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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    BPI v. Sanchez, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lawiswis
    The Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Vicente Victor C. Sanchez case involved a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land owned by the Sanchezes. Felisa Yap agreed to sell the land to Garcia, who took possession of the property without fully paying the purchase price. Garcia issued checks that were dishonored, prompting Yap to rescind the agreement and demand the return of land title documents. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sanchezes were not guilty of negligence or bad faith, as Garcia failed to fully pay the purchase price as agreed.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI v. Sanchez, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lawiswis
    71 views1 page
    The Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Vicente Victor C. Sanchez case involved a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land owned by the Sanchezes. Felisa Yap agreed to sell the land to Garcia, who took possession of the property without fully paying the purchase price. Garcia issued checks that were dishonored, prompting Yap to rescind the agreement and demand the return of land title documents. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sanchezes were not guilty of negligence or bad faith, as Garcia failed to fully pay the purchase price as agreed.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Vicente Victor C. Sanchez case involved a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land owned by the Sanchezes. Felisa Yap agreed to sell the land to Garcia, who took possession of the property without fully paying the purchase price. Garcia issued checks that were dishonored, prompting Yap to rescind the agreement and demand the return of land title documents. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sanchezes were not guilty of negligence or bad faith, as Garcia failed to fully pay the purchase price as agreed.

    Copyright:

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

    BPI v. Sanchez, 2014

    Uploaded by

    Lawiswis
    The Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Vicente Victor C. Sanchez case involved a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land owned by the Sanchezes. Felisa Yap agreed to sell the land to Garcia, who took possession of the property without fully paying the purchase price. Garcia issued checks that were dishonored, prompting Yap to rescind the agreement and demand the return of land title documents. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sanchezes were not guilty of negligence or bad faith, as Garcia failed to fully pay the purchase price as agreed.

    Copyright:

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

    BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. VICENTE VICTOR C.

    SANCHEZ
    G.R. No. 179518; G.R. No. 179835; G.R. No. 179954, November 19, 2014, J. Velasco Jr.
    Facts:
    Vicente Victor C. Sanchez, Kenneth Nereo Sanchez and Imelda C. V da. De Sanchez
    owned a parcel of land located at No. 10 Panay Avenue, Quezon City consisting of 900 square
    meters. The property was registered under TCT 156254 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.
    On October 10, 1988, Jesus V. Garcia, doing business under the name TransAmerican Sales and
    Exposition, Inc., wrote a letter to Vicente offering to buy the Subject Property for One Million
    Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos under subject terms and conditions. The offer was good for only
    seven (7) days. The period elapsed with the parties failing to come to an agreement. Sometime in
    the third week of October 1988, Felisa Yap, the widow of Kenneth Nereo Sanchez, and Garcia had
    a meeting at the Quezon City Sports Club wherein the parties agreed to the sale of the subject
    property. Pursuant to this agreement, Yap turned over to Garcia the original owner’s copy of TCT
    156254, the copy of the filed Application for Restitution of Title to the property, and copies of all
    receipts for the payment of real estate taxes on the property, while Garcia paid Yap 50,000 as
    earnest money.
    Afterwards, Yap required the occupants of the subject property to vacate the same.
    Immediately after it was vacated, Garcia, without Yap’s knowledge and consent, took possession
    of the lot and installed his own caretaker thereon with strict instructions not to allow anyone to
    enter the property. Yap later learned that Garcia had also demolished the house on the property
    and advertised the construction and sale of "Trans American Townhouse V" thereon. The
    foregoing developments notwithstanding and despite numerous demands, Garcia failed to pay the
    balance of the purchase price as agreed upon.
    Yap was informed that the checks representing the purchase price of the subject property
    were ready but that Vicente must pick up his checks personally. However, out of the six (6)
    checks that were presented to them, four (4) of them were post-dated, further delaying their
    overdue payment. In order to properly document such check payments, the parties executed an
    Agreement dated December 8, 1988, which relevantly provide: That the total consideration of sale
    of the rights, interest, participation and title of the Yap and Vicente of the aforestated parcel of
    land to Garcia shall be One Million Eight Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P1,850,000.00),
    Philippine Currency, payable in check.That the parties hereto agree that once the aforestated
    checks are honored by the bank and encashed by the payees thereof, the First and Second Parties
    shall execute an EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE WITH SALE distributing and
    dividing among themselves. Subsequently, the first four (4) checks were deposited with no issue.
    However, the last two (2) checks, amounting to P400,000 each, were dishonored for the reason of
    "DAIF" or drawn against insufficient funds.Thus, Yap wrote a letter to Garcia informing him that
    the two (2) checks were dishonored and asking that the checks be replaced within five (5) days from receipt of
    the letter. Such request was left unheeded. Yap informed Garcia in a letter that she
    and Vicente were rescinding the Agreement while demanding the return of the original owner’s
    copy of TCT 156254. This prompted Garcia to offer two (2) manager’s checks in the aggregate
    amount of P300,000 which Yap flatly refused, reiterating the rescission of their Agreement and
    demanding for the return of all documents entrusted to Garcia through a January 21, 1989 letter.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the parties all acted in bad faith.

    Ruling:
    No, The Sanchezes are not guilty of negligence and bad faith.

    You might also like