You are on page 1of 5

Gaite v.

Fonacier force (as distinguished from its


demandability) is subordinated to the
Facts: happening of a future and uncertain
event; so that if the suspensive condition
Gaite was appointed by Fonacier as
does not take place, the parties would
attorney-in-fact to contract any party for
stand as if the conditional obligation had
the exploration and development of
never existed.
mining claims. Gaite executed a deed of
assignment in favor of a single
A contract of sale is normally
proprietorship owned by him. For some
commutative and onerous: not only does
reasons, Fonacier revoked the agency,
each one of the parties assume a
which was acceded to by Gaite, subject to
correlative obligation (the seller to
certain conditions, one of which being
deliver and transfer ownership of the
the transfer of ores extracted from the
thing sold and the buyer to pay the
mineral claims for P75,000, of which
price),but each party anticipates
P10,000 has already been paid upon
performance by the other from the very
signing of the agreement and the balance
start. While in a sale the obligation of one
to be paid from the first letter of credit for
party can be lawfully subordinated to an
the first local sale of the iron ores. To
uncertain event, so that the other
secure payment, Fonacier delivered a
understands that he assumes the risk of
surety agreement with Larap Mines and
receiving nothing for what he gives (as in
some of its stockholders, and another one
the case of a sale of hopes or
with Far Eastern Insurance. When the
expectations, emptio spei), it is not in the
second surety agreement expired with no
usual course of business to do so; hence,
sale being made on the ores, Gaite
the contingent character of the obligation
demanded the P65,000 balance.
must clearly appear. Nothing is found in
Defendants contended that the payment
the record to evidence that Gaite desired
was subject to the condition that the ores
or assumed to run the risk of losing his
will be sold.
right over the ore without getting paid for
it, or that Fonacier understood that Gaite
Issue: assumed any such risk. This is proved by
the fact that Gaite insisted on a bond a to
(1) Whether the sale is conditional or one guarantee payment of the P65,000.00,
with a period an not only upon a bond by Fonacier, the
Larap Mines & Smelting Co., and the
(2) Whether there were insufficient tons company's stockholders, but also on one
of ores by a surety company; and the fact that
appellants did put up such bonds
Held: indicates that they admitted the definite
existence of their obligation to pay the
(1) The shipment or local sale of the iron balance of P65,000.00.
ore is not a condition precedent (or
suspensive) to the payment of the The appellant have forfeited the right
balance of P65,000.00, but was only a court below that the appellants have
suspensive period or term. What forfeited the right to compel Gaite to wait
characterizes a conditional obligation is for the sale of the ore before receiving
the fact that its efficacy or obligatory payment of the balance of P65,000.00,
because of their failure to renew the bond the land was upheld the courts. In 1984,
of the Far Eastern Surety Company or petitioner paid in full the price of the
else replace it with an equivalent land. The NHA therefore executed a deed
guarantee. The expiration of the bonding of sale in her favor on January 14, 1985.
company's undertaking on December 8, Private respondent Corazon Aranez
1955 substantially reduced the security of brought an action for specific
the vendor's rights as creditor for the performance against petitioner to
unpaid P65,000.00, a security that Gaite enforce a alleged deed of sale covering
considered essential and upon which he the same lot in 1960. The contract
had insisted when he executed the deed stipulated that title to the land shall be
of sale of the ore to Fonacier. transferred to private respondent within
30 days after full payment of the
(2) The sale between the parties is a sale purchase price by petitioner to the
of a specific mass or iron ore because no PHHC. Private respondent alleged that
provision was made in their contract for petitioner refused, despite repeated
the measuring or weighing of the ore sold demands made by her, to comply with the
in order to complete or perfect the sale, stipulation in their contract. Petitioner
nor was the price of P75,000,00 agreed denied selling the land to private
upon by the parties based upon any such respondent. The trial court dismissed the
measurement.(see Art. 1480, second complaint. Although finding petitioner's
par., New Civil Code). The subject matter signature on the deed to be genuine, it
of the sale is, therefore, a determinate nevertheless ruled that there was no
object, the mass, and not the actual perfected contract of sale because
number of units or tons contained petitioner never really intended to sell
therein, so that all that was required of the land. Furthermore, the trial court
the seller Gaite was to deliver in good also found the alleged contract to be null
faith to his buyer all of the ore found in and void because, at the time of the sale,
the mass, notwithstanding that the petitioner was not yet the owner thereof.
quantity delivered is less than the The Court of Appeals reversed the
amount estimated by them. decision. It held that there was a meeting
of the minds between the parties as
Mananzala vs. CA evidenced by the signature of the
petitioner on the deed of sale which the
NBI found to be genuine. The
Facts: notarization of the deed gave rise to the
presumption of its regularity. The Court
Petitioner Fidela Mananzala owned a of Appeals further held that petitioner
parcel of land located in Quezon City, and
could validly sell the land even before the
in actual possession of the land since
actual award to her pursuant to Art. 1461
1955 by virtue of a conditional sale made of the Civil Code, which provides that
in her favor by the PHHC, now NHA.
things having a potential existence may
1960, however, the PHHC awarded the
be the object of a contract of sale.
land to Nestor and Elisea Mercado.
Petitioner contested the award in court.
She claimed precedence not only in Issue:
actual occupation of the land but also in
application for its purchase. Her right to
Whether or not the contract between Karapatan sa Lupa" with Sps Norberto
petitioner and private respondent is valid and Susan Peaches Dingco whereby
and binding Caraveo agreed to sell his rights over a
648 sq m unregistered land in Orani,
Held: Bataan for P38,000. (initial payment of
P10,000 upon signing of the contract, the
Yes. The SC affirmed the CA’s decision. remaining balance to be paid on Sept
The petitioner's contention that the sale 1990).
to private respondent is void because it
was made within one year after the title · Norberto & Dingco were later to
to the property was issued in the name of claim that when they were about to hand
petitioner, while raised by petitioner in in the balance of the purchase price,
her answer in the trial court, was not Carabeo requested them to keep it first as
passed upon and she did not urge it he was yet to settle an on-going
anymore except now. As already noted, "squabble" over the land.
the trial court based its decision on its
finding that the sale was void on the · Norberto & Dingco gave Carabeo
ground that there was no meeting of the small sums of money from time to time
minds of the parties. When its decision which totaled P9,100, on Carabeo’s
was appealed, petitioner did not urge her request according to them; due to
original defenses to uphold the decision Norberto & Dingco’ inability to pay the
in her favor. She merely relied on the amount of the remaining balance in full,
ruling of the trial court. The appellate according to Carabeo.
court, in reversing the trial court, simply
considered the issues raised by the trial · Despite the alleged problem over
court's decision, namely, whether the land, they insisted on Carabeo’s
petitioner's signature on the deed was a acceptance of the remaining balance of
forgery, whether there was a meeting of P18,900 but Carabeo remained firm in
the minds of the parties, and whether his refusal, proffering as reason that he
there could be a sale of future property. would register the land first.
The question whether the sale was void
because it was made within the one-year · Sometime in 1994, Norberto &
period of prohibition to petitioner as Dingco learned that the alleged problem
awardee was never briefed or in any way over the land had been settled and that
argued below. For all intents and Carabeo had caused its registration in his
purposes, therefore, petitioner waived name on Dec 21, 1993. They offered to
this ground and cannot now urge it as pay the balance but Carabeo declined,
ground for reversing the decision of the drawing them to file a complaint before
Court of Appeals. the Katarungan Pambarangay. No
settlement was reached, however, hence,
Carabeo vs. Spouses Dingco N & D filed a complaint for specific
performance before the RTC.
FACTS · Carabeo:
· Domingo Carabeo entered into a
contract "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng
o sale was void for lack of object certain, necessity of a new or further agreement
the kasunduan not having specified the between the parties.
metes and bounds of the land.
lack of spousal consent
o if the validity of the kasunduan is
upheld, N & D failure to comply with This was raised only on appeal, hence,
their obligation to pay the balance of the will not be considered, in the present
purchase price would render the action case, in the interest of fair play, justice
premature. and due process.

o Carabeo maintained that they failed carabeo’s death


to pay the balance of P28,000 on Sept
1990 to thus constrain him to accept Carabeo’s son: death of Carabeo causes
installment payments totaling P9,100. the dismissal of the action filed by N & D;
resp’ cause of action being an action in
Carabeo passed away after the case was personam.
submitted for decision or on Jan 31,
2001, Records do not show that Bonilla v. Barcena: The question as to
Carabeo’s counsel informed the RTC whether an action survives or not
where the complaint was lodged, of his depends on the nature of the action and
death and that proper substitution was the damage sued for. In the causes of
effected in accordance with Section 16, action which survive, the wrong
Rule 3, Rules of Court. complained [of] affects primarily and
principally property and property rights,
Lower courts the injuries to the person being merely
incidental, while in the causes of action
· RTC Ordered defendant to sell his which do not survive, the injury
right over 648 sq m of land pursuant to complained of is to the person, the
the contract dated July 10, 1990 by property and rights of property affected
executing a Deed of Sale thereof after the being incidental.
payment of P18,900 by the plaintiffs;
Assuming arguendo, that the kasunduan
· CA affirmed. is deemed void, there is a corollary
obligation of Carabeo to return the
issues/ruling money paid by Norberto & Dingco, and
since the action involves property rights,
object certain of the contract it survives.

That the kasunduan did not specify the Trial on the merits was already
technical boundaries of the property did concluded before Carabeo died. Since the
not render the sale a nullity. The TC was not informed of Carabeo’s death,
requirement that a sale must have for its it may not be faulted for proceeding to
object a determinate thing is satisfied as render judgment without ordering his
long as, at the time the contract is entered substitution. Its judgment is thus valid
into, the object of the sale is capable of and binding upon Carabeo’s legal
being made determinate without the representatives or successors-in-interest,
insofar as his interest in the property and weighed, they are not considered
subject of the action is concerned. sold.

The death of a client immediately divests Issue:


the counsel of authority. Thus, in filing a
Notice of Appeal, Carabeo’s counsel of Whether there was a perfected sale
record had no personality to act on behalf
of the already deceased client who, it
bears reiteration, had not been
Held:
substituted as a party after his death. The
TC’s decision had thereby become final Soriano initially offered to sell palay
and executory, no appeal having been grains produced in his farmland to NFA.
perfected. When the latter accepted the offer by
noting in Soriano's Farmer's Information
Sheet a quota of 2,640 cavans, there was
Petition Denied.
already a meeting of the minds between
the parties. The object of the contract,
being the palay grains produced in
Soriano's farmland and the NFA was to
National Grains Authority v. pay the same depending upon its quality.
IAC The fact that the exact number of cavans
of palay to be delivered has not been
Facts: determined does not affect the perfection
of the contract. Article 1349 of the New
On August 23, 1979, private respondent Civil Code provides: ". . .. The fact that the
Leon Soriano offered to sell palay grains quantity is not determinate shall not be
to NFA through William Cabal, the an obstacle to the existence of the
provincial manager in Tuguegarao. The contract, provided it is possible to
documents submitted were processed, determine the same, without the need of
and he was given a quota of 2,640 cavans, a new contract between the parties." In
which is the maximum number of cavans this case, there was no need for NFA and
he may sell to NFA. On the same day and Soriano to enter into a new contract to
on the following day, Soriano delivered determine the exact number of cavans of
630 cavans, which were no rebagged, palay to be sold. Soriano can deliver so
classified and weighed. When he much of his produce as long as it does not
demanded payment, he was told that exceed 2,640 cavans. From the moment
payment will be held in abeyance since the contract of sale is perfected, it is
Mr. Cabal was still investigating on an incumbent upon the parties to comply
information received that Soriano was with their mutual obligations or "the
not a bona fide farmer. Instead of parties may reciprocally demand
withdrawing the palay, Soriano insisted performance" thereof.
that the palay grains be delivered and
paid. He filed a complaint for specific
performance. Petitioners contend that
the delivery was merely made for the
purpose of offering it for sale because
until the grains were rebagged, classified

You might also like