Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 65 views

    Spouses Portic Vs Cristobal

    Uploaded by

    Frankel Gerard Margallo
    Spouses Portic sold land to Anastacia Cristobal but defaulted on their mortgage payments, resulting in foreclosure by SSS. Portic then sold the same land to Cristobal before expiration of the redemption period, but full payment was not made. Spouses Alcantara then sold the land directly to Cristobal. The court ruled there was no contract of sale between Portic and Cristobal, only a contract to sell, because ownership does not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase price. As Cristobal did not make full payment, she did not acquire ownership of the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Portic Vs Cristobal

    Uploaded by

    Frankel Gerard Margallo
    65 views2 pages
    Spouses Portic sold land to Anastacia Cristobal but defaulted on their mortgage payments, resulting in foreclosure by SSS. Portic then sold the same land to Cristobal before expiration of the redemption period, but full payment was not made. Spouses Alcantara then sold the land directly to Cristobal. The court ruled there was no contract of sale between Portic and Cristobal, only a contract to sell, because ownership does not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase price. As Cristobal did not make full payment, she did not acquire ownership of the land.

    Original Description:

    Digest

    Original Title

    8. Spouses Portic vs Cristobal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Spouses Portic sold land to Anastacia Cristobal but defaulted on their mortgage payments, resulting in foreclosure by SSS. Portic then sold the same land to Cristobal before expiration of the redemption period, but full payment was not made. Spouses Alcantara then sold the land directly to Cristobal. The court ruled there was no contract of sale between Portic and Cristobal, only a contract to sell, because ownership does not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase price. As Cristobal did not make full payment, she did not acquire ownership of the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Portic Vs Cristobal

    Uploaded by

    Frankel Gerard Margallo
    Spouses Portic sold land to Anastacia Cristobal but defaulted on their mortgage payments, resulting in foreclosure by SSS. Portic then sold the same land to Cristobal before expiration of the redemption period, but full payment was not made. Spouses Alcantara then sold the land directly to Cristobal. The court ruled there was no contract of sale between Portic and Cristobal, only a contract to sell, because ownership does not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase price. As Cristobal did not make full payment, she did not acquire ownership of the land.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses RICARDO and FERMA PORTIC, 

    Petitioners,
    vs.
    ANASTACIA CRISTOBAL, Respondent,

    G.R. No. 156171 April 22, 2005

    FACTS:

    In 1968, Spouses Clodualdo Alcantara and Candelaria Edrolam


    sold a parcel of land with a three-door apartment in favor of Spouses
    Portic with the condition that they will assume the mortgage executed
    on the property in favor of the Social Security System. Spouses Portic
    defaulted on their payment, the property was foreclosed by SSS.
    On May 1984, before the expiration of the redemption period
    Spouses Portic sold the property in favor of Anastacia Cristobal in
    consideration of Php 200,025.89 and agreed that the respondent shall
    pay the sum of Php 45,025.89 as downpayment with a balance of
    Php155,000.00. They further agreed that in case the respondent fail
    to comply with the conditions, the sale shall be considered void and
    petitioners shall reimburse respondent of whatever amount already
    paid. On the same date they also executed a “Deed of Sale with
    Assumption of Mortgage”
    However, on July 1984 Spouses Alcantara, sold the subject
    property to the respondent for Php 50,000.00. On that same day, they
    executed a “Deed of Mortgage” wherein respondent constituted a
    mortgage over the property to secure a Php 150,000.00 indebtedness
    in favor of the petitioners. Respondent then paid the indebtedness
    over the property to the Social Security System. Later Spouses
    Alcantara canceled their Certificate of Title in lieu for a Transfer
    Certificate of Title for the respondent.
    In 1996, the petitioners demanded from the respondent the alleged
    balance of Php 55,000.00. The respondent refused to pay arguing that
    her title on the property is indefeasible which prompted this case.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not there was a contract of sale in this case.

    RULING:

    No, there was no contract of sale. The agreement between the


    parties characterized a contract to sell.
    An agreement in which ownership is reserved in the vendor and is
    not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price is
    known as a contract to sell. The absence of full payment suspends the
    vendors’ obligation to convey title. This principle holds true between
    the parties, even if the sale has already been registered. Registration
    does not vest, but merely serves as evidence of, title to a particular
    property. Our land registration laws do not give title holders any
    better ownership than what they actually had prior to registration.
    Ownership is retained by the vendors, the Portics; it will not be
    passed to the vendee, the Cristobals, until the full payment of the
    purchase price. Such payment is a positive suspensive condition, and
    failure to comply with it is not a breach of obligation; it is merely an
    event that prevents the effectivity of the obligation of the vendor to
    convey the title. In short, until the full price is paid, the vendor retains
    ownership. Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, mere registration is
    not enough to acquire a new title. Good faith must concur. Clearly,
    respondent has not yet fully paid the purchase price. Hence, as long
    as it remains unpaid, she cannot feign good faith. She is also
    precluded from asserting ownership against petitioners.

    You might also like