Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
MAPALO V MAPALO
Facts: Miguel an d Candia Mapalo were
illiterate farmers and owned a parcel of
land. Maximo Mapalo is to be married;
they donated the eastern half of the
land. Maximo deceived them by making
them sign an instrument donating the
whole lot. Maximo registered the lot and
sold the to Narcisos who took possession
and declared owners of the whole lot.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale.
Held: Consideration was totally absent,
the 5k price was never received, thus the
sale to Narcisos was void ab initio for
want of consideration.
RONGAVILLA V CA
Facts: Dela cruz are the aunts of
Rongavilla and owner of a parcel of land.
Dela Cruz borrowed from Rongavilla 2k
for repair. Later on Rongavilla induced
her aunts to sign a deed of sale.
Issue: W/N there was a valid sale.
Held: NO> the signatures were obtained
through
fraud.
There
was
no
consideration and the consent was not
onlt vitiated but was not given at all. The
deed of sale is void ab initio.
MATE V CA
Facts: Josefina approached Fernando and
deceived him to cede his 3 lots to Tan.
Josefina issued 2 checks. Later on the
checks bounced he sued Tan for
annulment of the sale for lack of
consideration.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale
BAGNAS V CA
Facts: Hilario died without will and was
survived only by collateral relatives.
Bagnas were the nearest kin Retonil were
relatives but farther extent. They claimed
ownership over 10 lots. Bagnas claimed
that such were fictitious and Retonil
claimed to have done many things to
Hilario.
Issue: W/N there was a valid contract of
sale
Held: NO. if no consideration it is void
and even collateral heirs may assail the
contract. price must be in money or
equivalent,
services
are
not
the
equivalent of money.
REPUBLIC V PHIL RESOURCES DEV
CORP
Facts: republic sought an action against
Apostol for the collection of sums owing
to his purchase of Palawan Almaciga and
other logs. PRDC intervened claiming
that Apostol took goods to settle his
personal debts. Republic opposed and
said price is always paid in money and
that payment in kind is no payment at
all.
Issue: W/N payment in kind is equivalent
to price in money
Held: YES. Price may be paid in money
or its equivalent in this case the goods.
PRDC has a substantial interest in the
case and must be permitted to intervene.
VASQUEZ V CA
VILLAMOR V CA
NIETES V CA
EQUATORIAL REALTY
MAYFAIR THEATER
was
perfected
DEV
INC
KINGS
ENTERPRISES
was
perfected
of sale is
Statute of
sale
was
perfected
OF
AND
VEGETABLE
CORP
ESTATE OF
ONGJOCO
LINO
OLANGUER
Facts:
CHENG V GENATO
Facts: Genato owned 2 parcels of land
and entered into a contract to sell with
Da Jose. They asked for extension for the
payment, unknown to them, Genato
dealt with Cheng and aedicied to rescind
the contract. Cheng executed an affidavit
and sued for specific performance.
Issue: Who has a better title
Held: DA JOSE. Both agreements involve
a contract to sell, which makes Art. 1544
inapplicable since neither a transfer of
ownership nor a sales transaction took
place.
ABRIGO V DE VERA
ACABAL V ACABAL
MINDANAO V YAP