1.) Distinguish the following: a. Contract of sale and contract to sell. b. Interruption and tolling of prescription of actions.
a. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. A contract to sell is a kind of conditional sale. In an absolute sale, title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold. In both contracts to sell and contracts of conditional sale, title to the property remains with the seller despite delivery. Both contracts are subject to the positive suspensive condition of the buyer’s full payment of the purchase price or the fulfillment of the condition.
b. The interruption of the prescriptive period by written extrajudicial demand means that the said period would commence anew from the receipt of the demand.
Article 1155 of the Civil Code provides that the “prescription of actions is interrupted” inter alia, “when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.” This simply means that the period of prescription, when interrupted by such a written acknowledgment, begins to run anew; and whatever time of limitation might have already elapsed from the accrual of the cause of action is thereby negated and rendered inefficacious. The effect of the interruption spoken of in Article 1155 is to renew the obligation, to make prescription run again from the date of the interruption.
2.) D sold a second-hand car to E for P150,000.00. The agreement between D and E was that half of the purchase price, or P75,000.00 shall be paid in five equal monthly instalments of P15,000.00 each. That car was delivered to E, and E paid the amount of P75,000.00 to D. Less than one month thereafter, the car was stolen from E’s garage with no fault on E’s part and was never recovered. Is E legally bound to pay the said unpaid balance of P75,000.00? Explain your answer.
Yes, E is legally bound to pay the balance of P75,000.00. The ownership of the car sold was acquired by E from the moment it was delivered to him. Having acquired ownership. E bears the risk of the loss under the doctrine of res perit domino. (Articles 1496, 1497, Civil Code)
3.) Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a postdated check in full payment therefore. Before the maturity of the check, Alfonso sold the car to Gregorio who later sold it to Gabriel. When presented for payment, the check issued by Alfonso was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that he, Alfonso, had already closed his account even before he issued his check. Pablo sued to recover the car from Gabriel alleging that he (Pablo) had been unlawfully deprived of it by reason of Alfonso’s deception. Will the suit prosper?
No. The suit will not prosper because Pablo was not unlawfully deprived of the car although he was unlawfully deprived of the price. The perfection of the sale and the delivery of the car was enough to allow Alfonso to have a right of ownership over the car, which can be lawfully transferred to Gregorio. Art. 559 applies only to a person who is in possession in good faith of the property, and not to the owner thereof. Alfonso, in the problem, was the owner, and, hence, Gabriel acquired the title to the car.
Non-payment of the price in a contract of sale does not render ineffective the obligation to deliver.
The obligation to deliver a thing is different from the obligation to pay its price. [EDCA Publishing Co. v. Santos (1990)]
4.) A granted B the exclusive right to sell his brand of Maong pants in Isabela, the price for his merchandise payable within 60 days from delivery, and promising B a commission of 20% on all sales. After the delivery of the merchandise to B but beforehecouldsell any of them, B’s store in Isabela was completely burned without his fault, together will all of A’s pants. Must B pay A for his lost pants? Why?
The contract between A and B is a sale not an agency to sell because the price is payable by B upon 60 days from delivery even if B is unable to resell it. If B were an agent, he is not bound to pay the price if he is unable to resell it.
As a buyer, ownership passed to B upon delivery and, under Art. 1504 of the Civil Code, the thing perishes for the owner. Hence, B must still pay the price.
5.) On June 15, 1995, Jesus sold a parcel of registered land to Jaime. On June 30, 1995, he sold the same land to Jose. Who has a better right if: a) The first sale is registered ahead of the second sale, with knowledge of the latter. Why? b) The second sale is registered ahead of the first sale, with knowledge of the latter? Why?
-
The first buyer has the better right if his sale was first to be registered, even though the first buyer knew of the second The fact that he knew of the second sale at the time of his registration does not make him as acting in bad faith because the sale to him was ahead in time, hence, has a priority in right. What creates bad faith in the case of double sale of land is knowledge of a previous sale.
-
The first buyer is still to be preferred, where the second sale is registered ahead of the first sale but with knowledge of the This is because the second buyer, who at the time he registered his sale knew that the property had already been sold to someone else, acted in bad faith (Article 1544).