Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 344 views

    Macasaet V R Transport Case Digest (Law On Sales)

    Uploaded by

    Anna Tan
    The Court of Appeals erred in stating that the Deed of Sale between Macasaet and R. Transport Corp. was not perfected. While the sale was not consummated due to Macasaet's failure to pay the full purchase price, the contract was validly formed and imposed reciprocal obligations on both parties. However, R. Transport had the right to rescind the sale contract due to Macasaet's non-payment, which violated the essence of the agreement. As a result of rescinding the contract, R. Transport was entitled to recover possession of the two buses it had already delivered to Macasaet.

    Copyright:

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

    Macasaet V R Transport Case Digest (Law On Sales)

    Uploaded by

    Anna Tan
    344 views2 pages
    The Court of Appeals erred in stating that the Deed of Sale between Macasaet and R. Transport Corp. was not perfected. While the sale was not consummated due to Macasaet's failure to pay the full purchase price, the contract was validly formed and imposed reciprocal obligations on both parties. However, R. Transport had the right to rescind the sale contract due to Macasaet's non-payment, which violated the essence of the agreement. As a result of rescinding the contract, R. Transport was entitled to recover possession of the two buses it had already delivered to Macasaet.

    Original Title

    Macasaet v R Transport Case Digest (Law on Sales)

    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 Court of Appeals erred in stating that the Deed of Sale between Macasaet and R. Transport Corp. was not perfected. While the sale was not consummated due to Macasaet's failure to pay the full purchase price, the contract was validly formed and imposed reciprocal obligations on both parties. However, R. Transport had the right to rescind the sale contract due to Macasaet's non-payment, which violated the essence of the agreement. As a result of rescinding the contract, R. Transport was entitled to recover possession of the two buses it had already delivered to Macasaet.

    Copyright:

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

    Macasaet V R Transport Case Digest (Law On Sales)

    Uploaded by

    Anna Tan
    The Court of Appeals erred in stating that the Deed of Sale between Macasaet and R. Transport Corp. was not perfected. While the sale was not consummated due to Macasaet's failure to pay the full purchase price, the contract was validly formed and imposed reciprocal obligations on both parties. However, R. Transport had the right to rescind the sale contract due to Macasaet's non-payment, which violated the essence of the agreement. As a result of rescinding the contract, R. Transport was entitled to recover possession of the two buses it had already delivered to Macasaet.

    Copyright:

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

    MACASAET vs. R. TRANSPORT CORP.

    G.R. No 172446 / 535 SCRA503; October 10, 2007

    Facts: Macasaet and R. Transport Corp. entered into a Deed of Sale with Assumption of
    Mortgage over 4 Hino passenger buses whereby Macasaet agreed to pay R. Transport P12 M
    and assume the letter’s existing mortgage obligation. R. Transport delivered 2 of the 4 units.
    However, despite demands, Macasaet failed to pay the purchase price. R. Transport filed a
    complaint for the issuance of a writ of replevin and a prayer to be declared as the lawful owner
    and possessor of the 2 passenger buses.

    Prior to the execution of the deed of sale, the parties entered into a “Special Trip Contract”
    wherein it was stipulated that R. Transport would lease the buses to Macasaet for P10,000 per
    day per bus for 1 week (P 280,000 total). R. Transport also sought to recover the income
    generated by the 2 buses.

    Petitioner Macasaet alleged that he had already paid respondent the full consideration amount
    of P12 M, and had agreed to assume the mortgage obligation. He claimed ownership over the 4
    buses. For his counterclaim, he prayed for the return of the 2 seized bus units, and the delivery
    of the other 2 units. The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC ruling in favor of R. Transport,
    declaring that the non-perfection of the Deed of Sale precluded Macasaet from possessing and
    enjoying the buses, including the income thereof.

    Issues:
    a. Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that there was no perfected contract of
    sale
    b. Whether respondent R. Transportation had the right to rescind or cancel the Deed of
    Sale due to non-payment of the purchase price

    Ruling:
    a. Yes, there was a perfected contract of sale. The CA erred in stating that the Deed of
    Sale was not perfected, for it was. There was no consummation, though. Being a
    consensual contract, sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds
    upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. A perfected
    contract of sale imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties whereby the vendor
    obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing to the
    buyer, who in turn is obligated to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent.

    Failure to pay consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in
    a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing
    contract, while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract.

    b. Yes, the respondent has a right to rescind or cancel the deed of sale in view of the
    petitioner’s failure to pay the consideration. Non-payment of the purchase price
    constitutes a very good reason to rescind a sale for it violates the very essence of the
    contract of sale. Macasaet did not pay the full purchase price as stipulated in the
    contract while R. Transport complied with its obligation when it delivered 2 of the buses
    which were the subject of the sale. A necessary consequence of rescission of the
    contract of sale is the recovery of possession of the object thereof.

    You might also like