Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 173 views

    Abela - Sheet 7 - Cebu Winland V Ong Siao Hua (G.R. NO. 173215 May 21, 2009)

    Uploaded by

    Kiana Abella
    1. Ong Siao Hua bought two condominium units from Cebu Winland Development Corporation based on a price per square meter but later discovered the actual area of the units was less than advertised. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that Ong's claim had not prescribed because ownership of the units had not been transferred through execution of the deed of sale. 3. It also held that the sale was based on a per square meter price rather than a lump sum, so Ong was entitled under the Civil Code to a proportional reduction of price paid due to the smaller actual area of the units.

    Copyright:

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

    Abela - Sheet 7 - Cebu Winland V Ong Siao Hua (G.R. NO. 173215 May 21, 2009)

    Uploaded by

    Kiana Abella
    173 views2 pages
    1. Ong Siao Hua bought two condominium units from Cebu Winland Development Corporation based on a price per square meter but later discovered the actual area of the units was less than advertised. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that Ong's claim had not prescribed because ownership of the units had not been transferred through execution of the deed of sale. 3. It also held that the sale was based on a per square meter price rather than a lump sum, so Ong was entitled under the Civil Code to a proportional reduction of price paid due to the smaller actual area of the units.

    Original Description:

    sales

    Original Title

    Abela_Sheet 7_Cebu Winland v Ong Siao Hua (G.R. NO. 173215 May 21, 2009)

    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. Ong Siao Hua bought two condominium units from Cebu Winland Development Corporation based on a price per square meter but later discovered the actual area of the units was less than advertised. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that Ong's claim had not prescribed because ownership of the units had not been transferred through execution of the deed of sale. 3. It also held that the sale was based on a per square meter price rather than a lump sum, so Ong was entitled under the Civil Code to a proportional reduction of price paid due to the smaller actual area of the units.

    Copyright:

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

    Abela - Sheet 7 - Cebu Winland V Ong Siao Hua (G.R. NO. 173215 May 21, 2009)

    Uploaded by

    Kiana Abella
    1. Ong Siao Hua bought two condominium units from Cebu Winland Development Corporation based on a price per square meter but later discovered the actual area of the units was less than advertised. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that Ong's claim had not prescribed because ownership of the units had not been transferred through execution of the deed of sale. 3. It also held that the sale was based on a per square meter price rather than a lump sum, so Ong was entitled under the Civil Code to a proportional reduction of price paid due to the smaller actual area of the units.

    Copyright:

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

    Cebu Winland Development Corporation v Ong Siao Hua

    G. R. NO. 173215 : May 21, 2009


    PUNO, C.J.
    FACTS:
    Ong Siao Hua bought two condominium units from Cebu WInland Development
    Corporation. Sometime before January 6, 1995 while the Cebu Winland Tower
    Condominium was under construction, petitioner offered to sell to respondent
    condominium units at promotional prices. As an added incentive, petitioner offered a 3%
    discount provided 30% of the purchase price is paid as down payment and the balance
    paid in 24 equal monthly installments.The area per condominium unit as indicated in
    petitioner's price list is 155 square meters and the price per square meter is P22,378.95.
    The price for the parking slot is P240,000 each. Respondent, therefore, paid
    P2,298,655.08 as down payment and issued 24 postdated checks in the amount of
    P223,430.70 per check for the balance of the purchase price in the total amount of
    P5,362,385.19. On October 10, 1996, possession of the subject properties was turned
    over to respondent. After the purchase price was fully paid with the last check dated
    January 31, 1997, respondent requested petitioner for the condominium certificates of
    title evidencing ownership of the units. Petitioner then sent to respondent, for the latter's
    signature, documents denominated as Deeds of Absolute Sale for the two condominium
    units. Upon examination of the deed of absolute sale of Unit No. 2405 and the identical
    document for Unit No. 2406, respondent was distressed to find that the stated floor area
    is only 127 square meters contrary to the area indicated in the price list which was 155
    square meters. Respondent caused a verification survey of the said condominium units
    and discovered that the actual area is only 110 square meters per unit. Respondent
    demanded from petitioner to refund the amount of P2,014,105.50 representing excess
    payments for the difference in the area.

    ISSUES:
    1. Whether respondent's action has prescribed pursuant to Article 1543, in relation
    to Articles 1539 and 1542 of the Civil Code
    2. Whether the sale in the case is one made with a statement of its area or at the
    rate of a certain price for a unit of measure and not for a lump sum.
    HELD:
    1. The transfer of possession of the subject properties on October 10, 1996 to
    respondent cannot be considered as "delivery" within the purview of Article 1543 of the
    Civil Code. It follows that since there has been no transfer of ownership of the subject
    properties since the deeds of absolute sale have not yet been executed by the parties,
    the action filed by respondent has not prescribed.
    2. Article 1539 provides that "If the sale of real estate should be made with a
    statement of its area, at the rate of a certain price for a unit of measure or number, the
    vendor shall be obliged to deliver to the vendee all that may have been stated in the
    contract; but, should this be not possible, the vendee may choose between a
    proportional reduction of the price and the rescission of the contract'. " Article 1542, on
    the one hand, provides that "In the sale of real estate, made for a lump sum and not at
    the rate of a certain sum for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or
    decrease of the price, although there be a greater or lesser area or number than that
    stated in the contract." it is undisputed by the parties that the purchase price of the
    subject properties was computed based on the price list prepared by petitioner, or
    P22,378.95 per square meter. Clearly, the parties agreed on a sale at a rate of a certain
    price per unit of measure and not one for a lump sum. Hence, it is Article 1539 and not
    Article 1542 which is the applicable law. Accordingly, respondent is entitled to the relief
    afforded to him under Article 1539, that is, either a proportional reduction of the price or
    the rescission of the contract, at his option. Respondent chose the former remedy since
    he prayed in his Complaint for the refund of the amount of P2,014,105.50 representing
    the proportional reduction of the price paid to petitioner.

    You might also like