Cruz Vs Fernando

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Brillantes
    The Kasunduan between Cruz and Glorioso was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, because it did not specify the manner of payment for the property. For a valid contract of sale, the minds of the parties must meet on terms like manner of payment. Since there was no consummated sale, Fernandos were not buyers in bad faith when they later bought the whole lot from Gloriosos. The absence of specifying manner of payment and Cruz's failure to transfer their house meant ownership was never transferred, so it remained a contract to sell rather than a contract of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cruz vs Fernando

    G.R. NO. 145470, December 9, 2005


    Doctrine: The absence of a specific manner of payment in the terms and
    conditions of the contract makes it a contract to sell. Ownership was never
    transferred. 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.
    Facts: In 1983, Cruz executed a Kasunduan with the Gloriosos for the consideration
    of the rear portion of a 223 sq m lot. The Kasunduanprovides that the lot will be sold
    at a P40 per sq m. That the portion of the lot to be sold is the rear portion of it. That
    upon selling, the Cruz will transfer their house from the front portion to the rear
    portion of the land once it is bought. That they will have a right of way from the
    front portion going to the back end of the lot. The Cruz never gave anything to the
    Gloriosos for there was an alleged failure to have the land surveyed. Due to non
    payment, the Gloriosos instead sold the whole lot (back and rear portion) to the
    Fernandos.

    In 1994, after repeated demands, the Fernandos filed a case in court for accion
    publiciana demanding the Cruz to vacate the lot and to pay a rental of P500.00. The
    RTC ruled in favor of the Fernandos. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.

    ISSUE: Whether or not what transpired between the Cruzes and the Gloriosos was a
    contract of sale.

    HELD: No. The absence of a specific manner of payment in the terms and
    conditions of the contract makes it a contract to sell. Ownership was never
    transferred to the Cruzes. 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. Also, the Cruzes never transferred their house from the
    front portion to the rear portion of the lot. It was evident in the contract that they
    will transfer the house to the rear portion once they were able to buy it.

    The SC also ruled that the Fernandos were not buyers in bad faith. There was no
    consummated sale between the Cruzes and the Gloriosos. In a contract to sell, there
    being no previous sale of the property, a third person buying such property despite
    the fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase
    price, for instance, cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective
    buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property. There is no double
    sale in such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration
    because there is no defect in the owner-sellers title per se, but the latter, of course,
    may be sued for damages by the intending buyer.

    You might also like