Análisis de la encuesta dirigida a los comerciantes del Mercado de Mariscos

Indeed, not being an heir of Luis, Romeo never acquired any right whatsoever over the subject lots even if he was able to subsequently obtain a title in his name. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not have, nemo dat quod non habet. One can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more right than what the seller can transfer legally. SKUNAC CORPORATION and ALFONSO F. ENRIQUEZ vs. ROBERTO S. SYLIANTENG and

CAESAR S. SYLIANTENG, G.R. No. 205879, April 23, 2014, J. Peralta

The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties. If the words of a contract appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail. Such intention is determined not only from the express terms of their agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties. Such that when the contract denominated as Resibo reveals that nothing therein suggests, even remotely, that the subject property was given to secure a monetary obligation but an intent to sell his share in the property, said contract is a contract of sale and not an equitable mortgage. HEIRS OR REYNALDO

DELA ROSA, Namely: TEOFISTA DELA ROSA, JOSEPHINE SANTIAGO AND JOSEPH DELA ROSA vs. MARIO A. BA TONGBACAL, IRENEO BATONGBACAL, JOCELYN BA TONGBACAL, NESTOR BATONGBACAL AND LOURDES BA TONGBACAL, G.R. No. 179205, July 30, 2014, J. Perez

Unless all the co-owners have agreed to partition their property, none of them may sell a definite portion of the land. The co-owner may only sell his or her proportionate interest in the co- ownership. A contract of sale which purports to sell a specific or definite portion of unpartitioned land is null and void ab initio.

At best, the agreement between Juan and Henry is a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. A contract to sell is a promise to sell an object, subject to suspensive conditions. Without the fulfillment of these suspensive conditions, the sale does not operate to determine the obligation of the seller to deliver the object.

A co-owner could enter into a contract to sell a definite portion of the property. Such contract is still subject to the suspensive condition of the partition of the property, and that the other co-owners agree that the part subject of the contract to sell vests in favor of the co-owner’s buyer. Hence, the co-owners’ consent is an important factor for the sale to ripen. JUAN P. CABRERA vs. HENRY

YSAAC, G.R. No. 166790, November 19, 2014, J. Leonen

Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code prohibits court officers such as clerks of court from acquiring property involved in litigation within the jurisdiction or territory of their courts. For the prohibition to apply, the sale or assignment of the property must take place during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Where the property is acquired after the termination of the case, no violation of paragraph 5, Article 1491 of the Civil Code attaches.

A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some contest or litigation over it in court, but also from the moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge. A property forming part of the estate under judicial settlement continues to be subject of litigation until the probate court issues an order declaring the estate proceedings closed and terminated. The rule is that as long as the order for the distribution of the estate has not been complied with, the probate proceedings cannot be deemed closed and terminated. The probate court loses jurisdiction of an estate under administration only after the payment of all the debts and the remaining estate delivered to the heirs entitled to receive the same. (RODOLFO S. SABIDONG v. NICOLASITO S.

SOLAS, A.M. No. P-01-1448 June 25, 2013)

In a contract to sell, the seller retains ownership of the property until the buyer has paid the price in full. A buyer who covertly usurps the seller's ownership of the property prior to the full payment of the price is in breach of the contract and the seller is entitled to rescission because the breach is substantial and fundamental as it defeats the very object of the parties in entering into the contract to sell. In the case at bar, the court finds that respondent Rowena’s act of transferring the title to the subject land in her name, without the knowledge and consent of petitioners and despite non- payment of the full price thereof, constitutes a substantial and fundamental breach of the contract to sell. (SPOUSES DELFIN O. TUMIBAY AND AURORA T. TUMIBA-DECEASED ET AL. v. SPOUSES

MELVIN A. LOPEZ, G.R. No. 171692, June 3, 2013)

The two conditional deeds of sale entered into by the parties are contracts to sell, as they both contained a stipulation that ownership of the properties shall not pass to the vendee until after full payment of the purchase price. In a conditional sale, as in a contract to sell, ownership remains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. The full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, and non-fulfillment of the condition prevents the obligation to sell from arising. To differentiate, a deed of sale is absolute when there is no stipulation in the contract that title to the property remains with the seller until full payment of the purchase price.

Articles 1191 and 1592 of the Civil Code are applicable to contracts of sale, while R.A. No. 6552 applies to contracts to sell. R.A. No. 6552, otherwise known as the Realty Installment Buyer Act, applies to the subject contracts to sell. R.A. No. 6552 (Maceda Law) recognizes in conditional sales

of all kinds of real estate (industrial, commercial, residential) the right of the seller to cancel the contract upon non-payment of an installment by the buyer, which is simply an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force. (MANUEL UY & SONS,

INC. v. VALBUECO, INCORPORATED, G.R. No. 179594. September 11, 2013)

To note, while the quality of contingency inheres in a contract to sell, the same should not be confused with a conditional contract of sale. In a contract to sell, the fulfillment of the suspensive condition will not automatically transfer ownership to the buyer although the property may have been previously delivered to him. The prospective seller still has to convey title to the prospective buyer by entering into a contract of absolute sale.On the other hand, in a conditional contract of sale, the fulfillment of the suspensive condition renders the sale absolute and the previous delivery of the property has the effect of automatically transferring the seller’s ownership or title to the property to the buyer. (FREDERICK VENTURA, MARITES VENTURA-ROXAS v. HEIRS OF

SPOUSES EUSTACIO T. ENDAYA and TRINIDAD L. ENDAYA, G.R. No. 190016, October 2, 2013)

In a contract of Sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing while the other party obligates himself to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. There was no sale on credit in this case because ownership of the items did not pass from one party to the other.

There is also no novation made. The acceptance of partial payments, without further change in the original relation between the complainant and the accused, cannot produce novation. There must be proof of intent to extinguish the original relationship, and such intent cannot be inferred from the mere acceptance of payments on account of what is totally due. (NARCISO DEGAÑOS vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 162826. October 14, 2013)

The full payment of the purchase price in a contract to sell is a suspensive condition, the non- fulfillment of which prevents the prospective seller’s obligation to convey title from becoming effective, as in this case. (OPTIMUM DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. SPOUSES BENIGNO V.

JOVELLANOS and LOURDES R. JOVELLANOS, G.R. No. 189145, December 4, 2013)

A contract of sale is classified as a consensual contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity. Upon perfection of the contract, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the thing sold.

In contrast, a contract to sell is defined as a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, i.e., the full payment of the purchase price. A contract to sell may not even be considered as a conditional contract of sale where the seller may likewise reserve title to the property subject of the sale until the fulfillment of a suspensive condition, because in a conditional contract of sale, the first element of consent is present, although it is conditioned upon the happening of a contingent event which may or may not occur. (ACE FOODS, INC. VS. MICRO

PACIFIC TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., G.R. No. 200602, December 11, 2013)

In sales with the right to repurchase, the title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee, subject to the resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor within the

stipulated period. Once the conditions for the repurchase are complied with, the ownership of the subject property is reverted back to the original vendor. Since, Eduardo fulfilled the conditions for the exercise of the right to repurchase, he cannot be denied of acquiring the property by exercising his right to repurchase the same. (ROBERTO R. DAVID v. EDUARDO C. DAVID G.R. NO. 162365.

January 15, 2014)

In a contract to sell, the seller retains ownership of the subject property. Thus, the seller may still enter into a valid contract of mortgage. However, when the contract to sell ripens to an absolute contract of sale, the mortgagor and mortgagee must respect the rights of the buyer over the subject property. Such buyer is not privy to the contract between the mortgagor and mortgagee; hence, the buyer can make the necessary actions to protect her rights over the property. Despite the apparent validity of the mortgage between the petitioner and PEPI, the former is still bound to respect the transactions between respondents PEPI and Dee. (PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA

TAN DEE, ET AL., G.R. No. 182128, February 19, 2014)