Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Macion v. Guiani

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Reyes
    The petitioners owned two adjoining lots that the respondent, Dela Vida Institute, wanted to purchase to expand. [1] The parties entered into an agreement for Dela Vida to purchase the properties for 1.75 million pesos by July 31, 1991 but the sale did not occur. [2] They then entered into a compromise agreement giving Dela Vida five months to raise funds to purchase the properties for 2.06 million pesos, and if successful the petitioners would execute a deed of sale. [3] The court determined that the compromise agreement required the petitioners to execute a contract to sell upon Dela Vida raising the funds, in order to allow them to obtain a loan.

    Copyright:

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

    Macion v. Guiani

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Reyes
    88 views2 pages
    The petitioners owned two adjoining lots that the respondent, Dela Vida Institute, wanted to purchase to expand. [1] The parties entered into an agreement for Dela Vida to purchase the properties for 1.75 million pesos by July 31, 1991 but the sale did not occur. [2] They then entered into a compromise agreement giving Dela Vida five months to raise funds to purchase the properties for 2.06 million pesos, and if successful the petitioners would execute a deed of sale. [3] The court determined that the compromise agreement required the petitioners to execute a contract to sell upon Dela Vida raising the funds, in order to allow them to obtain a loan.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioners owned two adjoining lots that the respondent, Dela Vida Institute, wanted to purchase to expand. [1] The parties entered into an agreement for Dela Vida to purchase the properties for 1.75 million pesos by July 31, 1991 but the sale did not occur. [2] They then entered into a compromise agreement giving Dela Vida five months to raise funds to purchase the properties for 2.06 million pesos, and if successful the petitioners would execute a deed of sale. [3] The court determined that the compromise agreement required the petitioners to execute a contract to sell upon Dela Vida raising the funds, in order to allow them to obtain a loan.

    Copyright:

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

    Macion v. Guiani

    Uploaded by

    Joshua Reyes
    The petitioners owned two adjoining lots that the respondent, Dela Vida Institute, wanted to purchase to expand. [1] The parties entered into an agreement for Dela Vida to purchase the properties for 1.75 million pesos by July 31, 1991 but the sale did not occur. [2] They then entered into a compromise agreement giving Dela Vida five months to raise funds to purchase the properties for 2.06 million pesos, and if successful the petitioners would execute a deed of sale. [3] The court determined that the compromise agreement required the petitioners to execute a contract to sell upon Dela Vida raising the funds, in order to allow them to obtain a loan.

    Copyright:

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

    Macion v.

    Guiani agreement was the refusal of the petitioners to execute as


    required in the agreement. Petitioners will not be prejudiced
    because there is no transfer of ownership in a contract to sell.
    Petitioners: Henry and Angeles Macion
     Hence, this petition for certiorari.
    Respondents: Hon. Guiani of Cotabato RTC and Dela Vida Institute
     Petitioner asked lower court for Respondent to consign, 135k
    Facts: as rentals. Granted, released to petitioners.
     Subject of this litigation revolves around 2 parcels of Issue/s:
    adjoining lots owned by petitioners which are proposed 1. WON the compromise agreement gives private respondent-
    extension sites of De La Vida Institute, an educational buyer the right to demand from petitioner-sellers the execution
    institution in Cotabato. of a contract to sell in favor of the former. - Yes
     The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a contract to
    sell, where the president of Dela Vida assured that they will Ratio:
    buy the properties on or before July 31, 1991for 1.75M.
    Petitioners surrendered possession where the respondent 1. Par. 7 of compromise agreement:
    built an edifice worth 800k that if within the period of five (5) months from and after
     Sale did not materialize in the said date. Petitioners filed a February 6, 1992, the plaintiff succeeds in obtaining funds
    complaint of unlawful detainer while respondent filed for for the purpose of settling their obligations with defendants
    reformation of contract to sell. in the total sum of P2,060,000.00 the latter shall oblige
     Parties entered into a compromise agreement: themselves to execute, sign and deliver to the former the
    - petitioners would give private respondent five (5) corresponding Deed of Sale for the two (2) lots which is the
    months to raise the amount of P2,060,000.00;3 that in the subject of this case and turn-over to said plaintiff the owner's
    event of failure to raise the said amount within the duplicate copy of TCT Nos. T-22004 and T-22005 of the
    designated period, private respondent would vacate the Registry of Deeds for the City of Cotabato.
    premises immediately. 2. Clear that the seller is obliged to execute a Deed of Sale and
    - plaintiff with xerox copy of the land title for each lot not a Contract to Sell upon payment of the full price of P2.06
    which the latter may use for the purpose of providing million.
    information in securing a loan from any financing or 3. However, in the interpretation of the compromise agreement,
    banking institution we must delve in the contemporaneous and subsequent acts
    - if Dela Vida succeeds, oblige themselves to execute, of the parties to fathom the real intention of the parties.
    sign and deliver the corresponding Deed of Sale for the 4. A review of the facts reveal that even prior to the signing of
    two (2) lots and the owner's duplicate copy of TCT the compromise agreement and the filing of Civil Case No.
     Respondent wrote letters requiring petitioners to execute a 592 before the trial court, the parties had already entered into
    contract to sell needed for their loan from BPI, it filed an a contract to sell. Thereafter, when the transaction failed to
    urgent motion in RTC to compel petitioners to execute. materialize, said contract to sell was superseded by the
     RTC: directed petitioners to execute, proximate cause of compromise agreement.
    respondent in failing to comply with the compromise
    5. Under these factual circumstances, we opine that the respondents. On the other hand, private respondent is ordered to
    compromise agreement must be interpreted as bestowing DEPOSIT with the trial court current rentals pending consummation
    upon private respondent-buyer the power to demand a of the transaction between the parties. The trial court is ordered to
    contract to sell from petitioner-sellers. FIX anew the period within which private respondents may be given
    6. In the case at bar, the sale is still in the executory stage since the opportunity to raise funds for the purchase of the two (2)
    the passing of title is subject to a suspensive condition, adjoining lots owned by petitioners.
    namely, that if private respondent is able to secure the
    needed funds to be used in the purchased of the two (2) lots SO ORDERED.
    owned by petitioners. A mere executory sale, one where the
    sellers merely promise to transfer the property at some future
    date, or where some conditions have to be fulfilled before
    the contract is converted from an executory to an executed
    one, does not pass ownership over the real estate being sold.
    7. In our jurisdiction, it has been that an accepted bilateral
    promise to buy and sell is in a sense similar to, but not
    exactly the same, as a perfected contract of sale because
    there is already a meeting of minds upon the thing which is
    the object of the contract and upon the price. 14 But a
    contract of sale is consummated only upon the delivery and
    payment. It cannot be denied that the compromise
    agreement, having been signed by both parties, is tantamount
    to a bilateral promise to buy and sell a certain thing for a
    price certain. Hence, this gives the contracting parties rights
    in personam, such that each has the right to demand from the
    other the fulfillment of their respective undertakings. 15
    Demandability may be exercised at any time after the
    execution of the Deed.
    8. The order of respondent judge directing petitioners to issue a
    contract to sell does not place petitioners in any danger of
    losing their property without consideration, for, to repeat, in
    a contract to sell there is no immediate transfer of ownership.

    Disposition:

    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED. Petitioners are


    hereby ordered to EXECUTE a contract to sell in favor of private

    You might also like