Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 61 views

    002 Spouses Serrano V Caguiat - CUPAY

    Uploaded by

    Carl Angelo
    Caguiat wanted to buy a lot from petitioners and paid a partial payment. Petitioners issued a receipt acknowledging the partial payment and Caguiat's promise to pay the balance by a certain date, at which point petitioners would execute the final deed of sale. When Caguiat was ready to pay the balance, petitioners wanted to cancel the sale. The Supreme Court held that based on the receipt acknowledging partial payment, what the parties entered into was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership did not immediately transfer to the buyer.

    Copyright:

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

    002 Spouses Serrano V Caguiat - CUPAY

    Uploaded by

    Carl Angelo
    61 views2 pages
    Caguiat wanted to buy a lot from petitioners and paid a partial payment. Petitioners issued a receipt acknowledging the partial payment and Caguiat's promise to pay the balance by a certain date, at which point petitioners would execute the final deed of sale. When Caguiat was ready to pay the balance, petitioners wanted to cancel the sale. The Supreme Court held that based on the receipt acknowledging partial payment, what the parties entered into was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership did not immediately transfer to the buyer.

    Original Description:

    Sales, Digest

    Original Title

    002 Spouses Serrano v Caguiat_CUPAY

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Caguiat wanted to buy a lot from petitioners and paid a partial payment. Petitioners issued a receipt acknowledging the partial payment and Caguiat's promise to pay the balance by a certain date, at which point petitioners would execute the final deed of sale. When Caguiat was ready to pay the balance, petitioners wanted to cancel the sale. The Supreme Court held that based on the receipt acknowledging partial payment, what the parties entered into was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership did not immediately transfer to the buyer.

    Copyright:

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

    002 Spouses Serrano V Caguiat - CUPAY

    Uploaded by

    Carl Angelo
    Caguiat wanted to buy a lot from petitioners and paid a partial payment. Petitioners issued a receipt acknowledging the partial payment and Caguiat's promise to pay the balance by a certain date, at which point petitioners would execute the final deed of sale. When Caguiat was ready to pay the balance, petitioners wanted to cancel the sale. The Supreme Court held that based on the receipt acknowledging partial payment, what the parties entered into was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale, meaning ownership did not immediately transfer to the buyer.

    Copyright:

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

    UP Law BGC Eve 2024 Sps.

    Serrano v Caguiat
    SALES Contract of Sale v Contract to 2007 Salvador-Guitierez
    Sell; Art. 1482, CC
    SUMMARY DOCTRINE
    Caguiat wanted to the buy the lot owned by petitioners. Caguita A contract to sell is akin to a conditional sale where the efficacy
    offered to buy it, then gave petitioners partial payment. or obligatory force of the vendor's obligation to transfer title is
    Petitioners issued an acknowledgment of partial payment. When subordinated to the happening of a future and uncertain event,
    Caguiat was ready to pay the remaining balance, petitioners so that if the suspensive condition does not take place, the
    suddenly wanted to cancel the sale. Caguiat sued petitioners for parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never
    specific action (issuance of deed of sale). Supreme Court held existed. The suspensive condition is commonly full payment of
    that the acknowledgment proves that what they entered into is a the purchase price.
    contract to sell and not a contract of sale.

    FACTS

    § Spouses Onnie and Amparo Herrera, petitioners, are the registered owners of a lot located in Las Piñas.
    § March 1990: Godofredo Caguiat, respondent, offered to buy the lot.
    § Petitioners agreed to sell it at P1,500.00 per square meter. Respondent then gave petitioners P100,000.00 as partial payment. In
    turn, petitioners gave respondent the corresponding receipt stating as follows:
    o RECEIVED FROM MR. GODOFREDO CAGUIAT THE AMOUNT OF ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
    (P100,000.00) AS PARTIAL PAYMENT OF OUR LOT SITUATED IN LAS PIÑAS, M.M. COVERED BY TCT NO. T-9905
    AND WITH AN AREA OF 439 SQUARE METERS.

    MR. CAGUIAT PROMISED TO PAY THE BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE ON OR BEFORE MARCH 23, 1990,
    AND THAT WE WILL EXECUTE AND SIGN THE FINAL DEED OF SALE ON THIS DATE.

    § Caguiat, through his counsel Atty. Ponciano Espiritu, wrote petitioners informing them of his readiness to pay the balance of the
    contract price and requesting them to prepare the final deed of sale.
    § April 4, 1990: petitioners, through Atty. Ruben V. Lopez, sent a letter to respondent stating that petitioner Amparo Herrera is
    leaving for abroad on or before April 15, 1990 and that they are canceling the transaction. Petitioners also informed respondent
    that he can recover the earnest money of P100,000.00 anytime.
    § In view of the cancellation of the contract by petitioners, respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City a
    complaint against them for specific performance and damages.

    § RTC & CA: There was a contract of sale. Legal basis: Art. 1482, CC.
    o Article 1482. 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. (1454a)
    § Petitioners in SC on appeal: Contract to sell only. No clear agreement on consideration.

    RATIO

    Whether the document entitled "Receipt for Partial Payment" signed by both parties earlier mentioned is a contract to sell or a
    contract of sale.
    Contract to sell.

    RULES:

    A contract to sell is akin to a conditional sale where the efficacy or obligatory force of the vendor's obligation to transfer title is subordinated
    to the happening of a future and uncertain event, so that if the suspensive condition does not take place, the parties would stand as if the
    conditional obligation had never existed. The suspensive condition is commonly full payment of the purchase price.

    Sing Yee v Santos: . . . [a] distinction must be made between a contract of sale in which title passes to the buyer upon delivery of the thing
    sold and a contract to sell . . . where by agreement the ownership is reserved in the seller and is not to pass until the full payment, of the
    purchase price is made. In the first case, non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition; in the second case, full payment is a
    positive suspensive condition. Being contraries, their effect in law cannot be identical. In the first case, the vendor has lost and cannot
    recover the ownership of the land sold until and unless the contract of sale is itself resolved and set aside. In the second case, however,
    the title remains in the vendor if the vendee does not comply with the condition precedent of making payment at the time specified in the
    contract.

    APPLICATION:

    In this case, the "Receipt for Partial Payment" shows that the true agreement between the parties is a contract to sell.

    First, ownership over the property was retained by petitioners and was not to pass to respondent until full payment of the purchase price.

    Second, the agreement between the parties was not embodied in a deed of sale. The absence of a formal deed of conveyance is a strong
    indication that the parties did not intend immediate transfer of ownership, but only a transfer after full payment of the purchase price

    Third, petitioners retained possession of the certificate of title of the lot. This is an additional indication that the agreement did not transfer
    to respondent, either by actual or constructive delivery, ownership of the property

    On Article 1482 of CC:

    However, this article speaks of earnest money given in a contract of sale . In this case, the earnest money was given in a contract to sell.
    Now, since the earnest money was given in a contract to sell, Article 1482, which speaks of a contract of sale, does not apply.
    FALLO

    Petition granted.

    SEPARATE OPINION NOTES

    None

    You might also like