FULE VS CA -nullification of a contract of sale of a 10-hectare property in Tanay, Rizal in consideration of the amount of P40,000.00 and a 2.

5 carat emerald-cut diamond. - The lower court further ruled that all the elements of a valid contract under Article 1458 of the Civil Code were present, namely: (a) consent or meeting of the minds; (b) determinate subject matter, and (c) price certain in money or its equivalent. The same Page | 1 elements, according to the lower court, were present despite the fact that the agreement between petitioner and Dr. Cruz was principally a barter contract. The lower court explained thus: x x x. Plaintiffs ownership over the Tanay property passed unto Dra. Cruz upon the constructive delivery thereof by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. D). On the other hand, the ownership of Dra. Cruz over the subject jewelries (sic) transferred to the plaintiff upon her actual personal delivery to him at the lobby of the Prudential Bank. It is expressly provided by law that the thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee (Art. 1497, Civil Code). The ownership and/or title over the jewelries (sic) was transmitted immediately before 6:00 p.m. of October 24, 1984. Plaintiff signified his approval by nodding his head. Delivery or tradition, is one of the modes of acquiring ownership (Art. 712, Civil Code). Similarly, when Exhibit D was executed, it was equivalent to the delivery of the Tanay property in favor of Dra. Cruz. The execution of the public instrument (Exh. D) operates as a formal or symbolic delivery of the Tanay property and authorizes the buyer, Dra. Cruz to use the document as proof of ownership (Florendo v. Foz, 20 Phil. 399). More so, since Exhibit D does not contain any proviso or stipulation to the effect that title to the property is reserved with the vendor until full payment of the purchase price, nor is there a stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period (Taguba v. Vda. De Leon, 132 SCRA 722; Luzon Brokerage Co. Inc. vs. Maritime Building Co. Inc. 86 SCRA 305; Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co. et al. 12 SCRA 276). -Aside from concluding that the contract of barter or sale had in fact been consummated when petitioner and Dr. Cruz parted ways at the bank, the trial court likewise dwelt on the unexplained delay with which petitioner complained about the alleged fakery. QUIROGA VS PARSONS - But the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was his agent for the sale of his beds in Iloilo, and that said obligations are implied in a contract of commercial agency. The whole question, therefore, reduced itself to a determination as to whether the defendant, by reason of the contract hereinbefore transcribed, was a purchaser or an agent of the plaintiff for the sale of his beds. In order to classify a contract, due regard must be given to its essential clauses. In the contract in question, what was essential, as constituting its cause and subject matter, is that the plaintiff was to furnish the defendant with the beds which the latter might order, at the price stipulated, and that the defendant was to pay the price in the manner stipulated. The price agreed upon was the one determined by the plaintiff for the sale of these beds in Manila, with a discount of from 20 to 25 per cent, according to their class. Payment was to be made at the end of sixty days, or before, at the plaintiff's request, or in cash, if the defendant so preferred, and in these last two cases an additional discount was to be allowed for prompt payment. These are precisely the essential features of a contract of purchase and sale. There was the obligation on the part of the plaintiff to supply the beds, and, on the part of the defendant, to pay their price. These features exclude the legal conception of an agency or order to sell whereby the mandatory or agent received the thing to sell it, and does not pay its price, but delivers to the principal the price he obtains from the sale of the thing to a third person, and if he does not succeed in selling it, he returns it. By virtue of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the latter, on receiving the beds, was necessarily obliged to pay their price within the term fixed, without any other consideration and regardless as to whether he had or had not sold the beds. - But the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was his agent for the sale of his beds in Iloilo, and that said obligations are implied in a contract of commercial agency. The whole question, therefore, reduced itself to a determination as to whether the defendant, by reason of the contract hereinbefore transcribed, was a purchaser or an agent of the plaintiff for the sale of his beds. In order to classify a contract, due regard must be given to its essential clauses. In the contract in question, what was essential, as constituting its cause and subject matter, is that the plaintiff was to furnish the defendant with the beds which the latter might order, at the price stipulated, and that the defendant was to pay the price in the manner stipulated. The price agreed upon was the one determined by the plaintiff for the sale of these beds in Manila, with a discount of from 20 to 25 per cent, according to their class. Payment was to be made at the end of sixty days, or before, at the plaintiff's request, or in cash, if the defendant so preferred, and in these last two cases an additional discount was to be allowed for prompt payment. These are precisely the essential features of a contract of purchase and sale. There was the

obligation on the part of the plaintiff to supply the beds, and, on the part of the defendant, to pay their price. These features exclude the legal conception of an agency or order to sell whereby the mandatory or agent received the thing to sell it, and does not pay its price, but delivers to the principal the price he obtains from the sale of the thing to a third person, and if he does not succeed in selling it, he returns it. By virtue of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, the latter, on receiving the beds, was necessarily obliged to pay their price within the term fixed, without any other consideration and regardless as to whether he had or had not sold the beds. PUYAT VS ARCO - It appears that the respondent herein brought an action against the herein petitioner in the Court of First Instance of Manila to secure a reimbursement of certain amounts allegedly overpaid by it on account of the purchase price of sound reproducing equipment and machinery ordered by the petitioner from the Starr Piano Company of Richmond, Indiana, U.S.A. - We sustain the theory of the trial court that the contract between the petitioner and the respondent was one of purchase and sale, and not one of agency, for the reasons now to be stated. In the first place, the contract is the law between the parties and should include all the things they are supposed to have been agreed upon. What does not appear on the face of the contract should be regarded merely as "dealer's" or "trader's talk", which can not bind either party. The letters, Exhibits 1 and 2, by which the respondent accepted the prices of $1,700 and $1,600, respectively, for the sound reproducing equipment subject of its contract with the petitioner, are clear in their terms and admit no other interpretation that the respondent in question at the prices indicated which are fixed and determinate. The respondent admitted in its complaint filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila that the petitioner agreed to sell to it the first sound reproducing equipment and machinery. The third paragraph of the respondent's cause of action states: 3. That on or about November 19, 1929, the herein plaintiff (respondent) and defendant (petitioner) entered into an agreement, under and by virtue of which the herein defendant was to secure from the United States, and sell and deliver to the herein plaintiff, certain sound reproducing equipment and machinery, for which the said defendant, under and by virtue of said agreement, was to receive the actual cost price plus ten per cent (10%), and was also to be reimbursed for all out of pocket expenses in connection with the purchase and delivery of such equipment, such as costs of telegrams, freight, and similar expenses. (Emphasis ours.) We agree with the trial judge that "whatever unforseen events might have taken place unfavorable to the defendant (petitioner), such as change in prices, mistake in their quotation, loss of the goods not covered by insurance or failure of the Starr Piano Company to properly fill the orders as per specifications, the plaintiff (respondent) might still legally hold the defendant (petitioner) to the prices fixed of $1,700 and $1,600." This is incompatible with the pretended relation of agency between the petitioner and the respondent, because in agency, the agent is exempted from all liability in the discharge of his commission provided he acts in accordance with the instructions received from his principal (section 254, Code of Commerce), and the principal must indemnify the agent for all damages which the latter may incur in carrying out the agency without fault or imprudence on his part (article 1729, Civil Code). While the latters, Exhibits 1 and 2, state that the petitioner was to receive ten per cent (10%) commission, this does not necessarily make the petitioner an agent of the respondent, as this provision is only an additional price which the respondent bound itself to pay, and which stipulation is not incompatible with the contract of purchase and sale. (See Quiroga vs. Parsons Hardware Co., 38 Phil., 501.) In the second place, to hold the petitioner an agent of the respondent in the purchase of equipment and machinery from the Starr Piano Company of Richmond, Indiana, is incompatible with the admitted fact that the petitioner is the exclusive agent of the same company in the Philippines. It is out of the ordinary for one to be the agent of both the vendor and the purchaser. The facts and circumstances indicated do not point to anything but plain ordinary transaction where the respondent enters into a contract of purchase and sale with the petitioner, the latter as exclusive agent of the Starr Piano Company in the United States.
Page | 2

It follows that the petitioner as vendor is not bound to reimburse the respondent as vendee for any difference between the cost price and the sales price which represents the profit realized by the vendor out of the transaction. This is the very essence of commerce without which merchants or middleman would not exist.

COMMISSIONER VS ENGINEERING - The main issue revolves on the question of whether or not Engineering is a manufacturer of air conditioning units under Section 185(m), supra, in relation to Sections 183(b) and 194 of the Code, or a contractor under Section 191 of the same Code. -The Commissioner contends that Engineering is a manufacturer and seller of air conditioning units and parts or accessories thereof and, therefore, it is subject to the 30% advance sales tax prescribed by Section 185(m) of the Tax Code, in relation to Section 194 of the same. Page | 3 - Our New Civil Code, likewise distinguishes a contract of sale from a contract for a piece of work thus: Art. 1467. A contract for the delivery at a certain price of an article which the vendor in the ordinary course of his business manufactures or procures for the general market, whether the same is on hand at the time or not, is a contract of sale, but if the goods are to be manufactured specially for the customer and upon his special order and not for the general market, it is a contract for a piece of work. - Engineering, in a nutshell, fabricates, assembles, supplies and installs in the buildings of its various customers the central type air conditioning system; prepares the plans and specifications therefor which are distinct and different from each other; the air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof used by petitioner are not the window type of air conditioner which are manufactured, assembled and produced locally for sale to the general market; and the imported air conditioning units and spare parts or accessories thereof are supplied and installed by petitioner upon previous orders of its customers conformably with their needs and requirements. The facts and circumstances aforequoted support the theory that Engineering is a contractor rather than a manufacturer. - Applying the facts of the aforementioned case to the present case, We see that the supply of air conditioning units to Engineer's various customers, whether the said machineries were in hand or not, was especially made for each customer and installed in his building upon his special order. The air conditioning units installed in a central type of air conditioning system would not have existed but for the order of the party desiring to acquire it and if it existed without the special order of Engineering's customer, the said air conditioning units were not intended for sale to the general public. Therefore, We have but to affirm the conclusion of the Court of Tax Appeals that Engineering is a contractor rather than a manufacturer, subject to the contractors tax prescribed by Section 191 of the Code and not to the advance sales tax imposed by Section 185(m) in relation to Section 194 of the same Code.

CELESTINO VS COLLECTOR -Celestino Co & Company is a duly registered general copartnership doing business under the trade name of "Oriental Sash Factory". From 1946 to 1951 it paid percentage taxes of 7 per cent on the gross receipts of its sash, door and window factory, in accordance with section one hundred eighty-six of the National Revenue Code imposing taxes on sale of manufactured articles. However in 1952 it began to claim liability only to the contractor's 3 per cent tax (instead of 7 per cent) under section 191 of the same Code; and having failed to convince the Bureau of Internal Revenue, it brought the matter to the Court of Tax Appeals, where it also failed - The truth of the matter is that it sold materials ordinarily manufactured by it sash, panels, mouldings to Teodoro & Co., although in such form or combination as suited the fancy of the purchaser. Such new form does not divest the Oriental Sash Factory of its character as manufacturer. Neither does it take the transaction out of the category of sales under Article 1467 above quoted, because although the Factory does not, in the ordinary course of its business, manufacture and keep on stock doors of the kind sold to Teodoro, it could stock and/or probably had in stock the sash, mouldings and panels it used therefor (some of them at least).

CHAPTER II: PARTIES TO A CONTRACT CALIMLIM-CANULAS VS FORTUN - The foregoing premises considered, it follows that FERNANDO could not have alienated the house and lot to DAGUINES since MERCEDES had not given her consent to said sale. 4
Page | 4

Anent the second issue, we find that the contract of sale was null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived and from whence they derived their support. That sale was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. 5 Article 1409 of the Civil Code states inter alia that: contracts whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are void and inexistent from the very beginning. Article 1352 also provides that: "Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy." Additionally, the law emphatically prohibits the spouses from selling property to each other subject to certain exceptions. 6 Similarly, donations between spouses during marriage are prohibited. 7 And this is so because if transfers or con conveyances between spouses were allowed during marriage, that would destroy the system of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. It was also designed to prevent the exercise of undue influence by one spouse over the other, 8 as well as to protect the institution of marriage, which is the cornerstone of family law. The prohibitions apply to a couple living as husband and wife without benefit of marriage, otherwise, "the condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal union." Those provisions are dictated by public interest and their criterion must be imposed upon the wig of the parties. That was the ruling in Buenaventura vs. Bautista, also penned by Justice JBL Reyes (CA) 50 O.G. 3679, and cited in Matabuena vs. Cervantes. 9 We quote hereunder the pertinent dissertation on this point: We reach a different conclusion. While Art. 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a donation between the spouses during the marriage, policy considerations of the most exigent character as wen as the dictates of morality require that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship. As announced in the outset of this opinion, a 1954 Court of Appeals decision, Buenaventura vs. Bautista, 50 OG 3679, interpreting a similar provision of the old Civil Code speaks unequivocally. If the policy of the law is, in the language of the opinion of the then Justice J.B.L. Reyes of that Court, 'to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue influence and improper pressure upon the donor, a prejudice deeply rooted in our ancient law, ..., then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband and wife without benefit of nuptials

MACARIOLA VS ASUNCION - Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of another: xxx xxx xxx (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession [emphasis supplied]. The prohibition in the aforesaid Article applies only to the sale or assignment of the property which is the subject of litigation to the persons disqualified therein. WE have already ruled that "... for the prohibition to operate, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property" (The Director of Lands vs. Ababa et al., 88 SCRA 513, 519 [1979], Rosario vda. de Laig vs. Court of Appeals, 86 SCRA 641, 646 [1978]).

In the case at bar, when the respondent Judge purchased on March 6, 1965 a portion of Lot 1184-E, the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period; hence, the lot in question was no longer subject of the litigation. Moreover, at the time of the sale on March 6, 1965, respondent's order dated October 23, 1963 and the amended order dated November 11, 1963 approving the October 16, 1963 project of partition made pursuant to the June 8, 1963 decision, had long become final for there was no appeal from said orders.
Page | 5

MATABUENA VS HERNANDEZ In 1956, herein appellants brother Felix Matabuena donated a piece of lot to his common-law spouse, herein appellee Petronila Cervantes. Felix and Petronila got married only in 1962 or six years after the deed of donation was executed. Five months later, or September 13, 1962, Felix died. Thereafter, appellant Cornelia Matabuena, by reason of being the only sister and nearest collateral relative of the deceased, filed a claim over the property, by virtue of a an affidavit of self-adjudication executed by her in 1962, had the land declared in her name and paid the estate and inheritance taxes thereon. The lower court of Sorsogon declared that the donation was valid inasmuch as it was made at the time when Felix and Petronila were not yet spouses, rendering Article 133 of the Civil Code inapplicable. ISSUE: Whether or not the ban on donation between spouses during a marriage applies to a common-law relationship. HELD: While Article 133 of the Civil Code considers as void a donation between the spouses during marriage, policy consideration of the most exigent character as well as the dictates of morality requires that the same prohibition should apply to a common-law relationship. As stated in Buenaventura vs. Bautista (50 OG 3679, 1954), if the policy of the law is to prohibit donations in favor of the other consort and his descendants because of fear of undue and improper pressure and influence upon the donor, then there is every reason to apply the same prohibitive policy to persons living together as husband and wife without the benefit of nuptials. The lack of validity of the donation by the deceased to appellee does not necessarily result in appellant having exclusive right to the disputed property. As a widow, Cervantes is entitled to one-half of the inheritance, and the surviving sister to the other half. Article 1001, Civil Code: Should brothers and sisters or their children survive with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half. MEDINA VS COLLECTOR - The records show that on or about May 20, 1944, petitioning taxpayer Antonio Medina married Antonia Rodriguez. Before 1946, the spouses had neither property nor business of their own. Later, however, petitioner acquired forest, concessions in the municipalities of San Mariano and Palanan in the Province of Isabela. From 1946 to 1948, the logs cut and removed by the petitioner from his concessions were sold to different persons in Manila through his agent, Mariano Osorio. Some time in 1949, Antonia R. Medina, petitioner's wife, started to engage in business as a lumber dealer, and up to around 1952, petitioner sold to her almost all the logs produced in his San Mariano, concession. Mrs. Medina, In turn, sold in Manila the logs bought from her husband through the same agent, Mariano Osorio. The proceeds were, upon instructions from petitioner, either received by Osorio for petitioner or deposited by said agent in petitioner's current account with the Philippine National Bank. On the thesis that the sales made by petitioner to his wife were null and void pursuant to the provisions of Article 1490 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (formerly, Art. 1458, Civil Code of 1889), the Collector considered the sales made by Mrs. Medina as the petitioner's original sales taxable under Section 186 of the National Internal Revenue Code and, therefore, imposed a tax assessment on petitioner, calling for the payment of P4,553.54 as deficiency sales taxes and surcharges from 1949 to 1952. This same assessment of September 26, 1953 sought also the collection of another sum of P643.94 as deficiency sales tax and surcharge based on petitioner's quarterly returns from 1946 to 1952. - Contracts violative of the provisions of Article 1490 of the Civil Code are null and void (Uy Sui Pin vs. Cantollas, 70 Phil. 55; Uy Coque vs. Sioca 45 Phil. 43). Being void transactions, the sales made by the petitioner to his wife were correctly disregarded by the Collector in his tax assessments that considered as the taxable sales those made by the wife through the spouses' common agent, Mariano Osorio.

PHIL TRUST CORP VS ROLDAN -As guardian of the property of the minor Mariano L. Bernardo, the Philippine Trust Company filed in the Manila court of first instance a complaint to annul two contracts regarding 17 parcels of land: (a) sale thereof by Socorro Roldan, as guardian of said minor, to Fidel C. Ramos; and (b) sale thereof by Fidel C. Ramos to Socorro Roldan personally. The complaint likewise sought to annul a conveyance of four out of the said seventeen parcels by Socorro Roldan to Emilio Cruz.
Page | 6

The action rests on the proposition that the first two sales were in reality a sale by the guardian to herself therefore, null and void under Article 1459 of the Civil Code. As to the third conveyance, it is also ineffective, because Socorro Roldan had acquired no valid title to convey to Cruz. Again, supposing she knew the parcels were actually worth P17,000; then she agreed to sell them to Dr. Ramos at P14,700;and knowing the realtys value she offered him the next day P15,000 or P15,500, and got it. Will there be any doubt that she was recreant to her guardianship, and that her acquisition should be nullified? Even without proof that she had connived with Dr. Ramos. Remembering the general doctrine that guardianship is a trust of the highest order, and the trustee cannot be allowed to have any inducement to neglect his wards interest and in line with the courts suspicion whenever the guardian acquires the wards property 1 we have no hesitation to declare that in this case, in the eyes of the law, Socorro Roldan took by purchase her wards parcels thru Dr. Ramos, and that Article 1459 of the Civil Code applies.

- She acted it may be true without malice; may have been no previous agreement between her and Dr. Ramos to the effect that the latter would buy the lands for her. But the stubborn fact remains that she acquired her proteges properties, through her brother-in-law. That she planned to get them for herself at the time of selling them to Dr. Ramos, may be deduced from the very short time between the two sales (one week). The temptation which naturally besets a guardian so circumstanced, necessitates the annulment of the transaction, even if no actual collusion is proved (so hard to prove) between such guardian and the intermediate purchaser. This would uphold a sound principle of equity and justice. 2

- Hence, from both the legal and equitable standpoints these three sales should not be sustained: the first two for violation of article 1459 of the Civil Code; And the third because Socorro Roldan could pass no title to Emilio Cruz. The annulment carries with is (Article 1303 Civil Code) the obligation of Socorro Roldan to return the 17 parcels together with their fruits and the duty of the minor, through his guardian to repay P14,700 with legal interest.

RUBIAS VS BATILLER -One of the issues: (1) whether or not the contract of sale between appellant and his father-in-law, the late Francisco Militante over the property subject of Plan Psu-99791 was void because it was made when plaintiff was counsel of his father-in-law in a land registration case involving the property in dispute; - No error could be attributed either to the lower court's holding that the purchase by a lawyer of the property in litigation from his client is categorically prohibited by Article 1491, paragraph (5) of the Philippine Civil Code, reproduced supra; 6 and that consequently, plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation from his client (assuming that his client could sell the same since as already shown above, his client's claim to the property was defeated and rejected) was void and could produce no legal effect, by virtue of Article 1409, paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides that contracts "expressly prohibited or declared void by law' are "inexistent and that "(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived." The 1911 case of Wolfson vs. Estate of Martinez 7 relied upon by plaintiff as holding that a sale of property in litigation to the party litigant's lawyer "is not void but voidable at the election of the vendor" was correctly held by the lower court to have been superseded by the later 1929 case of Director of Lands vs. Abagat. 8 In this later case of Abagat, the Court expressly cited two antecedent cases involving the same transaction of purchase of property in litigation by the lawyer which was expressly declared invalid under Article 1459 of the Civil Code of Spain (of which Article 1491 of our Civil Code of the Philippines is the counterpart) upon challenge thereof not by the vendor-client but by the adverse parties against whom the lawyer was to enforce his rights as vendee thus acquired.

These two antecedent cases thus cited in Abagat clearly superseded (without so expressly stating the previous ruling in Wolfson: The spouses, Juan Soriano and Vicente Macaraeg, were the owners of twelve parcels of land. Vicenta Macaraeg died in November, 1909, leaving a large number of collateral heirs but no descendants. Litigation between the surviving husband, Juan Soriano, and the heirs of Vicenta immediately arose, and the herein appellant Sisenando Palarca acted as Soriano's lawyer. On May 2, 1918, Soriano executed a deed for the aforesaid twelve parcels of land in favor of Sisenando Palarca and on the following day, May 3, 1918, Palarca filed an application for the registration of the land in the deed. After hearing, the Court of First Instance declared that the deed was invalid by virtue of the Page | 7 provisions of article 1459 of the Civil Code, which prohibits lawyers and solicitors from purchasing property rights involved in any litigation in which they take part by virtue of their profession. The application for registration was consequently denied, and upon appeal by Palarca to the Supreme Court, the judgement of the lower court was affirmed by a decision promulgated November 16,1925. (G.R. No. 24329, Palarca vs. Director of Lands, not reported.) In the meantime cadastral case No. 30 of the Province of Tarlac was instituted, and on August 21, 1923, Eleuteria Macaraeg, as administratrix of the estate of Vicente Macaraeg, filed claims for the parcels in question. Buenaventura Lavitoria administrator of the estate of Juan Soriano, did likewise and so did Sisenando Palarca. In a decision dated June 21, 1927, the Court of First Instance, Judge Carballo presiding, rendered judgment in favor of Palarea and ordered the registration of the land in his name. Upon appeal to this court by the administration of the estates of Juan Soriano and Vicente Macaraeg, the judgment of the court below was reversed and the land adjudicated to the two estates as conjugal property of the deceased spouses. (G.R. No. 28226, Director of Lands vs. Abagat, promulgated May 21, 1928, not reported.) 9 In the very case of Abagat itself, the Court, again affirming the invalidity and nullity of the lawyer's purchase of the land in litigation from his client, ordered the issuance of a writ of possession for the return of the land by the lawyer to the adverse parties without reimbursement of the price paid by him and other expenses, and ruled that "the appellant Palarca is a lawyer and is presumed to know the law. He must, therefore, from the beginning, have been well aware of the defect in his title and is, consequently, a possessor in bad faith." As already stated, Wolfson and Abagat were decided with relation to Article 1459 of the Civil Code of Spain then adopted here, until it was superseded on August 30, 1950 by the Civil Code of the Philippines whose counterpart provision is Article 1491. Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six paragraphs certain persons, by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and "even at a public or judicial auction," as follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3) administrators; (4) public officers and employees; judicial officers and employees, prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6) others especially disqualified by law. In Wolfson which involved the sale and assignment of a money judgment by the client to the lawyer, Wolfson, whose right to so purchase the judgment was being challenged by the judgment debtor, the Court, through Justice Moreland, then expressly reserved decision on "whether or not the judgment in question actually falls within the prohibition of the article" and held only that the sale's "voidability can not be asserted by one not a party to the transaction or his representative," citing from Manresa 10 that "(C)onsidering the question from the point of view of the civil law, the view taken by the code, we must limit ourselves to classifying as void all acts done contrary to the express prohibition of the statute. Now then: As the code does not recognize such nullity by the mere operation of law, the nullity of the acts hereinbefore referred to must be asserted by the person having the necessary legal capacity to do so and decreed by a competent court." The reason thus given by Manresa in considering such prohibited acquisitions under Article 1459 of the Spanish Civil Code as merely voidable at the instance and option of the vendor and not void "that the Code does not recognize such nullity de pleno derecho" is no longer true and applicable to our own Philippine Civil Code which does recognize the absolute nullity of contracts "whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy" or which are "expressly prohibited or declared void by law" and declares such contracts "inexistent and void from the beginning." 12

CHAPTER III: SUBJECT MATTER ATILANO VS ATILANO The logic and common sense of the situation lean heavily in favor of the defendants' contention. When one sells or buys real property a piece of land, for example one sells or buys the property as he sees it, in its actual setting and by its physical metes and bounds, and not by the mere lot number assigned to it in the certificate of title. In the particular case before us, the portion correctly referred Page | 8 to as lot No. 535-A was already in the possession of the vendee, Eulogio Atilano II, who had constructed his residence therein, even before the sale in his favor even before the subdivision of the entire lot No. 535 at the instance of its owner, Eulogio Atillano I. In like manner the latter had his house on the portion correctly identified, after the subdivision, as lot No. 535-E, even adding to the area thereof by purchasing a portion of an adjoining property belonging to a different owner. The two brothers continued in possession of the respective portions the rest of their lives, obviously ignorant of the initial mistake in the designation of the lot subject of the 1920 until 1959, when the mistake was discovered for the first time.

- The real issue here is not adverse possession, but the real intention of the parties to that sale. From all the facts and circumstances we are convinced that the object thereof, as intended and understood by the parties, was that specific portion where the vendee was then already residing, where he reconstructed his house at the end of the war, and where his heirs, the plaintiffs herein, continued to reside thereafter: namely, lot No. 535-A; and that its designation as lot No. 535-E in the deed of sale was simple mistake in the drafting of the document. The mistake did not vitiate the consent of the parties, or affect the validity and binding effect of the contract between them. The new Civil Code provides a remedy for such a situation by means of reformation of the instrument. This remedy is available when, there having been a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract, their true intention is not expressed in the instrument purporting to embody the agreement by reason of mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct on accident (Art. 1359, et seq.) In this case, the deed of sale executed in 1920 need no longer reformed. The parties have retained possession of their respective properties conformably to the real intention of the parties to that sale, and all they should do is to execute mutual deeds of conveyance.

MARTINEZ VS CA The requisites for considering a contract of sale with a right of repurchase as an equitable mortgage are (1) that the parties entered into a contract denominated as a contract of sale and (2) that their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage. 32 A contract of sale with right to repurchase gives rise to the presumption that it is an equitable mortgage in any of the following cases: (1) when the price of a sale with a right to repurchase is unusually inadequate; (2) when the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise; (3) when, upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase, another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed; (4) when the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price; (5) when the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold; (6) in any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.33 In case of doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be construed as an equitable mortgage.34 In this case, the following circumstances indicate that the private respondents intended the transaction to be an equitable mortgage and not a contract of sale: (1) Private respondents Veneracion never took actual possession of the three lots; (2) Private respondents De la Paz remained in possession of the Melencio lot which was co-owned by them and where they resided; (3) During the period between the first sale and the second sale to private respondents Veneracion, they never made any effort to take possession of the properties; and (4) when the period of redemption had expired and private respondents Veneracion were informed by the De la Pazes that they are offering the lots for sale to another person for P200,000.00, they never objected. To the contrary, they offered to purchase the two lots for P180,000.00 when they found that a certain Mr. Tecson was prepared to purchase it for the same amount. Thus, it is clear from these circumstances that both private respondents never intended the first sale to be a contract of sale, but merely that of mortgage to secure a debt of P150,000.00. With regard to the second sale, which is the true contract of sale between the parties, it should be noted that this Court in several cases, 35 has ruled that a purchaser who is aware of facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard cannot turn a blind eye and later claim that he acted in good faith. Private respondent Reynaldo himself admitted during the pre-trial conference in the MTC in Civil Case No. 9523 (for ejectment) that petitioner was already in possession of the property in dispute at the time the second Deed of Sale was executed on June 1, 1983 and registered on March 4, 1984. He, therefore, knew that there were already occupants on the property as early as 1981. The fact that there are persons, other than the vendors, in actual possession of the disputed lot should have put private respondents on inquiry as to the nature of petitioner's right over the property. But he never talked to petitioner to verify the nature of his right. He merely

relied on the assurance of private respondent Godofredo De la Paz, who was not even the owner of the lot in question, that he would take care of the matter. This does not meet the standard of good faith. 3. The appellate court's reliance on Arts. 1357 and 1358 of the Civil Code to determine private respondents Veneracion's lack of knowledge of petitioner's ownership of the disputed lot is erroneous. Art. 135736 and Art. 1358,37 in relation to Art. 1403(2)38 of the Civil Code, requires that the sale of real property must be in writing for it to Page | 9 be enforceable. It need not be notarized. If the sale has not been put in writing, either of the contracting parties can compel the other to observe such requirement.39 This is what petitioner did when he repeatedly demanded that a Deed of Absolute Sale be executed in his favor by private respondents De la Paz. There is nothing in the above provisions which require that a contract of sale of realty must be executed in a public document. In any event, it has been shown that private respondents Veneracion had knowledge of facts which would put them on inquiry as to the nature of petitioner's occupancy of the disputed lot.

MELLIZA VS CITY OF ILOILO - At the outset, it is well to mark that the issue is whether or not the conveyance by Juliana Melliza to Iloilo municipality included that portion of Lot 1214 known as Lot 1214-B. If not, then the same was included, in the instrument subsequently executed by Juliana Melliza of her remaining interest in Lot 1214 to Remedios Sian Villanueva, who in turn sold what she thereunder had acquired, to Pio Sian Melliza. It should be stressed, also, that the sale to Remedios Sian Villanueva from which Pio Sian Melliza derived title did not specifically designate Lot 1214-B, but only such portions of Lot 1214 as were not included in the previous sale to Iloilo municipality (Stipulation of Facts, par. 5, Record on Appeal, p. 23). And thus, if said Lot 1214-B had been included in the prior conveyance to Iloilo municipality, then it was excluded from the sale to Remedios Sian Villanueva and, later, to Pio Sian Melliza. The point at issue here is then the true intention of the parties as to the object of the public instrument Exhibit "D". Said issue revolves on the paragraph of the public instrument aforequoted and its purpose, i.e., whether it was intended merely to further describe the lots already specifically mentioned, or whether it was intended to cover other lots not yet specifically mentioned. - First of all, there is no question that the paramount intention of the parties was to provide Iloilo municipality with lots sufficient or adequate in area for the construction of the Iloilo City hall site, with its avenues and parks. For this matter, a previous donation for this purpose between the same parties was revoked by them, because of inadequacy of the area of the lot donated. Secondly, reading the public instrument in toto, with special reference to the paragraphs describing the lots included in the sale, shows that said instrument describes four parcels of land by their lot numbers and area; and then it goes on to further describe, not only those lots already mentioned, but the lots object of the sale, by stating that said lots are the ones needed for the construction of the city hall site, avenues and parks according to the Arellano plan. If the parties intended merely to cover the specified lots Lots 2, 5, 1214-C and 1214D, there would scarcely have been any need for the next paragraph, since these lots are already plainly and very clearly described by their respective lot number and area. Said next paragraph does not really add to the clear description that was already given to them in the previous one. It is therefore the more reasonable interpretation, to view it as describing those other portions of land contiguous to the lots aforementioned that, by reference to the Arellano plan, will be found needed for the purpose at hand, the construction of the city hall site. Appellant however challenges this view on the ground that the description of said other lots in the aforequoted second paragraph of the public instrument would thereby be legally insufficient, because the object would allegedly not be determinate as required by law. Such contention fails on several counts. The requirement of the law that a sale must have for its object a determinate thing, is fulfilled as long as, at the time the contract is entered into, the object of the sale is capable of being made determinate without the necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties (Art. 1273, old Civil Code; Art. 1460, New Civil Code). The specific mention of some of the lots plus the statement that the lots object of the sale are the ones needed for city hall site, avenues and parks, according to the Arellano plan, sufficiently provides a basis, as of the time of the execution of the contract, for rendering determinate said lots without the need of a new and further agreement of the parties.

PICHEL VS ALONZO - On August 14, 1968, plaintiff and his wife sold to defendant an the fruits of the coconut trees which may be harvested in the land in question for the period, September 15, 1968 to January 1, 1976, in consideration of P4,200.00. - The lower court rendered its decision now under review, holding that although the agreement in question is denominated by the parties as a deed of sale of fruits of the coconut trees found in the vendor's land, it actually is, for all legal intents and purposes, a contract of lease of Page | 10 the land itself. According to the Court: ... the sale aforestated has given defendant complete control and enjoyment of the improvements of the land. That the contract is consensual; that its purpose is to allow the enjoyment or use of a thing; that it is onerous because rent or price certain is stipulated; and that the enjoyment or use of the thing certain is stipulated to be for a certain and definite period of time, are characteristics which admit of no other conclusion. ... The provisions of the contract itself and its characteristics govern its nature. 4 The Court, therefore, concluded that the deed of sale in question is an encumbrance prohibited by Republic Act No. 477 - Simply and directly stated, the "Deed of Sale dated August 14, 1968 is precisely what it purports to be. It is a document evidencing the agreement of herein parties for the sale of coconut fruits of Lot No. 21, and not for the lease of the land itself as found by the lower Court. In clear and express terms, the document defines the object of the contract thus: "the herein sale of the coconut fruits are for an the fruits on the aforementioned parcel of land during the years ...(from) SEPTEMBER 15, 1968; up to JANUARY 1, 1976." Moreover, as petitioner correctly asserts, the document in question expresses a valid contract of sale. It has the essential elements of a contract of sale as defined under Article 1485 of the New Civil Code which provides thus: Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. The subject matter of the contract of sale in question are the fruits of the coconut trees on the land during the years from September 15, 1968 up to January 1, 1976, which subject matter is a determinate thing. Under Article 1461 of the New Civil Code, things having a potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale. And in Sibal vs. Valdez, 50 Phil. 512, pending crops which have potential existence may be the subject matter of the sale. Here, - Mr. Mechem says that a valid sale may be made of a thing, which though not yet actually in existence, is reasonably certain to come into existence as the natural increment or usual incident of something already in existence, and then belonging to the vendor, and the title will vest in the buyer the moment the thing comes into existence. (Emerson vs. European Railway Co., 67 Me., 387; Cutting vs. Packers Exchange, 21 Am. St. Rep. 63) Things of this nature are said to have a potential existence. A man may sell property of which he is potentially and not actually possess. He may make a valid sale of the wine that a vineyard is expected to produce; or the grain a field may grow in a given time; or the milk a cow may yield during the coming year; or the wool that shall thereafter grow upon sheep; or what may be taken at the next case of a fisherman's net; or fruits to grow; or young animals not yet in existence; or the goodwill of a trade and the like. The thing sold, however, must be specific and Identified. They must be also owned at the time by the vendor. (Hull vs. Hull 48 Conn. 250 (40 Am. Rep., 165) (pp. 522-523).

YU TEK VS GONZALES - The basis of this action is a written contract, that defendant acknowledges receipt of the sum of P3,000 from plaintiff and that in consideration of said sum the former obligates himself to deliver to the latter 600 piculs of sugar of the first and second grade, according to the result of the polarization, within the period of three months, beginning on the 1st day of January, 1912, and ending on the 31st day of March of the same year, 1912; that in case defendant does not deliver to plaintiff the 600 piculs of sugar within the period of three months, referred to in the second paragraph of this document, this contract will be rescinded and the said defendant will then be obligated to return to plaintiff the P3,000 received and also the sum of P1,200 by way of indemnity for loss and damages.

Plaintiff proved that no sugar had been delivered to it under this contract nor had it been able to recover the P3,000. Plaintiff prayed for judgment for the P3,000 and, in addition, for P1,200 under paragraph 4, supra. Judgment was rendered for P3,000 only, and from this judgment both parties appealed. -In the case at bar, it is sought to show that the sugar was to be obtained exclusively from the crop raised by the defendant. There is no clause in the written contract which even remotely suggests such a condition. The defendant undertook to deliver a specified quantity of sugar within a specified time. The contract placed no restriction upon the defendant in the matter of obtaining the sugar. He was equally at Page | 11 liberty to purchase it on the market or raise it himself. It may be true that defendant owned a plantation and expected to raise the sugar himself, but he did not limit his obligation to his own crop of sugar. Our conclusion is that the condition which the defendant seeks to add to the contract by parol evidence cannot be considered. The rights of the parties must be determined by the writing itself. The second contention of the defendant arises from the first. He assumes that the contract was limited to the sugar he might raise upon his own plantation; that the contract represented a perfected sale; and that by failure of his crop he was relieved from complying with his undertaking by loss of the thing due. (Arts. 1452, 1096, and 1182, Civil Code.) This argument is faulty in assuming that there was a perfected sale. Article 1450 defines a perfected sale as follows: The sale shall be perfected between vendor and vendee and shall be binding on both of them, if they have agreed upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price, even when neither has been delivered. Article 1452 reads: "The injury to or the profit of the thing sold shall, after the contract has been perfected, be governed by the provisions of articles 1096 and 1182." This court has consistently held that there is a perfected sale with regard to the "thing" whenever the article of sale has been physically segregated from all other articles. - Thus, a particular tobacco factory with its contents was held sold under a contract which did not provide for either delivery of the price or of the thing until a future time. McCullough vs. Aenlle and Co. (3 Phil. Rep., 295). Quite similar was the recent case of Barretto vs. Santa Marina (26 Phil. Rep., 200) where specified shares of stock in a tobacco factory were held sold by a contract which deferred delivery of both the price and the stock until the latter had been appraised by an inventory of the entire assets of the company. In Borromeo vs. Franco (5 Phil. Rep., 49) a sale of a specific house was held perfected between the vendor and vendee, although the delivery of the price was withheld until the necessary documents of ownership were prepared by the vendee. In Tan Leonco vs. Go Inqui (8 Phil. Rep., 531) the plaintiff had delivered a quantity of hemp into the warehouse of the defendant. The defendant drew a bill of exchange in the sum of P800, representing the price which had been agreed upon for the hemp thus delivered. Prior to the presentation of the bill for payment, the hemp was destroyed. Whereupon, the defendant suspended payment of the bill. It was held that the hemp having been already delivered, the title had passed and the loss was the vendee's. It is our purpose to distinguish the case at bar from all these cases. In the case at bar the undertaking of the defendant was to sell to the plaintiff 600 piculs of sugar of the first and second classes. Was this an agreement upon the "thing" which was the object of the contract within the meaning of article 1450, supra? Sugar is one of the staple commodities of this country. For the purpose of sale its bulk is weighed, the customary unit of weight being denominated a "picul." There was no delivery under the contract. Now, if called upon to designate the article sold, it is clear that the defendant could only say that it was "sugar." He could only use this generic name for the thing sold. There was no "appropriation" of any particular lot of sugar. Neither party could point to any specific quantity of sugar and say: "This is the article which was the subject of our contract." How different is this from the contracts discussed in the cases referred to above! In the McCullough case, for instance, the tobacco factory which the parties dealt with was specifically pointed out and distinguished from all other tobacco factories. So, in the Barretto case, the particular shares of stock which the parties desired to transfer were capable of designation. In the Tan Leonco case, where a quantity of hemp was the subject of the contract, it was shown that that quantity had been deposited in a specific warehouse, and thus set apart and distinguished from all other hemp. A number of cases have been decided in the State of Louisiana, where the civil law prevails, which confirm our position. Perhaps the latest is Witt Shoe Co. vs. Seegars and Co. (122 La., 145; 47 Sou., 444). In this case a contract was entered into by a traveling salesman for a quantity of shoes, the sales having been made by sample. The court said of this contract: But it is wholly immaterial, for the purpose of the main question, whether Mitchell was authorized to make a definite contract of sale or not, since the only contract that he was in a position to make was an agreement to sell or an executory contract of sale. He says that plaintiff sends out 375 samples of shoes, and as he was offering to sell by sample shoes, part of which had not been manufactured and the rest of which were incorporated in plaintiff's stock in Lynchburg, Va., it was impossible that he and Seegars and Co. should at that time have

agreed upon the specific objects, the title to which was to pass, and hence there could have been no sale. He and Seegars and Co. might have agreed, and did (in effect ) agree, that the identification of the objects and their appropriation to the contract necessary to make a sale should thereafter be made by the plaintiff, acting for itself and for Seegars and Co., and the legend printed in red ink on plaintiff's billheads ("Our responsibility ceases when we take transportation Co's. receipt `In good order'" indicates plaintiff's idea of the moment at which such identification and appropriation would become effective. The question presented was carefully considered in the case of State vs. Shields, et al. (110 La., 547, 34 Sou., 673) (in which it was absolutely necessary that it should be decided), and it was there held that in receiving an order for a quantity of goods, of a kind and at a price agreed on, to be supplied from a general stock, warehoused at another place, the agent Page | 12 receiving the order merely enters into an executory contract for the sale of the goods, which does not divest or transfer the title of any determinate object, and which becomes effective for that purpose only when specific goods are thereafter appropriated to the contract; and, in the absence of a more specific agreement on the subject, that such appropriated takes place only when the goods as ordered are delivered to the public carriers at the place from which they are to be shipped, consigned to the person by whom the order is given, at which time and place, therefore, the sale is perfected and the title passes. This case and State vs. Shields, referred to in the above quotation are amply illustrative of the position taken by the Louisiana court on the question before us. But we cannot refrain from referring to the case of Larue and Prevost vs. Rugely, Blair and Co. (10 La. Ann., 242) which is summarized by the court itself in the Shields case as follows: . . . It appears that the defendants had made a contract for the sale, by weight, of a lot of cotton, had received $3,000 on account of the price, and had given an order for its delivery, which had been presented to the purchaser, and recognized by the press in which the cotton was stored, but that the cotton had been destroyed by fire before it was weighed. It was held that it was still at the risk of the seller, and that the buyer was entitled to recover the $3,000 paid on account of the price. We conclude that the contract in the case at bar was merely an executory agreement; a promise of sale and not a sale. At there was no perfected sale, it is clear that articles 1452, 1096, and 1182 are not applicable. The defendant having defaulted in his engagement, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the P3,000 which it advanced to the defendant, and this portion of the judgment appealed from must therefore be affirmed.

CHAPTER IV : PRICE MAPALO VS MAPALO -The spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple illiterate farmers, were registered owners, with Torrens title certificate O.C.T. No. 46503, of a 1,635-square-meter residential land in Manaoag, Pangasinan. Said spouses-owners, out of love and affection for Maximo Mapalo a brother of Miguel who was about to get married decided to donate the eastern half of the land to him. O.C.T. No. 46503 Page | 13 was delivered. As a result, however, they were deceived into signing, on October 15, 1936, a deed of absolute sale over the entire land in his favor. Their signatures thereto were procured by fraud, that is, they were made to believe by Maximo Mapalo and by the attorney who acted as notary public who "translated" the document, that the same was a deed of donation in Maximo's favor covering one-half (the eastern half) of their land. Although the document of sale stated a consideration of Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos, the aforesaid spouses did not receive anything of value for the land. - The Narcisos appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its decision on May 28, 1963, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, solely on the ground that the consent of the Mapalo spouses to the deed of sale of 1936 having been obtained by fraud, the same was voidable, not void ab initio, and, therefore, the action to annul the same, within four years from notice of the fraud, had long prescribed. It reckoned said notice of the fraud from the date of registration of the sale on March 15, 1938. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals are therefore unanimous that the spouses Mapalo and Quiba were definitely the victims of fraud. It was only on prescription that they lost in the Court of Appeals. From said decision of the Court of Appeals, the Mapalo spouses appealed to this Court. And here appellants press the contention that the document dated October 15, 1936, purporting to sell the entire land in favor of Maximo Mapalo, is void, not merely voidable, as to the western portion of the land for being absolutely simulated or fictitious. Starting with fundamentals, under the Civil Code, either the old or the new, for a contract to exist at all, three essential requisites must concur: (1) consent, (2) object, and (3) cause or consideration. 1 The Court of Appeals is right in that the element of consent is present as to the deed of sale of October 15, 1936. For consent was admittedly given, albeit obtained by fraud. Accordingly, said consent, although defective, did exist. In such case, the defect in the consent would provide a ground for annulment of a voidable contract, not a reason for nullity ab initio. The parties are agreed that the second element of object is likewise present in the deed of October 15, 1936, namely, the parcel of land subject matter of the same. Not so, however, as to the third element of cause or consideration. And on this point the decision of the Court of Appeals is silent. -It is reduced, then, to the question whether there was an onerous conveyance of ownership, that is, a sale, by virtue of said deed of October 15, 1936, with respect to said western portion. Specifically, was there a cause or consideration to support the existence of a contrary of sale? The rule under the Civil Code, again be it the old or the new, is that contracts without a cause or consideration produce no effect whatsoever.2 Nonetheless, under the Old Civil Code, the statement of a false consideration renders the contract voidable, unless it is proven that it is supported by another real and licit consideration.3 And it is further provided by the Old Civil Code that the action for annulment of a contract on the ground of falsity of consideration shall last four years, the term to run from the date of the consummation of the contract.4 Accordingly, since the deed of sale of 1936 is governed by the Old Civil Code, it should be asked whether its case is one wherein there is no consideration, or one with a statement of a false consideration. If the former, it is void and inexistent; if the latter, only voidable, under the Old Civil Code. As observed earlier, the deed of sale of 1936 stated that it had for its consideration Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos. In fact, however, said consideration was totally absent. The problem, therefore, is whether a deed which states a consideration that in fact did not exist, is a contract without consideration, and therefore void ab initio, or a contract with a false consideration, and therefore, at least under the Old Civil Code, voidable. According to Manresa, what is meant by a contract that states a false consideration is one that has in fact a real consideration but the same is not the one stated in the document.

- From the foregoing it can be seen that where, as in this case, there was in fact no consideration, the statement of one in the deed will not suffice to bring it under the rule of Article 1276 of the Old Civil Code as stating a false consideration. In our view, therefore, the ruling of this Court in Ocejo, Perez & Co. vs. Flores, 40 Phil. 921, is squarely applicable herein. In that case we ruled that a contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect whatsoever where the same is without cause or consideration in that the purchase price which appears thereon as paid has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.
Page | 14

ONG VS ONG - Records show that on February 25, 1976 Imelda Ong, for and in consideration of One (P1.00) Peso and other valuable considerations, executed in favor of private respondent Sandra Maruzzo, then a minor, a Quitclaim Deed whereby she transferred, released, assigned and forever quit-claimed to Sandra Maruzzo, her heirs and assigns, all her rights, title, interest and participation in the ONE-HALF () undivided portion of the parcel of land. - A careful perusal of the subject deed reveals that the conveyance of the one- half () undivided portion of the above-described property was for and in consideration of the One (P 1.00) Peso and the other valuable considerations (emphasis supplied) paid by private respondent Sandra Maruzzo through her representative, Alfredo Ong, to petitioner Imelda Ong. Stated differently, the cause or consideration is not the One (P1.00) Peso alone but also the other valuable considerations. As aptly stated by the Appellate Court... although the cause is not stated in the contract it is presumed that it is existing unless the debtor proves the contrary (Article 1354 of the Civil Code). One of the disputable presumptions is that there is a sufficient cause of the contract (Section 5, (r), Rule 131, Rules of Court). It is a legal presumption of sufficient cause or consideration supporting a contract even if such cause is not stated therein (Article 1354, New Civil Code of the Philippines.) This presumption cannot be overcome by a simple assertion of lack of consideration especially when the contract itself states that consideration was given, and the same has been reduced into a public instrument with all due formalities and solemnities. To overcome the presumption of consideration the alleged lack of consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence in a proper action. (Samanilla vs, Cajucom, et al., 107 Phil. 432). The execution of a deed purporting to convey ownership of a realty is in itself prima facie evidence of the existence of a valuable consideration, the party alleging lack of consideration has the burden of proving such allegation. (Caballero, et al. vs. Caballero, et al., (CA), 45 O.G. 2536). Moreover, even granting that the Quitclaim deed in question is a donation, Article 741 of the Civil Code provides that the requirement of the acceptance of the donation in favor of minor by parents of legal representatives applies only to onerous and conditional donations where the donation may have to assume certain charges or burdens (Article 726, Civil Code). The acceptance by a legal guardian of a simple or pure donation does not seem to be necessary (Perez vs. Calingo, CA-40 O.G. 53). Thus, Supreme Court ruled in Kapunan vs. Casilan and Court of Appeals, (109 Phil. 889) that the donation to an incapacitated donee does not need the acceptance by the lawful representative if said donation does not contain any condition. In simple and pure donation, the formal acceptance is not important for the donor requires no right to be protected and the donee neither undertakes to do anything nor assumes any obligation. The Quitclaim now in question does not impose any condition.

BAGNAS VS CA - On April 3, 1964, the private respondents, themselves collateral relatives of Mateum though more remote in degree than the petitioners, registered with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite two deeds of sale purportedly executed by Mateum in their (respondents') favor covering ten parcels of land. Both deeds were in Tagalog, save for the English descriptions of the lands conveyed under one of them; and each recited the reconsideration of the sale to be" ... halagang ISANG PISO (Pl.00), salaping Pilipino, at mga naipaglingkod, ipinaglilingkod sa aking kapakanan ..." ("the sum of ONE PESO Pl.00), Philippine Currency, and services rendered, being rendered and to be rendered for my benefit"). - Without necessarily according all these assertions its full concurrence, but upon the consideration alone that the apparent gross, not to say enormous, disproportion between the stipulated price (in each deed) of P l.00 plus unspecified and unquantified services and the undisputably valuable real estate allegedly sold worth at least P10,500.00 going only by assessments for tax purposes which, it is well-

known, are notoriously low indicators of actual value plainly and unquestionably demonstrates that they state a false and fictitious consideration, and no other true and lawful cause having been shown, the Court finds both said deeds, insofar as they purport to be sales, not merely voidable, but void ab initio. Neither can the validity of said conveyances be defended on the theory that their true causa is the liberality of the transferor and they may be considered in reality donations because the law also prescribes that donations of immovable property, to be valid, must be made and accepted in a public instrument, and it is not denied by the respondents that there has been no such acceptance which they claim is not Page | 15 required. The transfers in question being void, it follows as a necessary consequence and conformably to the concurring opinion in Armentia, with which the Court fully agrees, that the properties purportedly conveyed remained part of the estate of Hilario Mateum, said transfers notwithstanding, recoverable by his intestate heirs, the petitioners herein, whose status as such is not challenged. MORALES VS CA Morales maintains that the sale by Montinola to Reyes and that later made by Reyes to the Abellas are "suspicious"; that, consequently, Reyes and the Abellas were not purchasers in good faith and for value; and that these two (2) premises, in turn, lead to the conclusion that both sales are "null and void." This syllogism is obviously faulty. The major premise thereof is based upon the fact that the consideration stated in the deeds of sale in favor of Reyes and the Abellas is P1.00. It is not unusual, however, in deeds of conveyance adhering to the Anglo-Saxon practice of stating that the consideration given is the sum of P1.00, although the actual consideration may have been much more. Moreover, assuming that said consideration of P1.00 is suspicious, this circumstance, alone, does not necessarily justify the inference that Reyes and the Abellas were not purchasers in good faith and for value. Neither does this inference warrant the conclusion that the sales were null and void ab initio. Indeed, bad faith and inadequacy of the monetary consideration do not render a conveyance inexistent, for the assignor's liberality may be sufficient cause for a valid contract , whereas fraud or bad faith may render either rescissible or voidable although valid until annulled, a contract concerning an object certain, entered into with a cause and with the consent of the contracting parties, as in the case at bar. What is more, the aforementioned conveyance may not be annulled, in the case at bar, inasmuch as Reyes and the Abellas are not parties therein.

REPUBLIC VS PHIL RESOURCES CORP - Petitioner ardently claims that the reason behind its motion to intervene is the desire to protect its rights and interests over some materials purportedly belonging to it; that said material were unauthorizedly and illegally assigned and delivered to the Bureau of Prisons by petitioning corporation's president Macario Apostol in payment of the latter's personal accounts with the said entity; and that the Bureau of Prisons refused to return said materials despite petitioner's demands to do so. - Respondents, on the other hand, assert that the subject matter of the original litigation is a sum of money allegedly due to the Bureau of Prisons from Macario Apostol and not the goods or the materials reportedly turned over by Apostol as payment of his private debts to the Bureau of Prisons and the recovery of which is sought by the petitioner; and that for this reason, petitioner has no legal interest in the very subject matter in litigation as to entitle it to intervene. We find no merit in respondents' contention. It is true that the very subject matter of the original case is a sum of money. But it is likewise true as borne out by the records, that the materials purportedly belonging to the petitioner corporation have been assessed and evaluated and their price equivalent in terms of money have been determined; and that said materials for whatever price they have been assigned by defendant now respondent Apostol as tokens of payment of his private debts with the Bureau of Prisons. In view of these considerations, it becomes enormously plain in the event the respondent judge decides to credit Macario Apostol with the value of the goods delivered by the latter to the Bureau of Prisons, the petitioner corporation stands to be adversely affected by such judgment. The conclusion, therefore, is inescapable that the petitioner possesses a legal interest in the matter in litigation and that such interest is of an actual, material, direct and immediate nature as to entitle petitioner to intervene. - The Government argues that "Price . . . is always paid in terms of money and the supposed payment being in kind, it is no payment at all, "citing Article 1458 of the new Civil Code. However, the same Article provides that the purchaser may pay "a price certain in money or its equivalent," which means that they meant of the price need not be in money. Whether the G.I. sheets, black sheets, M. S. Plates, round bars and G. I. pipes claimed by the respondent corporation to belong to it and delivered to the Bureau of Prison by Macario Apostol in payment of his account is sufficient payment therefore, is for the court to pass upon and decide after hearing all the parties in the case. Should the trial court hold that it is as to credit Apostol with the value or price of the materials delivered by him, certainly the herein respondent corporation would be affected adversely if its claim of ownership of such sheets, plates, bars and pipes is true.

TOYOTA SHAW VS CA At the heart of the present controversy is the document marked Exhibit "A" 1 for the private respondent, which was signed by a sales representative of Toyota Shaw, Inc. named Popong Bernardo. The document reads as follows:
Page | 16

4 June 1989 AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR. SOSA & POPONG BERNARDO OF TOYOTA SHAW, INC. 1. 2. 3. all necessary documents will be submitted to TOYOTA SHAW, INC. (POPONG BERNARDO) a week after, upon arrival of Mr. Sosa from the Province (Marinduque) where the unit will be used on the 19th of June. the downpayment of P100,000.00 will be paid by Mr. Sosa on June 15, 1989. the TOYOTA SHAW, INC. LITE ACE yellow, will be pick-up [sic] and released by TOYOTA SHAW, INC. on the 17th of June at 10 a.m. Very truly yours, (Sgd.) POPONG BERNARDO. Was this document, executed and signed by the petitioner's sales representative, a perfected contract of sale, binding upon the petitioner, breach of which would entitle the private respondent to damages and attorney's fees? Exhibit "A" is NOT a perfected contract of sale. Article 1458 of the Civil Code defines a contract of sale as follows: Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. and Article 1475 specifically provides when it is deemed perfected: Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. What is clear from Exhibit "A" is not what the trial court and the Court of Appeals appear to see. It is not a contract of sale. No obligation on the part of Toyota to transfer ownership of a determinate thing to Sosa and no correlative obligation on the part of the latter to pay therefor a price certain appears therein. The provision on the downpayment of P100,000.00 made no specific reference to a sale of a vehicle. If it was intended for a contract of sale, it could only refer to a sale on installment basis, as the VSP executed the following day confirmed. But nothing was mentioned about the full purchase price and the manner the installments were to be paid. This Court had already ruled that a definite agreement on the manner of payment of the price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. 18 This is so because the agreement as to the manner of payment goes into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price. Definiteness as to the price is an essential element of a binding agreement to sell personal property. 19 Moreover, Exhibit "A" shows the absence of a meeting of minds between Toyota and Sosa. For one thing, Sosa did not even sign it. For another, Sosa was well aware from its title, written in bold letters, viz., AGREEMENTS BETWEEN MR. SOSA & POPONG BERNARDO OF TOYOTA SHAW, INC. that he was not dealing with Toyota but with Popong Bernardo and that the latter did not misrepresent that he had the authority to sell any Toyota vehicle. He knew that Bernardo was only a sales representative of Toyota and hence a mere agent of the latter. It was incumbent upon Sosa to act with ordinary prudence and reasonable diligence to know the extent of Bernardo's authority as an

agent 20 in respect of contracts to sell Toyota's vehicles. A person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. 21 At the most, Exhibit "A" may be considered as part of the initial phase of the generation or negotiation stage of a contract of sale. There are three stages in the contract of sale, namely: (a) preparation, conception, or generation, which is the period of negotiation and bargaining, ending at the moment of agreement of Page | 17 the parties; (b) perfection or birth of the contract, which is the moment when the parties come to agree on the terms of the contract; and (c) consummation or death, which is the fulfillment or performance of the terms agreed upon in the contract. 22 The second phase of the generation or negotiation stage in this case was the execution of the VSP. It must be emphasized that thereunder, the downpayment of the purchase price was P53,148.00 while the balance to be paid on installment should be financed by B.A. Finance Corporation. It is, of course, to be assumed that B.A. Finance Corp. was acceptable to Toyota, otherwise it should not have mentioned B.A. Finance in the VSP. Accordingly, in a sale on installment basis which is financed by a financing company, three parties are thus involved: the buyer who executes a note or notes for the unpaid balance of the price of the thing purchased on installment, the seller who assigns the notes or discounts them with a financing company, and the financing company which is subrogated in the place of the seller, as the creditor of the installment buyer. 24 Since B.A. Finance did not approve Sosa's application, there was then no meeting of minds on the sale on installment basis.

VELASCO VS CA - This is a suit for specific performance filed by Lorenzo Velasco against the Magdalena Estate, Inc. on the allegation that on November 29, 1962 the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a contract of sale (Annex A of the complaint) by virtue of which the defendant offered to sell the plaintiff and the plaintiff in turn agreed to buy a parcel of land with an area of 2,059 square meters for the total purchase price of P100,000.00. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the agreement was that the plaintiff was to give a down payment of P10,000.00 to be followed by P20,000.00 and the balance of P70,000.00 would be paid in installments, the equal monthly amortization of which was to be determined as soon as the P30,000.00 down payment had been completed. It is further alleged that the plaintiff paid down payment of P10,000.00 on November 29, 1962 as per receipt No. 207848 (Exh. "A")and that when on January 8, 1964 he tendered to the defendant the payment of the additional P20,000.00 to complete the P30,000.00 the defendant refused to accept and that eventually it likewise refused to execute a formal deed of sale obviously agreed upon. The plaintiff demands P25,000.00 exemplary damages, P2,000.00 actual damages and P7,000.00 attorney's fees. The defendant, in its Answer, denies that it has had any direct dealings, much less, contractual relations with the plaintiff regarding the property in question, and contends that the alleged contract described in the document attached to the complaint as Annex A is entirely unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; that the truth of the matter is that a portion of the property in question was being leased by a certain Socorro Velasco who, on November 29, 1962, went to the office of the defendant indicated her desire to purchase the lot; that the defendant indicated its willingness to sell the property to her at the price of P100,000.00 under the condition that a down payment of P30,000.00 be made, P20,000.00 of which was to be paid on November 31, 1962, and that the balance of P70,000.00 including interest a 9% per annum was to be paid on installments for a period of ten years at the rate of P5,381.32 on June 30 and December of every year until the same shall have been fully paid; that on November 29, 1962 Socorro Velasco offered to pay P10,000.00 as initial payment instead of the agreed P20,000.00 but because the amount was short of the alleged P20,000.00 the same was accepted merely as deposited and upon request of Socorro Velasco the receipt was made in the name of her brother-in-law the plaintiff herein; that Socorro Velasco failed to complete the down payment of P30,000.00 and neither has she paid any installments on the balance of P70,000.00 up to the present time; that it was only on January 8, 1964 that Socorro Velasco tendered payment of P20,000.00, which offer the defendant refused to accept because it had considered the offer to sell rescinded on account of her failure to complete the down payment on or before December 31, 1962. The lone witness for the plaintiff is Lorenzo Velasco, who exhibits the receipt, Exhibits A, issued in his favor by the Magdalena Estate, Inc., in the sum of P10,000.00 dated November 29, 1962. He also identifies a letter (Exh. B)of the Magdalena Estate, Inc. addressed to him

and his reply thereto. He testifies that Socorro Velasco is his sister-in-law and that he had requested her to make the necessary contacts with defendant referring to the purchase of the property in question. Because he does not understand English well, he had authorized her to negotiate with the defendant in her whenever she went to the office of the defendant, and as a matter of fact, the receipt for the P10,000.00 down payment was issued in his favor. The plaintiff also depends on Exhibit A to prove that there was a perfected follows: "Earnest money for the purchase of Lot 15, Block 7, Psd-6129, Area 2,059 square meters including improvements thereon P10,000.00." At the bottom of Exhibit A the following appears: "Agreed price: P100,000.00, P30,000.00 down payment, bal. in 10 years."
Page | 18

To prove that the Magdalena Estate, Inc. had been dealing all along with him and not with his sister-in-law and that the Magdalena Estate, Inc. knew very well that he was the person interested in the lot in question and not his sister-in-law, the plaintiff offers in evidence five checks all drawn by him in favor of Magdalena Estate, Inc. for payment of the lease of the property. .... There does not seem to be any dispute regarding the fact that the Velasco family was leasing this property from the Magdalena Estate, Inc. since December 29, 1961; that the Velasco family sometime in 1962 offered to purchase the lot as a result of which Lorenzo Velasco thru Socorro Velasco made the P10,000.00 deposit or, in the language of the defendant 'earnest money or down payment' as evidenced by Exhibit A. The only matter that remains to be decided is whether the talks between the Magdalena Estate, Inc. and Lorenzo Velasco either directly or thru his sister-in-law Socorro Velasco ever ripened into a consummated sale. It is the position of the defendant (1) that the sale was never consummated and (2) that the contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The court a quo agreed with the respondent's (defendant therein) contention that no contract of sale was perfected because the minds of the parties did not meet "in regard to the manner of payment." The court a quo appraisal of this aspect of the action below is correct. The material averments contained in the petitioners' complaint themselves disclose a lack of complete "agreement in regard to the manner of payment" of the lot in question. The complaint states pertinently: 4. That plaintiff and defendant further agreed that the total down payment shall by P30,000.00, including the P10,000.00 partial payment mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof, and that upon completion of the said down payment of P30,000.00, the balance of P70,000.00 shall be said by the plaintiff to the defendant in 10 years from November 29, 1962; 5. That the time within the full down payment of the P30,000.00 was to be completed was not specified by the parties but the defendant was duly compensated during the said time prior to completion of the down payment of P30,000.00 by way of lease rentals on the house existing thereon which was earlier leased by defendant to the plaintiff's sister-in-law, Socorro J. Velasco, and which were duly paid to the defendant by checks drawn by plaintiff. It is not difficult to glean from the aforequoted averments that the petitioners themselves admit that they and the respondent still had to meet and agree on how and when the down-payment and the installment payments were to be paid. Such being the situation, it cannot, therefore, be said that a definite and firm sales agreement between the parties had been perfected over the lot in question. Indeed, this Court has already ruled before that a definite agreement on the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and unforceable contract of sale. 3 The fact, therefore, that the petitioners delivered to the respondent the sum of P10,000 as part of the down-payment that they had to pay cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the perfection of any purchase and sale agreement between the parties herein under article 1482 of the new Civil Code, as the petitioners themselves admit that some essential matter the terms of payment still had to be mutually covenanted.

LIMSON VS CA - The main argument of petitioner is that there was a perfected contract to sell between her and respondent spouses. On the other hand, respondent spouses and respondents SUNVAR and Cuenca argue that what was perfected between petitioner and respondent spouses was a mere option. A scrutiny of the facts as well as the evidence of the parties overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that the agreement between the parties was a contract of option and not a contract to sell. An option, as used in the law of sales, is a continuing offer or contract by which the owner sitpulates with another that the latter shall have the right to buy the property at a fixed price within a time certain, or under, or in compliance with, certain terms and conditions, or which gives to the owner of the property the right to sell or demand a sale. It is also sometimes called an "unaccepted offer." An option is not itself a purchase, but merely secures the privilege to buy.8 It is not a sale of property but a sale of right to purchase.9 It is simply a contract

by which the owner of property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. He does not sell his land; he does not then agree to sell it; but he does not sell something, i.e., the right or privilege to buy at the election or option of the other party.10 Its distinguishing characteristic is that it imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the consideration for the offer. Until acceptance, it is not, properly speaking, a contract, and does not vest, transfer, or agree to transfer, any title to, or any interest or right in the subject matter, but is merely a contract by which the owner of the property gives the optionee the right or privilege of accepting the offer and buying the property on certain terms. 11
Page | 19

On the other hand, a contract, like a contract to sell, involves the meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.12 Contracts, in general, are perfected by mere consent,13 which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute.14 The Receipt15 that contains the contract between petitioner and respondent spouses provides Received from Lourdes Limson the sum of Twenty Thousand Peso (P20,000.00) under Check No. 22391 dated July 31, 1978 as earnest money with option to purchase a parcel of land owned by Lorenzo de Vera located at Barrio San Dionisio, Municipality of Paraaque, Province of Rizal with an area of forty eight thousand two hundred sixty square meters more or less at the price of Thirty Four Pesos (34.00)16 cash subject to the condition and stipulation that have been agreed upon by the buyer and me which will form part of the receipt. Should the transaction of the property not materialize not on the fault of the buyer, I obligate myself to return the full amount of P20,000.00 earnest money with option to buy or forfeit on the fault of the buyer. I guarantee to notify the buyer Lourdes Limson or her representative and get her conformity should I sell or encumber this property to a third person. This option to buy is good within ten (10) days until the absolute deed of sale is finally signed by the parties or the failure of the buyer to comply with the terms of the option to buy as herein attached. In the interpretation of contracts, the ascertainment of the intention of the contracting parties is to be discharged by looking to the words they used to project that intention in their contracts, all the words standing alone. 17 The above Receipt readily shows that respondent spouses and petitioner only entered into a contract of option; a contract by which respondent spouses agreed with petitioner that the latter shall have the right to buy the former's property at a fixed price of P34.00 per square meter within ten (10) days from 31 July 1978. Respondent spouses did not sell their property; they did not also agree to sell it; but they sold something, i.e., the privilege to buy at the election or option of petitioner. The agreement imposed no binding obligation on petitioner, aside from the consideration for the offer. The consideration of P20,000.00 paid by petitioner to respondent spouses was referred to as "earnest money." However, a careful examination of the words used indicated that the money is not earnest money but option money. "Earnest money" and "option money" are not the same but distinguished thus; (a) earnest money is part of the purchase price, while option money is the money given as a distinct consideration for an option contract; (b) earnest money given only where there is already a sale, while option money applies to a sale not yet perfected; and, (c) when earnest money is given, the buyer is bound to pay the balance, while when the would-be buyer gives option money, he is not required to buy,18 but may even forfeit it depending on the terms of the option. There is nothing in the Receipt which indicates that the P20,000.00 was part of the purchase price. Moreover, it was not shown that there was a perfected sale between the parties where earnest money was given. Finally, when petitioner gave the "earnest money" the Receipt did not reveal that she was bound to pay the balance of the purchase price. In fact, she could even forfeit the money given if the terms of the option were not met. Thus, the P20,000.00 could only be money given as consideration for the option contract. That the contract between the parties is one of option is buttressed by the provision therein that should the transaction of the provision therein that should the transaction of the property not materialize without fault of petitioner as buyer, respondent Lorenzo de Vera obligates himself to return the full amount of P20,000.00 "earnest money" with option to buy or forfeit the same on the fault of petitioner. It is further bolstered by the provision therein that guarantees petitioner that she or her representative would be notified in case the subject property was sold or encumbered to a third person. Finally, the Receipt provided for a period within which the option to buy was to be exercised, i.e., "within ten (10) days" from 31 July 1978. Doubtless, the agreement between respondent spouses and petitioner was an "option contract" or what is sometimes called an "unaccepted offer." During the option period the agreement was not converted into a bilateral promise to sell and to buy where both respondent spouses and petitioner were then reciprocally bound to comply with their respective undertakings as petitioner did not timely, affirmatively and clearly accept the offer of respondent spouses.

The rule is that except where a formal acceptance is not required, although the acceptance must be affirmatively and clearly made and evidenced by some acts or conduct communicated to the offeror, it may be made either in a formal or an informal manner, and may be shown by acts, conduct or words by the accepting party that clearly manifest a present intention or determination to accept the offer to buy the property of respondent spouses within the 10-day option period. The only occasion within the option period when petitioner could have demonstrated her acceptance was on 5 August 1978 when, according to her, she agreed to meet respondent spouses and the Ramoses at the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Makati. Petitioners agreement to meet with respondent spouses presupposes an invitation from the latter, which only emphasizes their persistence in offering the property to the former. But whether that showed acceptance by petitioner of Page | 20 the offer is hazy and dubious. On or before 10 August 1978, the last day of the option period, no affirmative or clear manifestation was made by petitioner to accept the offer. Certainly, there was no concurrence of private respondent spouses offer and petitioners acceptance thereof within the option period. Consequently, there was no perfected contract to sell between the parties. On 11 August 1978 the option period expired and the exclusive right of petitioner to buy the property of respondent spouses ceased. The subsequent meetings and negotiations, specifically on 11 and 23 August 1978, between the parties only showed the desire of respondent spouses to sell their property to petitioner. Also, on 14 September 1978 when respondent spouses sent a telegram to petitioner demanding full payment of the purchase price on even date simply demonstrated an inclination to give her preference to buy subject property. Collectively, these instances did not indicate that petitioner still had the exclusive right to purchase subject property. Verily, the commencement of negotiations between respondent spouses and respondent SUNVAR clearly manifested that their offer to sell subject property to petitioner was no longer exclusive to her. We cannot subscribe to the argument of petitioner that respondent spouses extended the option period when they extended the authority of their until 31 August 1978. The extension of the contract of agency could not operate to extend the option period between the parties in the instant case. The extension must not be implied but categorical and must show the clear intention of the parties. As to whether respondent spouses were at fault for the non-consummation of their contract with petitioner, we agree with the appellate court that they were not to be blammed. First, within the option period, or on 4 August 1978, it was respondent spouses and not petitioner who initiated the meeting at the Office of The Register of Deeds of Makati. Second, that the Ramoses filed to appear on 4 August 1978 was beyond the control of respondent spouses. Third, the succeeding meetings that transpired to consummate the contract were all beyond the option period and, as declared by the Court of Appeals, the question of who was at fault was already immaterial. Fourth, even assuming that the meetings were within the option period, the presence of petitioner was not enough as she was not even prepared to pay the purchase price in cash as agreed upon. Finally, even without the presence of the Ramoses, petitioner could have easily made the necessary payment in cash as the price of the property was already set at P34.00 per square meter and payment of the mortgage could every well be left to respondent spouses. Petitioner further claims that when respondent spouses sent her a telegram demanding full payment of the purchase price on 14 September 1978 it was an acknowledgment of their contract to sell, thus denying them the right to claim otherwise. We do not agree. As explained above, there was no contract to sell between petitioner and respondent spouses to speak of. Verily, the telegram could not operate to estop them from claiming that there was such contract between them and petitioner. Neither could it mean that respondent spouses extended the option period. The telegram only showed that respondent spouses were willing to give petitioner a chance to buy subject property even if it no longer exclusive. The option period having expired and acceptance was not effectively made by petitioner, the purchase of subject property by respondent SUNVAR was perfectly valid and entered into in good faith. Petitioner claims that in August 1978 Hermigildo Sanchez, the son of respondent spouses agent, Marcosa Snachez, informed Marixi Prieto, a member of the Board of Directors of respondent SUNVAR, that the property was already sold to petitioner. Also, petitioner maintains that on 5 September 1978 respondent Cuenca met with her and offered to buy the property from her at P45.00 per square meter. Petitioner contends that these incidents, including the annotation of her Adverse Claim on the title of subject property on 15 September 1978 show that respondent SUNVAR was aware of the perfected sale between her and respondent spouses, thus making respondent SUNVAR a buyer in bad faith. Petitioner is not correct. The dates mentioned, at least 5 and 15 September 1978, are immaterial as they were beyond the option period given to petitioner. On the other hand, the referral to sometime in August 1978 in the testimony of Hermigildo Sanchez as emphasized by petitioner in her petition is very vague. It could be within or beyond the option period. Clearly then, even assuming that the meeting with Marixi Prieto actually transpired, it could not necessarily mean that she knew of the agreement between petitioner and respondent spouses

for the purchase of subject property as the meeting could have occurred beyond the option period. In which case, no bad faith could be attributed to respondent SUNVAR. If, on the other hand, the meeting was within the option period, petitioner was remiss in her duty to prove so. Necessarily, we are left with the conclusion that respondent SUNVAR bought subject property from respondent spouses in good faith, for value and without knowledge of any flaw or defect in its title. SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES VS HUANG
Page | 21

- On February 21, 1994, the properties were offered for sale for P52,140,000.00 in cash. The offer was made to Atty. Helena M. Dauz who was acting for
respondent spouses as undisclosed principals. In a letter dated March 24, 1994, Atty. Dauz signified her clients interest in purchasing the properties for the amount for which they were offered by petitioner, under the following terms: the sum of P500,000.00 would be given as earnest money and the balance would be paid in eight equal monthly installments from May to December, 1994. However, petitioner refused the counter-offer. On March 29, 1994, Atty. Dauz wrote another letter proposing the following terms for the purchase of the properties, viz: This is to express our interest to buy your-above-mentioned property with an area of 1, 738 sq. meters. For this purpose, we are enclosing herewith the sum of P1,000,000.00 representing earnest-deposit money, subject to the following conditions. 1. 2. 3. We will be given the exclusive option to purchase the property within the 30 days from date of your acceptance of this offer. During said period, we will negotiate on the terms and conditions of the purchase; SMPPI will secure the necessary Management and Board approvals; and we initiate the documentation if there is mutual agreement between us. In the event that we do not come to an agreement on this transaction, the said amount of P1,000,000.00 shall be refundable to us in full upon demand. . . .

Isidro A. Sobrecarey, petitioners vice-president and operations manager for corporate real estate, indicated his conformity to the offer by affixing his signature to the letter and accepted the "earnest-deposit" of P1 million. Upon request of respondent spouses, Sobrecarey ordered the removal of the "FOR SALE" sign from the properties. Atty. Dauz and Sobrecarey then commenced negotiations. During their meeting on April 8, 1994, Sobrecarey informed Atty. Dauz that petitioner was willing to sell the subject properties on a 90-day term. Atty. Dauz countered with an offer of six months within which to pay. On April 14, 1994, the parties again met during which Sobrecarey informed Atty. Dauz that petitioner had not yet acted on her counter-offer. This prompted Atty. Dauz to propose a four-month period of amortization. On April 25, 1994, Atty. Dauz asked for an extension of 45 days from April 29, 1994 to June 13, 1994 within which to exercise her option to purchase the property, adding that within that period, "[we] hope to finalize [our] agreement on the matter." Her request was granted. On July 7, 1994, petitioner, through its president and chief executive officer, Federico Gonzales, wrote Atty. Dauz informing her that because the parties failed to agree on the terms and conditions of the sale despite the extension granted by petitioner, the latter was returning the amount of P1 million given as "earnest-deposit." - The petition is meritorious. In holding that there is a perfected contract of sale, the Court of Appeals relied on the following findings: (1) earnest money was allegedly given by respondents and accepted by petitioner through its vice-president and operations manager, Isidro A. Sobrecarey; and (2) the documentary evidence in the records show that there was a perfected contract of sale. With regard to the alleged payment and acceptance of earnest money, the Court holds that respondents did not give the P1 million as "earnest money" as provided by Art. 1482 of the Civil Code. They presented the amount merely as a deposit of what would eventually become the earnest money or downpayment should a contract of sale be made by them. The amount was thus given not as a part of the purchase price and as proof of the perfection of the contract of sale but only as a guarantee that respondents would not back out of the sale. Respondents in fact described the amount as an "earnest-deposit." In Spouses Doromal, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, it was held: . . . While the P5,000 might have indeed been paid to Carlos in October, 1967, there is nothing to show that the same was in the concept of the earnest money contemplated in Art. 1482 of the Civil Code, invoked by petitioner, as signifying perfection of the sale. Viewed in the backdrop of the factual milieu thereof extant in the record, We are more inclined to believe that the said P5,000.00 were paid in the concept of earnest money as the term was understood under the Old Civil Code, that is, as a guarantee that the buyer would not back out, considering that it is not clear that there was already a definite agreement as to the price then and that petitioners were decided to buy 6/7 only of the property should respondent Javellana refuse to agree to part with her 1/7 share. In the present case, the P1 million "earnest-deposit" could not have been given as earnest money as contemplated in Art. 1482 because, at the time when petitioner accepted the terms of respondents offer of March 29, 1994, their contract had not yet been perfected. This is evident from the following conditions attached by respondents to their letter, to wit: (1) that they be given the exclusive option to purchase the property within 30 days from acceptance

of the offer; (2) that during the option period, the parties would negotiate the terms and conditions of the purchase; and (3) petitioner would secure the necessary approvals while respondents would handle the documentation. The first condition for an option period of 30 days sufficiently shows that a sale was never perfected. As petitioner correctly points out, acceptance of this condition did not give rise to a perfected sale but merely to an option or an accepted unilateral promise on the part of respondents to buy the subject properties within 30 days from the date of acceptance of the offer. Such option giving respondents the exclusive right to buy the properties within the period agreed upon is separate and distinct from the contract of sale which the parties may enter. All that respondents had was just the option to buy the properties which privilege was not, however, exercised by them because there was a failure to agree on the terms of payment. No contract of sale may thus be enforced Page | 22 by respondents. Furthermore, even the option secured by respondents from petitioner was fatally defective. Under the second paragraph of Art. 1479, an accepted unilateral promise to buy or sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promisor only if the promise is supported by a distinct consideration. Consideration in an option contract may be anything of value, unlike in sale where it must be the price certain in money or its equivalent. There is no showing here of any consideration for the option. Lacking any proof of such consideration, the option is unenforceable. Equally compelling as proof of the absence of a perfected sale is the second condition that, during the option period, the parties would negotiate the terms and conditions of the purchase. The stages of a contract of sale are as follows: (1) negotiation, covering the period from the time the prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract is perfected; (2) perfection, which takes place upon the concurrence of the essential elements of the sale which are the meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object of the contract and upon the price; and (3) consummation, which begins when the parties perform their respective undertakings under the contract of sale, culminating in the extinguishment thereof. In the present case, the parties never got past the negotiation stage. The alleged "indubitable evidence" of a perfected sale cited by the appellate court was nothing more than offers and counteroffers which did not amount to any final arrangement containing the essential elements of a contract of sale. While the parties already agreed on the real properties which were the objects of the sale and on the purchase price, the fact remains that they failed to arrive at mutually acceptable terms of payment, despite the 45-day extension given by petitioner. The appellate court opined that the failure to agree on the terms of payment was no bar to the perfection of the sale because Art. 1475 only requires agreement by the parties as to the price of the object. This is error. In Navarro v. Sugar Producers Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc., we laid down the rule that the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist. Although the Civil Code does not expressly state that the minds of the parties must also meet on the terms or manner of payment of the price, the same is needed, otherwise there is no sale. As held in Toyota Shaw, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, agreement on the manner of payment goes into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price. In Velasco v. Court of Appeals, the parties to a proposed sale had already agreed on the object of sale and on the purchase price. By the buyers own admission, however, the parties still had to agree on how and when the downpayment and the installments were to be paid. It was held: . . . Such being the situation, it can not, therefore, be said that a definite and firm sales agreement between the parties had been perfected over the lot in question. Indeed, this Court has already ruled before that a definite agreement on the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale. The fact, therefore, that the petitioners delivered to the respondent the sum of P10,000 as part of the down-payment that they had to pay cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the perfection of any purchase and sale agreement between the parties herein under Art. 1482 of the new Civil Code, as the petitioners themselves admit that some essential matter - the terms of the payment - still had to be mutually covenanted. Thus, it is not the giving of earnest money, but the proof of the concurrence of all the essential elements of the contract of sale which establishes the existence of a perfected sale.

CHAPTER V : OBLIGATION OF THE SELLER TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP AZNAR VS YAPDIANGCO -Santos was illegally deprived of his car when it was stolen by his buyer during the course of payment of the price (after the execution of the deed of sale and registration of the car to the buyer). That same day, the buyer(suspect) sold the subject car to petitioner ( a buyer in good faith and for value) who caused the registration of the car to his name but whose car was seized and confiscated from his possession Page | 23 by the police as such was reported as stolen by Santos. - ART. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title. Nevertheless, one who lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor. Santos has a better right than Aznar to the possession of the disputed automobile? Art NOT applicable in the case at bar: ART. 1506. Where the seller of goods has a voidable title thereto, but his, title has not been voided at the time of the sale, the buyer acquires a good title to the goods, provided he buys them in good faith, for value, and without notice of the seller's defect of title. Vicente Marella did not have any title to the property under litigation because the same was never delivered to him. He sought ownership or acquisition of it by virtue of the contract. Vicente Marella could have acquired ownership or title to the subject matter thereof only by the delivery or tradition of the car to him. Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, "ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition." As interpreted by this Court in a host of cases, by this provision, ownership is not transferred by contract merely but by tradition or delivery. For the legal acquisition and transfer of ownership and other property rights, the thing transferred must be delivered, inasmuch as, according to settled jurisprudence, the tradition of the thing is a necessary and indispensable requisite in the acquisition of said ownership by virtue of contract. (Walter Laston v. E. Diaz & Co. & the Provincial Sheriff of Albay, supra.) So long as property is not delivered, the ownership over it is not transferred by contract merely but by delivery. Contracts only constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of ownership, while delivery or tradition is the method of accomplishing the same, the title and the method of acquiring it being different in our law. (Gonzales v. Roxas, 16 Phil. 51) In the case on hand, the car in question was never delivered to the vendee by the vendor as to complete or consummate the transfer of ownership by virtue of the contract. It should be recalled that while there was indeed a contract of sale between Vicente Marella and Teodoro Santos, the former, as vendee, took possession of the subject matter thereof by stealing the same while it was in the custody of the latter's son. The lower court was correct in applying Article 559 of the Civil Code to the case at bar, for under it, the rule is to the effect that if the owner has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover it, not only from the finder, thief or robber, but also from third persons who may have acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or robber. The said article establishes two exceptions to the general rule of irrevindicability, to wit, when the owner (1) has lost the thing, or (2) has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the owner, who may recover it without paying any indemnity, except when the possessor acquired it in a public sale. (Del Rosario v. Lucena, 8 Phil. 535; Varela v. Finnick, 9 Phil. 482; Varela v. Matute, 9 Phil. 479; Arenas v. Raymundo, 19 Phil. 46. Tolentino, id., Vol. II, p. 261.) . The common law principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in a case which is covered by an express provision of the new Civil Code, specifically Article 559. Between a common law principle and a statutory provision, the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction. (Cruz v. Pahati, supra)

DE GARCIA VS CA -That the ring brought by the parties for examination by Rafael Rebullida on December 14, 1953 was the same ring purchased by plaintiff from R. Rebullida, Inc. on October 27, 1947 and stolen in February, 1952 has been abundantly established by plaintiff's evidence. Before plaintiff lost the ring, she had been wearing it for six years and became familiar with it. Thus, when she saw the missing ring in the finger of defendant, she readily and definitely identified it. Her identification was confirmed by Mr. Rafael Rebullida, whose candid testimony is entitled to great weight, with his 30 years experience behind him in the jewelry business and being a disinterested witness since both parties Page | 24 are his customers. Indeed, defendant made no comment when in her presence Rebullida after examining the ring and stock card told plaintiff that that was her ring, nor did she answer plaintiff's letter of demand, ... asserting ownership. Further confirmation may be found in the extra-judicial admissions, contained in defendant's original and first amended answers ..."4 These further facts likewise appeal therein: "The foregoing proof is not counter-balanced by the denial on the part of defendant or the presentation of the ring, Exhibit I, which has a diamond-solitaire 2.57 cts., or much heavier than the lost diamond weighing 2.05 cts. only. It is noteworthy that defendant gave a rather dubious source of her ring. Aling Petring from whom the ring supposedly came turned out to be a mysterious and ephemeral figure. Miss Hinahon did not even know her true and full name, nor her forwarding address. She appeared from nowhere, boarded three months in the house of Miss Hinahon long enough to sell her diamond ring, disappearing from the scene a week thereafter. 1. - The controlling provision is Article 559 of the Civil Code. It reads thus: "The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor." Respondent Angelina D. Guevara, having been unlawfully deprived of the diamond ring in question, was entitled to recover it from petitioner Consuelo S. de Garcia who was found in possession of the same. The only exception the law allows is when there is acquisition in good faith of the possessor at a public sale, in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price. As authoritative interpreted in Cruz v. Pahati, 6 the right of the owner cannot be defeated even by proof that there was good faith by the acquisition by the possessor. There is a reiteration of this principle in Aznar v. Yapdiangco.7 Thus: "Suffice it to say in this regard that the right of the owner to recover personal property acquired in good faith by another, is based on his being dispossessed without his consent. The common law principle that where one of two innocent persons must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by the another, the law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in a case which is covered by an express provision of the new Civil Code, specifically Article 559. Between a common law principle and statutory provision, the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction."8 It is thus immediately apparent that there is no merit to the contention raised in the first assigned error that her possession in good faith, equivalent to title, sufficed to defeat respondent Guevara's claim. As the above cases demonstrate, even on that assumption the owner can recover the same once she can show illegal deprivation. Respondent Court of Appeals was so convinced from the evidence submitted that the owner of the ring in litigation is such respondent. That is a factual determination to which we must pay heed. Instead of proving any alleged departure from legal norms by respondent Court, petitioner would stress Article 541 of the Civil Code, which provides: 'A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it." She would accord to it a greater legal significance than that to which under the controlling doctrines it is entitled.lwph1.t The brief for respondents did clearly point out why petitioner's assertion is lacking in support not only from the cases but even from commentators. Thus: "Actually, even under the first clause, possession in good faith does not really amount to title, for the reason that Art. 1132 of the Code provides for a period of acquisitive prescription for movables through `uninterrupted possession for four years in good faith' (Art. 1955 of the old Spanish Code, which provided a period of three years), so that many Spanish writers, including Manresa, Sanchez Roman, Scaevola, De Buen, and Ramos, assert that under Art. 464 of the Spanish Code (Art. 559 of the New Civil Code), the title of the possessor is not that of ownership, but is merely a presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis of acquisitive prescription (II Tolentino, Civil Code of the Phil. p. 258: IV Manresa, Derecho Civil Espaol, 6th Ed., p. 380). And it is for the very reason that the title established by the first clause of Art. 559 is only a presumptive title sufficient to serve as a basis for acquisitive prescription, that the clause immediately following provides that `one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same.' As stated by the Honorable Justice Jose B. L. Reyes of this Court in Sotto vs. Enage (C.A.), 43 Off. Gaz. 5075, Dec. 1947: `Article 559 in fact assumes that possessor is as yet not the owner; for it is obvious that where the possessor has come to acquire indefeasible title by, let us say, adverse possession for the necessary period, no proof of loss or illegal deprivation could avail the former owner of the chattel. He would no longer be entitled to recover it under any condition.' "9

2.

EDCA PUBLISHING VS SPOUSES SANTOS - The movable property in this case consists of books, which were bought from the petitioner by an impostor who sold it to the private respondents. Ownership of the books was recognized in the private respondents by the Municipal Trial Court, 1 which was sustained by the Regional Trial Court, 2 which was in turn sustained by the Court of Appeals. 3
-

This case arose when on October 5, 1981, a person identifying himself as Professor Jose Cruz placed an order by telephone with the Page | 25 petitioner company for 406 books, payable on delivery. 4 EDCA prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the purchase price of P8,995.65. 5 On October 7, 1981, Cruz sold 120 of the books to private respondent Leonor Santos who, after verifying the seller's ownership from the invoice he showed her, paid him P1,700.00. 6 Meanwhile, EDCA having become suspicious over a second order placed by Cruz even before clearing of his first check, made inquiries with the De la Salle College where he had claimed to be a dean and was informed that there was no such person in its employ. Further verification revealed that Cruz had no more account or deposit with the Philippine Amanah Bank, against which he had drawn the payment check. 7 EDCA then went to the police, which set a trap and arrested Cruz on October 7, 1981. Investigation disclosed his real name as Tomas de la Pea and his sale of 120 of the books he had ordered from EDCA to the private respondents. 8 On the night of the same date, EDCA sought the assistance of the police in Precinct 5 at the UN Avenue, which forced their way into the store of the private respondents and threatened Leonor Santos with prosecution for buying stolen property. They seized the 120 books without warrant, loading them in a van belonging to EDCA, and thereafter turned them over to the petitioner. 9 Protesting this high-handed action, the private respondents sued for recovery of the books after demand for their return was rejected by EDCA. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the petitioner, after initial refusal, finally surrendered the books to the private respondents. 10 As previously stated, the petitioner was successively rebuffed in the three courts below and now hopes to secure relief from us. Now to the merits It is the contention of the petitioner that the private respondents have not established their ownership of the disputed books because they have not even produced a receipt to prove they had bought the stock. This is unacceptable. Precisely, the first sentence of Article 559 provides that "the possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title," thus dispensing with further proof. The argument that the private respondents did not acquire the books in good faith has been dismissed by the lower courts, and we agree. Leonor Santos first ascertained the ownership of the books from the EDCA invoice showing that they had been sold to Cruz, who said he was selling them for a discount because he was in financial need. Private respondents are in the business of buying and selling books and often deal with hard-up sellers who urgently have to part with their books at reduced prices. To Leonor Santos, Cruz must have been only one of the many such sellers she was accustomed to dealing with. It is hardly bad faith for any one in the business of buying and selling books to buy them at a discount and resell them for a profit. - The petitioner argues that it was, because the impostor acquired no title to the books that he could have validly transferred to the private respondents. Its reason is that as the payment check bounced for lack of funds, there was a failure of consideration that nullified the contract of sale between it and Cruz. The contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once agreement is reached between the parties on the subject matter and the consideration. According to the Civil Code: Art. 1475. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. xxx xxx xxx Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. Art. 1478. The parties may stipulate that ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price.

It is clear from the above provisions, particularly the last one quoted, that ownership in the thing sold shall not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase only if there is a stipulation to that effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been paid. Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation above noted, delivery of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who can in turn Page | 26 transfer it to another. - Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired ownership over the books which he could then validly

transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by the private respondents to the books.
-Art. 559 is not applicable because petitioner was not unlawfully deprived of the books since a contract of sales has been perfected and consummated and the ownership of the book transferred to respondents, as purchasers in good faith and for value, by the actual delivery of the books to them.

HERNAEZ VS HERNAEZ -Estoppel(Art 1434-When the person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.) - The spouses, Pedro Hernaez and Juana Espinosa, died, leaving several legitimate descendants. Neither of their estates had been divided up to the date of the institution of this action, but were both under administration. Their son, Domingo Hernaez y Espinosa, sold all his interest in both his fathers and mothers estate to his son, Vicente Hernaez y Tuason, on November 6, 1901. Notwithstanding the fact that Domingo Hernaez y Espinosa had thus parted with all his interest in the estates of his two parents, he executed a document of sale in favor of Alejandro Montelibano y Ramos on February 27, 1907, in which he purported to convey all his undivided interest in his mothers estate. On the same date he executed another document of sale in which he purported to convey to Jose Montelibano Uy-Cana four-eighteenths of his interest in his mothers estate. Both of these sales were made with the connivance of his son, Vicente Hernaez y Tuason. Hence, although Vicente Hernaez y Tuason had actually purchased all of his fathers interests in the estates of Pedro Hernaez and Juana Espinosa as early as November 6, 1901, and was, on February 27, 1907, the undoubted owner thereof, he is effectually estopped from asserting his title as against either of the vendees mentioned in the documents of sale dated February 27, 1907, to which we have just referred. (Code Civ. Pro., sec. 333, No. 1.) Bigelow on Estoppel (p. 607) says: . . . it is now a well-established principle that where the true owner of property, for however short a time, holds out another, or, with knowledge of his own right, allows another to appear as the owner of or as having full power of disposition over the property, the same being in the latters actual possession, and innocent third parties are thus led into dealing with such apparent owner, they will be protected.

FORMATION OF CONTRACT TO SALE VILLONCO VS BORMAHECO "By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determining thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional" (Art. 1458, Civil Code). Page | 27 "The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts" (Art. 1475, Ibid.). "Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law" (Art. 1315, Civil Code). "Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute. A qualified acceptance constitutes a counter-offer" (Art. 1319, Civil Code). "An acceptance may be express or implied" (Art. 1320, Civil Code). Bormaheco's acceptance of Villonco Realty Company's offer to purchase the Buendia Avenue property, as shown in Teofilo Villonco's letter dated March 4, 1964 (Exh. D), indubitably proves that there was a meeting of minds upon the subject matter and consideration of the sale. Therefore, on that date the sale was perfected. (Compare with McCullough vs. Aenlle & Co., 3 Phil. 285; Goyena vs. Tambunting, 1 Phil. 490). Not only that Bormaheco's acceptance of the part payment of one hundred ,thousand pesos shows that the sale was conditionally consummated or partly executed subject to the purchase by Bormaheco, Inc. of the Punta property. The nonconsummation of that purchase would be a negative resolutory condition (Taylor vs. Uy Tieng Piao, 43 Phil. 873). On February 18, 1964 Bormaheco's bid for the Punta property was already accepted by the Nassco which had authorized its General Manager to sign the corresponding deed of sale. What was necessary only was the approval of the sale by the Economic Coordinator and a request for that approval was already pending in the office of that functionary on March 4, 1964. Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses contend that the sale was not perfected because Cervantes allegedly qualified his acceptance of Villonco's revised offer and, therefore, his acceptance amounted to a counter-offer which Villonco Realty Company should accept but no such acceptance was ever transmitted to Bormaheco, Inc. which, therefore, could withdraw its offer. That contention is not well-taken. It should be stressed that there is no evidence as to what changes were made by Cervantes in Villonco's revised offer. And there is no evidence that Villonco Realty Company did not assent to the supposed changes and that such assent was never made known to Cervantes. What the record reveals is that the broker, Miss Tagle, acted as intermediary between the parties. It is safe to assume that the alleged changes or qualifications made by Cervantes were approved by Villonco Realty Company and that such approval was duly communicated to Cervantes or Bormaheco, Inc. by the broker as shown by the fact that Villonco Realty Company paid, and Bormaheco, Inc. accepted, the sum of P100,000 as earnest money or down payment. That crucial fact implies that Cervantes was aware that Villonco Realty Company had accepted the modifications which he had made in Villonco's counter-offer. Had Villonco Realty Company not assented to those insertions and annotations, then it would have stopped payment on its check for P100,000. The fact that Villonco Realty Company allowed its check to be cashed by Bormaheco, Inc. signifies that the company was in conformity with the changes made by Cervantes and that Bormaheco, Inc. was aware of that conformity. Had those insertions not been binding, then Bormaheco, Inc. would not have paid interest at the rate of ten percent per annum, on the earnest money of P100,000. The truth is that the alleged changes or qualifications in the revised counter offer (Exh. D) are not material or are mere clarifications of what the parties had previously agreed upon. The controlling fact is that there was agreement between the parties on the subject matter, the price and the mode of payment and that part of the price was paid. "Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract" (Art. 1482, Civil Code).

"It is true that an acceptance may contain a request for certain changes in the terms of the offer and yet be a binding acceptance. 'So long as it is clear that the meaning of the acceptance is positively and unequivocally to accept the offer, whether such request is granted or not, a contract is formed.' " (Stuart vs. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 165 Fed. 2nd 965, citing Sec. 79, Williston on Contracts). Thus, it was held that the vendor's change in a phrase of the offer to purchase, which change does not essentially change the terms of the offer, does not amount to a rejection of the offer and the tender of a counter-offer (Stuart vs. Franklin Life Ins. Co., supra).
Page | 28

The instant case is not governed by the rulings laid down in Beaumont vs. Prieto, 41 Phil. 670, 985, 63 L. Ed. 770, andZayco vs. Serra, 44 Phil. 326. In those two cases the acceptance radically altered the offer and, consequently, there was no meeting of the minds of the parties. Thus, in the Zayco case, Salvador Serra offered to sell to Lorenzo Zayco his sugar central for P1,000,000 on condition that the price be paid in cash, or, if not paid in cash, the price would be payable within three years provided security is given for the payment of the balance within three years with interest. Zayco, instead of unconditionally accepting those terms, countered that he was going to make a down payment of P100,000, that Serra's mortgage obligation to the Philippine National Bank of P600,000 could be transferred to Zayco's account and that he (plaintiff) would give a bond to secure the payment of the balance of the price. It was held that the acceptance was conditional or was a counter-offer which had to be accepted by Serra. There was no such acceptance. Serra revoked his offer. Hence, there was no perfected contract. In the Beaumont case, Benito Valdes offered to sell to W Borck the Nagtahan Hacienda owned by Benito Legarda, who had empowered Valdes to sell it. Borck was given three months from December 4, 1911 to buy the hacienda for P307,000. On January 17, 1912 Borck wrote to Valdes, offering to purchase the hacienda for P307,000 payable on May 1, 1912. No reply was made to that letter. Borck wrote other letters modifying his proposal. Legarda refused to convey the property. It was held that Borck's January 17th letter plainly departed from the terms of the offer as to the time of payment and was a counter-offer which amounted to a rejection of Valdes' original offer. A subsequent unconditional acceptance could not revive that offer. The instant case is different from Laudico and Harden vs. Arias Rodriguez, 43 Phil. 270 where the written offer to sell was revoked by the offer or before the offeree's acceptance came to the offeror's knowledge. Appellants' next contention is that the contract was not perfected because the condition that Bormaheco, Inc. would acquire the Nassco land within forty-five days from February 12, 1964 or on or before March 28, 1964 was not fulfilled. That contention is predicated on the erroneous assumption that Bormaheco, Inc. was to acquire the Nassco land within forty-five days or on or before March 28, 1964. The trial court ruled that the forty-five-day period was merely an estimate or a forecast of how long it would take Bormaheco, Inc. to acquire the Nassco property and it was not "a condition or a deadline set for the defendant corporation to decide whether or not to go through with the sale of its Buendia property". The record does not support the theory of Bormaheco, Inc. and the Cervantes spouses that the forty-five-day period was the time within which (a) the Nassco property and two Pasong Tamo lots should be acquired, (b) when Cervantes would secure his wife's consent to the sale of the three lots and (c) when Bormaheco, Inc. had to decide what to do with the DBP encumbrance. Cervantes in paragraph 3 of his offer of February 12, 1964 stated that the sale of the Buendia lots would be consummated after he had consummated the purchase of the Nassco property. Then, in paragraph 5 of the same offer he stated "that final negotiations on both properties can be definitely known after forty-five days" (See Exh. B). It is deducible from the tenor of those statements that the consummation of the sale of the Buendia lots to Villonco Realty Company was conditioned on Bormaheco's acquisition of the Nassco land. But it was not spelled out that such acquisition should be effected within fortyfive days from February 12, 1964. Had it been Cervantes' intention that the forty-five days would be the period within which the Nassco land should be acquired by Bormaheco, then he would have specified that period in paragraph 3 of his offer so that paragraph would read in this wise: "That this sale is to be consummated only after I shall have consummated my purchase of another property located at Sta. Ana, Manila within forty-five days from the date hereof ." He could have also specified that period in his "conforme" to Villonco's counter-offer of March 4, 1964 (Exh. D) so that instead of merely stating "that this sale shall be subject to favorable consummation of a property in Sta. Ana we are negotiating" he could have said: "That this sale shall be subject to favorable consummation within forty-five days from February 12, 1964 of a property in Sta. Ana we are negotiating".

No such specification was made. The term of forty-five days was not a part of the condition that the Nassco property should be acquired. It is clear that the statement "that final negotiations on both property can be definitely known after 45 days" does not and cannot mean that Bormaheco, Inc. should acquire the Nassco property within forty-five days from February 12, 1964 as pretended by Cervantes. It is simply a surmise that after forty-five days (in fact when the forty-five day period should be computed is not clear) it would be known whether Bormaheco, Inc. would be able to acquire the Nassco property and whether it would be able to sell the Buendia property. That aforementioned paragraph 5 does not even specify how long after the forty-five days the outcome of the final negotiations would be known.
Page | 29

"Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith" (Art. 1159, Civil Code). Inasmuch as the sale was perfected and even partly executed, Bormaheco, Inc., and the Cervantes spouses, as a matter of justice and good faith, are bound to comply with their contractual commitments. DELA CAVADA VS DIAZ - A promise made by one party, if made in accordance with the forms required by the law, may be a good consideration (causa) for a promise made by another party. (Art. 1274, Civil Code.) In other words, the consideration (causa) need not pass from one to the other at the time the contract is entered into. For example, A promises to sell a certain parcel of land to B for the sum of P70,000. A, by virtue of the promise of B to pay P70,000, promises to sell said parcel of land to B for said sum, then the contract is complete, provided they have complied with the forms required by the law. The consideration need not be paid at the time of the promise. The one promise is a consideration for the other. Of course, A cannot enforce a compliance with the contract and require B to pay said sum until he has complied with his part of the contract. In the present case, the defendant promised to convey the land in question to the plaintiff as soon as the same could be registered. The plaintiff promised to pay to the defendant P70,000 therefor in accordance with the terms of their contract. The plaintiff stood ready to comply with his part of the contract. The defendant, even though he had obtained a registered title to said parcel of land, refused to comply with his promise. All of the conditions of the contract on the part of the defendant had been concluded, except delivering the deeds of transfer. Of course, if the defendant had been unable to obtain a registration of his title, or if he had violated the terms of the alleged optional contract by selling the same to some other person than the plaintiff, then he might have raised the objection that he had received nothing from the plaintiff for the option which he had conceded. That condition, of course, would have presented a different question from the one which we have before us. The said contract (Exhibits A and B) was not, in fact, an optional contract as that phrase is generally used. Reading the said contract from its four corners it is clearly as absolute promise to sell a definite parcel of land for a fixed price upon definite conditions. The defendant promised to convey to the plaintiff the land in question as soon as the same was registered under the Torrens system, and the plaintiff promised to pay to the defendant the sum of P70,000, under the conditions named, upon the happening of that event. The contract was not, in fact, what is generally known as a contract of option. It differs very essentially from a contract of option. An optional contract is a privilege existing in one person, for which he had paid a consideration, which gives him the right to buy, for example, certain merchandise of certain specified property, from another person, if he chooses, at any time within the agreed period, at a fixed price. The contract of option is a separate and distinct contract from the contract which the parties may enter into upon the consummation of the option. A consideration for an optional contract is just as important as the consideration for any other kind of contract. If there was no consideration for the contract of option, then it cannot be entered any more than any other contract where no consideration exists. To illustrate, A offers B the sum of P100,000 for the option of buying his property within the period of 30 days. While it is true that the conditions upon which A promises to buy the property at the end of the period mentioned are usually fixed in the option, the consideration for the option is an entirely different consideration from the consideration of the contract with reference to which the option exists. A contract of option is a contract by virtue of the terms of which the parties thereto promise and obligate themselves to enter into contract at a future time, upon the happening of certain events, or the fulfillment of certain conditions.