Course Hero Logo

Absolute sale because the intention of the parties

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 48 - 49 out of 145 pages.

ABSOLUTE SALE because the intention of the parties was to reserve the ownership of the land in the seller until thebuyer has paid the total purchase price.2.NO. Article 1592 of the Civil Code is inapplicable to the case at bar. However, any attempt to cancel the contract to sellwould have to comply with the provisions of Republic Act No. 6552, the "Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act."R.A. No. 6552"If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall refund to the buyer theCASH SURRENDER VALUE OF THEPAYMENTS ON THE PROPERTYequivalent to fifty percent of the total payments made and, after five yearsof installments, an additional five percent every year but not to exceed ninety percent of the total paymentsmade: Provided, That the actual cancellation of the contract shall take place after thirty days from receipt bythe buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the contract by a notarial act and uponfull payment of the cash surrender value to the buyer." [Emphasis supplied]The decision in the ejectment case operated as the notice of cancellation required by Sec. 3(b). As petitioner Leaño wasnot given the cash surrender value of the payments that she made, there was still no actual cancellation of the contract.Consequently, petitioner Leaño may still reinstate the contract by updating the account during the grace period andbefore actual cancellation.Article 1169 of the Civil Code provides that in reciprocal obligations, neither party incurs in delay if the other does notcomply or is not ready to comply in a proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. From the moment one of theparties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins.In the case at bar, respondent Fernando performed his part of the obligation by allowing petitioner Leaño to continuein possession and use of the property. Clearly, when petitioner Leaño did not pay the monthly amortizations inaccordance with the terms of the contract, she was in delay and liable for damages.However, we agree with the trialcourt that the default committed by petitioner Leaño in respect of the obligation could be compensated by the interestand surcharges imposed upon her under the contract in question.3.YES.On the issue of whether petitioner Leaño was in delay in paying the amortizations, we rule that while the contractprovided that the total purchase price was payable within a ten-year period, the same contract specified that thepurchase price shall be paid in monthly installments for which the corresponding penalty shall be imposed in case ofdefault.Petitioner Leaño cannot ignore the provision on the payment of monthly installments by claiming that the ten-year period within which to pay has not elapsed.56. Lee v De GuzmanFACTS:On November 8, 1983, a free-lance salesman of respondent Motorcars, Inc., (then Delta Motors Corporation) namedArsenio Tumibaysigned in behalf of Domingo Tupaz its Branch Manager in Makati, a price quotation (Exhibit "A") anddelivered the said quotation to petitionerAlex B. Lee

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 145 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor
Tags
The Land, One Art, Dominic Ong, Athena Plaza

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture