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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Dignos vs. CA - Bacsain

    Uploaded by

    Mark Soriano Bacsain
    The Supreme Court ruled that the 1965 contract between the Dignos spouses and Jabil was a contract of sale, not a contract to sell. A contract of sale was formed as the document contained the necessary elements - consent, determinate subject matter, and price certain. Ownership of the land was transferred to Jabil upon actual delivery in 1965. By selling the land again to the Cabigas spouses, the Dignos spouses committed a breach, as they no longer held ownership rights after delivering the land to Jabil. The Court affirmed the ruling dismissing the Dignos petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Dignos vs. CA - Bacsain

    Uploaded by

    Mark Soriano Bacsain
    45 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the 1965 contract between the Dignos spouses and Jabil was a contract of sale, not a contract to sell. A contract of sale was formed as the document contained the necessary elements - consent, determinate subject matter, and price certain. Ownership of the land was transferred to Jabil upon actual delivery in 1965. By selling the land again to the Cabigas spouses, the Dignos spouses committed a breach, as they no longer held ownership rights after delivering the land to Jabil. The Court affirmed the ruling dismissing the Dignos petition.

    Original Description:

    DIGNOS vs. CA

    Original Title

    Dignos vs. CA_Bacsain

    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 Supreme Court ruled that the 1965 contract between the Dignos spouses and Jabil was a contract of sale, not a contract to sell. A contract of sale was formed as the document contained the necessary elements - consent, determinate subject matter, and price certain. Ownership of the land was transferred to Jabil upon actual delivery in 1965. By selling the land again to the Cabigas spouses, the Dignos spouses committed a breach, as they no longer held ownership rights after delivering the land to Jabil. The Court affirmed the ruling dismissing the Dignos petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Dignos vs. CA - Bacsain

    Uploaded by

    Mark Soriano Bacsain
    The Supreme Court ruled that the 1965 contract between the Dignos spouses and Jabil was a contract of sale, not a contract to sell. A contract of sale was formed as the document contained the necessary elements - consent, determinate subject matter, and price certain. Ownership of the land was transferred to Jabil upon actual delivery in 1965. By selling the land again to the Cabigas spouses, the Dignos spouses committed a breach, as they no longer held ownership rights after delivering the land to Jabil. The Court affirmed the ruling dismissing the Dignos petition.

    Copyright:

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

    DIGNOS vs CA, and JABIL (February 1998)

    Petitioner(s): Silvestre T. Dignos and Isabela Lumungsod de Dignos (Spouses Dignos)


    Respondent(s): Hon. Court of Appeals and Atilano G. Jabil

    Doctrine:
    The elements of a valid contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code are: (1) consent or
    meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter; and (3) price certain in money or its
    equivalent.
    Article 1477 of the same Code provides that "The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred
    to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery thereof. in the absence of stipulation to the
    contrary, the ownership of the thing sold passes to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery
    thereof.

    Facts:
     In July 1965, Spouses Dignos sold their parcel of land in Opon, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu to
    Atilano Jabil for the sume of Php 28,000 payable for two (2) installments, with an
    assumption of indebtedness with the First Insular Bank of Cebu in the sum of Php 12,000
    which was acknowledged by the vendors in the Deed of Absolute Sale, and the next
    installment to be paid 3 months after.
     The very same parcel of land was also sold by Spouses Dignos to Spouses Luciano
    Cabigas and Jovita de Cabigas (holder of US citizenship) and was registered in the
    Registry of Deeds.
     This prompted Antonio Jabil to file a civil case against Spouses Dignos for the 2 nd sale of
    the land.
     CFI of Cebu rendered the 2nd sale null and void and directed Spouses Dignos to return
    the Php 35,000 to Spouses Cabigas and ordered Atilano Jabil to pay the remaining Php
    16,000 balance to Spouses Dignos and to reimburse the expenses of Spouses Cabigas
    for the construction of hollow block fences.
     Spouses Dignos contends that the contract between them and Anonio Jabil was merely a
    contract to sell and not a deed of sale.

    Issue:
     Whether the contract executed by Sps Dignos and Jabil a contract of sale or a contract to
    sell?

    Ruling:
     The contract between the parties is a contract of sale. All the elements of a valid
    contract of sale are present in the document and that Sps Dignos never notified Jabil by
    notarial act that they were rescinding the contract, and neither did they file a suit in court
    to rescind the sale. The court held that Sps Dignos had no right to sell the land in question
    because an actual delivery of its possession has already been made in favor of Jabil as
    early as March 1965.
     Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and decision of CA is affirmed in toto.

    You might also like