Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 22 views

    Dignos-vs-CA Contract of Sale vs. Contract To Sell

    Uploaded by

    Ron Ace
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land by the Dignos spouses to two different parties. The Dignos spouses first sold the land to Jabil in 1965, with the purchase price to be paid in installments. However, before Jabil finished paying, the Dignos spouses sold the same land to the Cabigas spouses in 1965. The Court ruled that the first sale to Jabil was a valid contract of sale, not a contract to sell, as it contained all the elements of a contract of sale and did not contain language reserving title to the property until full payment. As a valid contract of sale was made, ownership of the land was transferred to

    Copyright:

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

    Dignos-vs-CA Contract of Sale vs. Contract To Sell

    Uploaded by

    Ron Ace
    22 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land by the Dignos spouses to two different parties. The Dignos spouses first sold the land to Jabil in 1965, with the purchase price to be paid in installments. However, before Jabil finished paying, the Dignos spouses sold the same land to the Cabigas spouses in 1965. The Court ruled that the first sale to Jabil was a valid contract of sale, not a contract to sell, as it contained all the elements of a contract of sale and did not contain language reserving title to the property until full payment. As a valid contract of sale was made, ownership of the land was transferred to

    Original Title

    4. Dignos-vs-CA Contract of Sale vs. Contract to Sell

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land by the Dignos spouses to two different parties. The Dignos spouses first sold the land to Jabil in 1965, with the purchase price to be paid in installments. However, before Jabil finished paying, the Dignos spouses sold the same land to the Cabigas spouses in 1965. The Court ruled that the first sale to Jabil was a valid contract of sale, not a contract to sell, as it contained all the elements of a contract of sale and did not contain language reserving title to the property until full payment. As a valid contract of sale was made, ownership of the land was transferred to

    Copyright:

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

    Dignos-vs-CA Contract of Sale vs. Contract To Sell

    Uploaded by

    Ron Ace
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land by the Dignos spouses to two different parties. The Dignos spouses first sold the land to Jabil in 1965, with the purchase price to be paid in installments. However, before Jabil finished paying, the Dignos spouses sold the same land to the Cabigas spouses in 1965. The Court ruled that the first sale to Jabil was a valid contract of sale, not a contract to sell, as it contained all the elements of a contract of sale and did not contain language reserving title to the property until full payment. As a valid contract of sale was made, ownership of the land was transferred to

    Copyright:

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

    DIGNOS V.

    COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. L-59266, 29 February 1988, 158 SCRA 375

    Topic: Article 1458 A Contract of Sale; Requisites of a Valid Contract.


    Article 1477 Transfer of Ownership.

    Doctrine / Case Law

    In a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the buyer upon the delivery of the
    thing sold. In a contract to sell, on the other hand, the ownership is, by agreement, retained by
    the seller and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price.

    FACTS:

    The Dignos spouses were owners of a parcel of land, known as Lot No. 3453. On June 7,
    1965, petitioners Dignos spouses sold the said parcel of land to respondent Atilano J. Jabil for
    the sum of P28,000.00, payable in two installments, with an assumption of indebtedness with the
    First Insular Bank of Cebu in the sum of P12,000.00, which was paid and acknowledged by the
    vendors in the deed of sale executed in favor of plaintiff-appellant, and the next installment in
    the sum of P4,000.00 to be paid on or before September 15, 1965.

    On November 25, 1965, the Dignos spouses sold the same land in favor of defendants
    spouses, Luciano Cabigas and Jovita L. De Cabigas, who were then U.S. citizens, for the price of
    P35,000.00. A deed of absolute sale was executed by the Dignos spouses in favor of the Cabigas
    spouses, and which was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds pursuant to the
    provisions of Act No. 3344. As the Dignos spouses refused to accept from plaintiff-appellant the
    balance of the purchase price of the land, and as plaintiff- appellant discovered the second sale
    made by defendants-appellants to the Cabigas spouses, plaintiff-appellant brought the present
    suit.
    The trial court ruled that the deed of sale in favor of Cabigas was null and void while the deed of
    sale with private respondent was not rescinded. Public respondent Court of Appeals affirmed
    with modification hence, the instant petition. The spouses Dignos contested that the contract
    between them and Jabil was merely a contract to sell and not a deed of sale.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the contract is a contract to sell.

    RULING:

    No. it has been held that a deed of sale is absolute in nature although denominated as a
    “Deed of Conditional Sale” where nowhere in the contract in question is a proviso or stipulation
    to the effect that title to the property sold is reserved in the vendor until full payment of the
    purchase price, nor is there a stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the
    contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period.
    A careful examination of the contract shows that there is no such stipulation reserving the
    title of the property on the vendors nor does it give them the right to unilaterally rescind the
    contract upon non-payment of the balance thereof within a fixed period.
    On the contrary, all the elements of a valid contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil Code,
    are present, such as:

    (1) consent or meeting of the minds;


    (2) determinate subject matter; and
    (3) price certain in money or its equivalent.

    In addition, Article 1477 of the same Code provides that “The ownership of the thing sold
    shall be transferred to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery thereof.” this Court held
    that in the absence of stipulation to the contrary, the ownership of the thing sold passes to the
    vendee upon actual or constructive delivery thereof.

    You might also like