ANAMA vs COURT OF APPEALS and PSBANK

22 01 2012

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila Read the rest of this entry »





CARRASCOSO vs COURT OF APPEALS

22 01 2012

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila  Read the rest of this entry »





KEPPEL vs ADAO

19 11 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 158227 October 19, 2005

KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
PHILIP ADAO, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

QUISUMBING, J.:

On appeal is the Decision1 dated April 30, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 71477. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court which had earlier sustained the Decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court, dismissing the ejectment case against respondent Philip Adao.

The case stemmed from the court-approved Compromise Agreement between petitioner Keppel Bank and Project Movers Realty and Development Corporation (PMRDC).2 By virtue of the agreement, PMRDC through its President Mario P. Villamor assigned, transferred and conveyed to petitioner, by way of dacion en pago,3 twenty-five properties consisting of townhouses, condominium units and vacant lots, as partial settlement of their two hundred million pesos (P200,000,000) outstanding obligation. Pursuant thereto, petitioner secured Condominium Certificates of Title over the units.

Upon inspection, petitioner found respondent Philip Adao occupying Unit 4 of the Luxor Villas Townhouse, one of the 25 properties above-mentioned. On February 18, 2000, petitioner sent a written demand to respondent to vacate the unit within 30 days from receipt of the notice. Respondent refused and, instead, offered to purchase the unit. However, the parties failed to reach an agreement on the matter.

On October 19, 2000, petitioner sent respondent a final demand to vacate. Since the demand was not heeded, petitioner filed a civil case for ejectment docketed as Civil Case No. 8911 against respondent.

In his defense, respondent alleged that he has long been occupying the contested unit by virtue of a Contract to Sell4 dated February 7, 1995 between him and PMRDC.

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE





URSAL vs CA

11 09 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

 

 

 

WINIFREDA URSAL,   G.R. No. 142411
                                       Petitioner,    
    Present:
     
       PUNO, Chairman, 

- versus -

     AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

     CALLEJO, SR.,
       TINGA, and
       CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
     
COURT OF APPEALS, THE RURAL BANK OF LARENA (SIQUIJOR), INC. and SPOUSES JESUS MONESET and CRISTITA MONESET,    

 

Promulgated:

                                       Respondents.      October 14, 2005

 

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  x

 

 
D E C I S I O N

 

 

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

 

 

          Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated June 28, 1999 and the Resolution dated January 31, 2000 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.[2]

 

These are the facts:

 

 

The spouses Jesus and Cristita Moneset (Monesets) are the registered owners of a 333-square meter land together with a house thereon situated at Sitio Laguna, Basak, Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 78374.[3]  On January 9, 1985, they executed a “Contract to Sell Lot & House” in favor of petitioner Winifreda Ursal (Ursal), with the following terms and conditions:

 

 

 

That the VENDOR (Cristita R. Moneset) offers to SELL and the VENDEE accepts to BUY at the agreed lump sum price of P130,000.00 payable on the installment basis as follows:

 

1.      That on the date of the signing of this agreement, the VENDEE will tender an earnest money or downpayment of P50,000.00 to the VENDOR, and by these presents, the latter hereby acknowledges receipt of said amount from the former;

 

2.      That the balance of the selling price of P80,000.00 shall be paid by the VENDEE to the VENDOR in equal monthly installments of P3,000.00 starting the month of February, 1985, until said balance of the selling price shall be fully paid;

 

3.      That if the VENDEE shall fail or in default to pay six (6) monthly installments to the VENDOR the herein agreement is deemed cancelled, terminated and/or rescinded and in such event, the VENDEE (sic) binds to refund to the VENDOR (sic) the deposit of P50,000.00 and with the latter’s (sic) obligation to pay the former (sic) as a corresponding refund for cost of improvements made in the premises by VENDEE;

 

4.      That on the date of receipt of the downpayment of P50,000.00 by the VENDOR, it is mutually agreed for VENDEE to occupy and take physical possession of the premises as well as for the latter (VENDEE) to keep and hold in possession the corresponding transfer certificate of title No. ______ of the land in question which is the subject of this agreement;

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE





PORTIC vs CRISTOBAL

11 09 2011

Read case digest here.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

THIRD DIVISION

Spouses RICARDO and                        G.R. No.  156171

FERMA PORTIC,

                       Petitioners,                       Present:

                                                                  

                                                                       Panganiban, J.,      

                                                                                Chairman,

                                                                       Sandoval-Gutierrez,

              – versus –                                         Corona,

                                                                       Carpio Morales, and

                                                                       Garcia, JJ

                                                                  

                                                                   Promulgated:

ANASTACIA CRISTOBAL,                 

                           Respondent.                 April 22, 2005

x  — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —  x

 

DECISION

 

 

PANGANIBAN, J.:

 

 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.  

The Case

Before us is a Petition for Review[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the January 29, 2002 Decision[2] and the November 18, 2002 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 66393.  The assailed Decision disposed as follows:

 

“WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.  A new one is hereby entered ORDERING defendant-appellant to pay the unpaid balance of P55,000.00 plus legal interest of 6% per annum counted from the filing of this case.  The ownership of defendant-appellant over the subject property is hereby confirmed.

READ THE REST OF THE CASE HERE








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: