Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 698 views

    Romero vs. Ca G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995

    Uploaded by

    Jeff Cacayurin Talattad
    1) Romero agreed to buy a parcel of land from Ongsiong for P1,561,600, with a downpayment of P50,000. Ongsiong was obligated to evict squatters on the property within 45 days. 2) When Ongsiong failed to evict the squatters, she tried to rescind the sale. However, the court ruled that a perfected contract of sale already existed when the parties agreed to the specified price and property, creating reciprocal obligations. 3) The removal of squatters was a condition that, if not met, gave Romero the right to refuse or waive the sale under the Civil Code, but did not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Romero vs. Ca G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995

    Uploaded by

    Jeff Cacayurin Talattad
    698 views2 pages
    1) Romero agreed to buy a parcel of land from Ongsiong for P1,561,600, with a downpayment of P50,000. Ongsiong was obligated to evict squatters on the property within 45 days. 2) When Ongsiong failed to evict the squatters, she tried to rescind the sale. However, the court ruled that a perfected contract of sale already existed when the parties agreed to the specified price and property, creating reciprocal obligations. 3) The removal of squatters was a condition that, if not met, gave Romero the right to refuse or waive the sale under the Civil Code, but did not

    Original Description:

    romero files

    Original Title

    Romero

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Romero agreed to buy a parcel of land from Ongsiong for P1,561,600, with a downpayment of P50,000. Ongsiong was obligated to evict squatters on the property within 45 days. 2) When Ongsiong failed to evict the squatters, she tried to rescind the sale. However, the court ruled that a perfected contract of sale already existed when the parties agreed to the specified price and property, creating reciprocal obligations. 3) The removal of squatters was a condition that, if not met, gave Romero the right to refuse or waive the sale under the Civil Code, but did not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    698 views2 pages

    Romero vs. Ca G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995

    Uploaded by

    Jeff Cacayurin Talattad
    1) Romero agreed to buy a parcel of land from Ongsiong for P1,561,600, with a downpayment of P50,000. Ongsiong was obligated to evict squatters on the property within 45 days. 2) When Ongsiong failed to evict the squatters, she tried to rescind the sale. However, the court ruled that a perfected contract of sale already existed when the parties agreed to the specified price and property, creating reciprocal obligations. 3) The removal of squatters was a condition that, if not met, gave Romero the right to refuse or waive the sale under the Civil Code, but did not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ROMERO vs.

    CA
    G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995

    Facts:

    Romero, a civil engineer, was engaged in the business of production,


    manufacture and exportation of perlite filter aids, permalite insulation and
    processed perlite ore. In 1988, he decided to put up a central warehouse in Metro
    Manila. Flores and his wife offered a parcel of land measuring 1,952 square
    meters. The lot was covered in a TCT in the name of private respondent
    Enriqueta Chua vda. de Ongsiong. Petitioner visited the property and, except for
    the presence of squatters in the area, he found the place suitable for a central
    warehouse. Flores called on petitioner with a proposal that should he advance
    the amount of P50,000.00 which could be used in taking up an ejectment case
    against the squatters, private respondent would agree to sell the property for
    only P800/square meter. Romero agreed. Later, a "Deed of Conditional Sale" was
    executed between Flores and Ongsiong.Purchase price = P1,561,600.00;
    Downpayment = P50K; Balance = to be paid 45 days after the removal of all the
    squatters; upon full payment, Ongsiong shall execute deed of absolute sale in
    favor of Romero.Ongsiong sought to return the P50,000.00 she received from
    petitioner since, she said, she could not "get rid of the squatters" on the lot. She
    opted to rescind the sale in view of her failure to get rid of the squatters.
    Regional Trial Court of Makati rendered decision holding that private respondent
    had no right to rescind the contractsince it was she who "violated her obligation
    to eject the squatters from the subject property" and that petitioner, being the
    injured party, was the party who could, under Article 1191 of the Civil Code,
    rescind the agreement.

    Issue:

    Is there a perfected contract of sale?

    Held:

    YES. A sale is at once perfected when a person (the seller) obligates himself, for
    a price certain, to deliver and to transfer ownership of a specified thing or right
    to another (the buyer) over which the latter agrees. (BILATERAL and RECIPROCAL
    CHARACTERISTIC OF SALE).

    In determining the real character of the contract, the title given to it by the
    parties is not as much significant as its substance. For example, a deed of sale,
    although denominated as a deed of conditional sale, may be treated as absolute
    in nature, if title to the property sold is not reserved in the vendor or if the
    vendor is not granted the right to unilaterally rescind the contract predicated on
    the fulfillment or non-fulfillment, as the case may be, of the prescribed
    condition. From the moment the contract is perfected, 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. Under the agreement, private respondent is obligated to
    evict the squatters on the property. The ejectment of the squatters is a condition
    the operative act of which sets into motion the period of compliance by
    petitioner of his own obligation, i .e to pay the balance of the purchase price.
    Private respondents failure "to remove the squatters from the property" within
    the stipulated period gives petitioner the right to either refuse to proceed with
    the agreement or waive that condition in consonance with Article 1545 of the
    Civil Code.

    This option clearly belongs to petitioner and not to private respondent. There
    was no potestative condition on the part of Ongsiong but a "mixed" condition
    "dependent not on the will of the vendor alone but also of third persons like the
    squatters and government agencies and personnel concerned."

    You might also like