7/24/2019 Set Cases

1/10

A.A. Addison vs. Felix

38 Phil 404

August 1918

FACTS: The defendants-appellees Spouses Maciana Felix and Balbino Tiocopurchased from plainti-appellant A.A. Addison four parcels of land to which

Felix paid at the time of the execution of the deed the sum of !"### on

account of the purchase price. She li$ewise bound herself to the remainder in

installments the %rst of !## on 'ul( )* )+), the second of !*### thirt(

da(s after the issuance to her of a certi%cate of title under the and

e/istration Act and further within ten (ears from the date of such title !)#

for each cocoanut tree in bearin/ and !* for each such tree not in bearin/

that mi/ht be /rowin/ on said parcels of land on the date of the issuance of

title to her with the condition that the total price should not exceed !0*###.

1t was further stipulated that Felix was to deli2er to the Addison &*3 of the

2alue of the products that she mi/ht obtain from the four parcels 4from the

moment she ta$es possession of them until the Torrens certi%cate of title be

issued in her fa2or4 and that within ) (ear from the date of the certi%cate of

title in her fa2or Marciana Felix ma( rescind the contract of purchase and

sale.

1n 'anuar( )+)* Addison %led suit in the CF1 of Manila to compel Felix to

pa( the %rst installment of !## demandable in accordance with the

terms of the contract of sale. The defendants Felix and her husband Tiococontended that Addison had absolutel( failed to deli2er the lands that were

the sub5ect matter of the sale notwithstandin/ the demands the( made

upon him for this purpose. The e2idence adduced shows Addison was able to

desi/nate onl( two of the four parcels and more than two-thirds of these two

were found to be in the possession of one 'uan 6illafuerte who claimed to be

the owner of the parts he so occupied. The trial court held the contract of

sale to be rescinded and ordered Addison to return to Felix the !"### paid

on account of the price to/ether with interest thereon at the rate of )#3 per

annum.

1SS78: 9; there was a 2alid deli2er(.

and as re/ards the other two more than two-thirds of their

area was in the hostile and ad2erse possession of a third person.

7/24/2019 Set Cases

2/10

1t is true that the same article declares that the execution of a public

instruments is e?ui2alent to the deli2er( of the thin/ which is the ob5ect of

the contract but in order that this s(mbolic deli2er( ma( produce the eect

of tradition it is necessar( that the 2endor shall ha2e had such control o2er

the thin/ sold that at the moment of the sale its material deli2er( could

ha2e been made. 1t is not enou/h to confer upon the purchaser the

ownership and the ri/ht of possession. The thin/ sold must be placed in his

control. 9hen there is no impediment whate2er to pre2ent the thin/ sold

passin/ into the tenanc( of the purchaser b( the sole will of the 2endor

s(mbolic deli2er( throu/h the execution of a public instrument is su@cient.

But if there is an impediment deli2er( cannot be deemed eected.

Sampaguita Pictures, nc. vs. !al"indor #anu$acturers, nc.

93 S%&A 4'0

(cto)er 19*9

FACTS: Both the plainti-appellant Sampa/uita !ictures 1nc. Sampa/uita

and defendant-appellee 'alwindor Manufacturers 1nc. 'alwindor were

domestic corporations dul( or/anied under the !hilippine laws. Sampa/uita

leased to Capitol D"##E 1nc. Capitol the roof dec$ of its buildin/ with the

a/reement that all permanent impro2ements Capitol will ma$e on said

propert( shall belon/ to Sampa/uita without an( part on the latter to

reimburse Capitol for the expenses of said impro2ements. Shortl( Capitol

purchased on credit from 'alwindor /lass and wooden 5alousies which the

latter itself deli2ered and installed in the leased premises replacin/ the

existin/ windows.

n 'une ) )+, 'alwindor %led with the CF1 of ial Gueon Cit( an action

for collection of a sum of mone( with a petition for preliminar( attachment

a/ainst Capitol for its failure to pa( its purchases. ater 'alwindor and

Capitol submitted to the trial court a Compromised A/reement wherein

Capitol ac$nowled/ed its indebtedness of !+*").#+ pa(able in monthl(

installments of at least !"##.## a month be/innin/ =ecember )*)+, and

that all the materials that Capitol purchased will be considered as securit( for

such underta$in/. Meanwhile Sampa/uita %led a complaint for e5ectment

7/24/2019 Set Cases

3/10

and for collection of a sum of mone( a/ainst Capitol for the latterHs failure to

pa( rentals from March )+, to April )+* and the Cit( Court of Gueon Cit(

ordered Capitol on 'une 0 )+* to 2acate the premises and to pa(

Sampa/uita.

n the other hand Capitol li$ewise failed to compl( with the terms of theCompromise A/reement and on 'ul( ") )+ the Sheri of Gueon Cit(

made le2( on the /lass and wooden 5alousies. Sampa/uita %led a third-part(

claim alle/in/ that it is the owner of said materials and not Capitol but

'alwindor %led an idemnit( bond in fa2or of the Sheri and the items were

sold at public auction on Au/ust "# )+ with 'alwindor as the hi/hest

bidder for !###.##. Sampa/uita %led with the CF1 of ial Gueon Cit( an

action to nullif( the SheriIs sale and for an in5unction to pre2ent 'alwindor

from detachin/ the /lass and wooden 5alousies. 'alwindor was ordered to

maintain the status ?uo pendin/ %nal determination of the case and on

ctober )+J the lower court dismissed the complaint and ordered

Sampa/uita to pa( 'alwindor the amount of !*##.## as attorne(Is fees.

1SS78: 9; there was deli2er( and a transfer of ownership of the thin/ sold.

7/24/2019 Set Cases

4/10

FACTS

-Ten Fort( ealt( %led a complaint of e5ectment a/ainst Marina Cru who has

alle/edl( occupied the residential lot in lon/apo Cit( which the( bou/ht

from Barbara Kalino b( 2irtue of a =eed of Absolute Sale. 1t appears that

Barbara sold the same lot to Marina who immediatel( occupied the land. TenFort( is sa(in/ the occupation b( Marina was merel( tolerated b( them.

-MarinaHs defense:

) Ten Fort( bein/ a corporation isnot ?uali%ed to own the propert(

which is a public land.

& Barbara Kalino did not sell her propert( to Ten Fort( but merel(

obtained a loan.

" Ten Fort( ne2er occupied the propert( before she did. Barbara

Kalino was in possession at the time of the sale and 2acated the lot in

fa2or of Marina.

, She was the one who caused the cancellation of the tax declaration

in the name of Barbara and a new one was issued in her name.

* Ten Fort( onl( obtained its tax declaration J months after she did.-

MTCC ruled in fa2or of Ten Fort( and ordered Marina to 2acate.

- TC re2ersed. The TC ruled as follows:

) respondentHs entr( into the propert( was not b( mere tolerance ofpetitioner but b( 2irtue of a 9ai2er and Transfer of !ossessor( i/hts

and =eed of Sale in her fa2or>

& the execution of the =eed of Sale without actual transfer of the

ph(sical possession did not ha2e the eect of ma$in/ petitioner the

owner of the propert( because there was no deli2er( of the ob5ect of

the sale as pro2ided for in Article ),&0 of the Ci2il Code> and " bein/ a

corporation petitioner was dis?uali%ed from ac?uirin/ the propert(

which was public land.

-CA a@rmed: Case cannot be unlawful detainer because there has been no

prior contract between the parties. ;either can it be forcibl( entr( because

there is no showin/ that there was prior ph(sical possession b( the

petitioner.

1SS78: 9; Marina ma( be 2alidl( e5ected from the propert(.

7/24/2019 Set Cases

5/10

7/24/2019 Set Cases

6/10

&(#A/ vs. A+

. &. /o. '41', April 11, 1902

FACTS: !edro oman the owner of the schooner Sta. Maria and Andres

Krimalt had been ne/otiatin/ for se2eral da(s for the purchase of the

schooner. The( a/reed upon the sale of the 2essel for the sum of !)*##

pa(able on three installments pro2ided the title papers to the 2essel were in

proper form. The sale was not perfected and the purchaser did not consent

to the execution of the deed of transfer for the reason that the title of the2essel was in the name of one !aulina Kiron and not in the name of !edro

oman. oman promised howe2er to perfect his title to the 2essel but he

failed to do so. The 2essel was sun$ in the ba( in the afternoon of 'une &*

)+#, durin/ a se2ere storm and before the owner had complied with the

condition exacted b( the proposed purchaser. n the "#th of 'une )+#,

plainti demanded for the pa(ment of the purchase price of the 2essel in the

manner stipulated and defendant failed to pa(.

1SS78: 9hether there was a perfected contract of sale and who will bear the

loss.

7/24/2019 Set Cases

7/10

Facts: !etitioner ;or$is =istributors 1nc. is the distributor of Namaha

motorc(cles in ;e/ros ccidental. Alberto ;epales bou/ht from the ;or$is

Bacolod branch a brand new Namaha 9onderbi$e motorc(cle. The price of

!J*## was pa(able b( means of a etter of Kuarant( from the =B! which

;or$isH Branch Mana/er aba5o a/rred to accept.

7/24/2019 Set Cases

8/10

9hen the motorc(cle was re/istered b( ;or$is in the name of pri2ate

respondent ;or$is did not intend (et to transfer the title or ownership to

;epales but onl( to facilitate the execution of a chattel mort/a/e in fa2or of

the =B! for the release of the bu(erIs motorc(cle loan. The etter of

Kuarantee 8xh. * issued b( the =B! re2eals that the execution in its fa2or

of a chattel mort/a/e o2er the purchased 2ehicle is a pre-re?uisite for the

appro2al of the bu(erIs loan. 1f ;or$is would not accede to that arran/ement

=B! would not appro2e pri2ate respondentIs loan application and

conse?uentl( there would be no sale.

1n other words the critical factor in the dierent modes of eectin/ deli2er(

which /i2es le/al eect to the act is the actual intention of the 2endor to

deli2er and its acceptance b( the 2endee. 9ithout that intention there is no

tradition.

Article ),+ of the Ci2il Code which pro2ides that 4in the absence of anexpress assumption of ris$ b( the bu(er the thin/s sold remain at sellerIs

ris$ until the ownership thereof is transferred to the bu(er4 is applicable to

this case for there was neither an actual nor constructi2e deli2er( of the

thin/ sold hence the ris$ of loss should be borne b( the seller ;or$is which

was still the owner and possessor of the motorc(cle when it was wrec$ed.

This is in accordance with the well-$nown doctrine of res perit domino.

S(+5&/ #(+(&S, /%. vs. #(S%(S(

' S%&A 128.&. /o. 6144*, #a 30, 1921

7/24/2019 Set Cases

9/10

FACTS: !lainti Southern Motors 1nc. sold to defendant An/el Moscoso one

Che2rolet truc$ on installment basis for !,,*.##. 7pon ma$in/ a down

pa(ment the defendant executed a promissor( note for the sum of

!,+)*.## representin/ the unpaid balance of the purchase price to secure

the pa(ment of which a chattel mort/a/e was constituted on the truc$ in

fa2or of the plainti. f said account the defendant had paid a total of

!**#.## of which !))#.## was applied to the interest and !,##.## to the

principal thus lea2in/ an unpaid balance of !,,J*.##. The defendant failed

to pa( " installments on the balance of the purchase price. !lainti %led a

complaint a/ainst the defendant to reco2er the unpaid balance of the

promissor( note. 7pon plaintiIs petition a writ of attachment was issued b(

the lower court on the properties of the defendant. !ursuant thereto the said

Che2rolet truc$ and a house and lot belon/in/ to defendant were attached

b( the Sheri and said truc$ was brou/ht to the plaintiIs compound for safe

$eepin/. After attachment and before the trial of the case on the meritsactin/ upon the plaintiIs motion for the immediate sale of the mort/a/ed

truc$ the !ro2incial Sheri of 1loilo sold the truc$ at public auction in which

plainti itself was the onl( bidder for !).. The trial court condemned

the defendant to pa( the plainti the amount of !,,J*.## with interest at

the rate of )&3 per annum from Au/ust ) )+*Juntil full( paid plus )#3

thereof as attorne(s fees and costs. and " Foreclose the

chattel mort/a/e on the thin/ sold if one has been constituted should the2endeeIs failure to pa( co2er two or more installments. 1n this case he shall

ha2e no further action a/ainst the purchaser to reco2er an( unpaid balance

of the price. An( a/reement to the contrar( shall be 2oid. The plainti had

chosen the %rst remed(. The complaint is an ordinar( ci2il action for reco2er(

of the remainin/ unpaid balance due on the promissor( note. The plainti

had not adopted the procedure or methods outlined b( Sec. ), of the Chattel

7/24/2019 Set Cases

10/10

Mort/a/e aw but those prescribed for ordinar( ci2il actions under the ules

of Court. it would not ha2e caused the chattel to be

attached under ule *+ and had it sold at public auction in the manner

prescribed b( ule "+. That the plainti did not intend to foreclose the

mort/a/e truc$ is further e2inced b( the fact that it had also attached the

house and lot of the appellant at San 'ose Anti?ue.9e percei2e nothin/

unlawful or irre/ular in plaintiIs act of attachin/ the mort/a/ed truc$ itself.

Since the plainti has chosen to exact the ful%llment of the appellantIs

obli/ation it ma( enforce execution of the 5ud/ment that ma( be fa2orabl(

rendered hereon on all personal and real properties of the latter not exempt

from execution su@cient to satisf( such 5ud/ment. 1t should be noted that a

house and lot at San 'ose Anti?ue were also attached. ;o one can

successfull( contest that the attachment was merel( an incident to an

ordinar( ci2il action. The mort/a/e creditor ma( reco2er 5ud/ment on themort/a/e debt and cause an execution on the mort/a/ed propert( and ma(

cause an attachment to be issued and le2ied on such propert( upon

be/innin/ his ci2il action.