AGASEN VS.

CA FACTS: Private respondent Petra Bilog, filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership with the RTC, involving a parcel of land registered in her name. She alleged that petitioners took possession and assumed ownership of the said property. Thus, private respondent prayed that she be declared the true and absolute owner of the subject land and petitioners be ordered to turn over possession thereof. While petitioners Agasen asserted that the land was owned in common by the five (5) Bilog siblings, private respondent being one of them. Petitioners claimed that they became the owners of the portion of thr land by virtue of: (1) the sale in their favor, by Leonora Calonge, and (2) the sale in their favor by private respondent by virtue of a notarized Partition with Sale. Thus, petitioners prayed for the annulment of title in private respondents name and for the dismissal of the complaint, as well as for the award of damages. The RTC rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, dismissing the complaint and declaring Transfer Certificate in the name of private respondent null and void. While the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and private respondent was declared the true and absolute owner of the land. ISSUE: WON a contract of sale must be embodied in a public instrument to be valid. HELD: NO. The memorandum of sale appearing in Exhibit "3" is sufficient to prove the sale between petitioner and her late sister. The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public instrument. "The Civil Code provides that a contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. Being consensual, a contract of sale has the force of law between the contracting parties and they are expected to abide in good faith by their respective contractual commitments.

Article 1358 of the Civil Code which requires the embodiment of certain contracts in a public instrument, is only for convenience, and registration of the instrument only adversely affects third parties. Formal requirements are, therefore, for the benefit of third parties. Non-compliance therewith does not adversely affect the validity of the contract nor the contractual rights and obligations of the parties thereunder. Finally, the Court of Appeals is likewise in error in holding that private respondents title was "vested with the garment of indefeasibility." Hence, Private respondents bare denial of the fraud, by any measure, overcome the evidence and legal presumptions in petitioners favor. GRAGEDA VS. CA FACTS: Petitioner Grageda is the owner and manager of the Sorsogon Home Enterprises while private respodent is a seller of abaca products. Grageda ordered from private respondent but they were outrightly rejected. After making the proper corrections, private respondent made subsequent deliveries and the said items were all received and duly receipted for by Grageda's caretaker. When pressed for payment, Grageda contends that she rejected the items delivered because they were defective. Private respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against the petitioners before the Municipal Trial Court of Daraga, Albay. Grageda alleged that private respondent refused to withdraw. Metropolitan Trial Court rendered a decision in private respondent's favor holding the petitioner civilly liable pursuant to Article 1585 of the Civil Code. Said decision was reversed by the RTC. On motion for reconsideration, however, the CA reverse its previous decision and affirmed the decision of the MTC. ISSUE: WON the rejection was reasonably made. HELD: NO. While it is true that Article 1584 of the Civil Code accords Grageda the right to a reasonable opportunity to examine the abaca "bacbac" goods to ascertain whether they

are in conformity with the contract, such opportunity to examine should be availed of within a reasonable time in order that private respondent may not be subjected to undue delay or prejudice in the payment of his raw materials, workers and other damages which may be incurred due to the deterioration of his products. In this regard, the trial court found that the delay in the advice or notice of rejection was almost two (2) months after receipt, hence, was rather too late. In resolving the issue, the provisions of Article 1585 be applied. The evidence clearly and unmistakably shows that the defendants retained possession of the abaca goods, for practically almost 2 months, without intimating their rejection to the supplier, on a reasonable time, amounts to a waiver of defendants' right to reject acceptance and payment of the plaintiffs' goods. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court conclude that the plaintiff had proven and established adequate evidence as well that he is entitled to the relief prayed for.