Anda di halaman 1dari 4

(1) Marvin offered to construct the house of Carlos for a very reasonable price

of P900, 000.00, giving the latter 10 days within which to accept or reject
the offer. On the fifth day, before Carlos could make up his mind, Marvin
withdrew his offer. What is the effect of the withdrawal of Marvin's offer?
b) Will your answer be the same if Carlos paid Marvin P10, 000.00 as
consideration for that option? Explain. c) Supposing that Carlos accepted
the offer before Marvin could communicate his withdrawal thereof?
Discuss the legal consequences.

(2) In a 20-year lease contract over a building, the lessee is expressly granted
a right of first refusal should the lessor decide to sell both the land and
building. However, the lessor sold the property to a third person who knew
about the lease and in fact agreed to respect it. Consequently, the lessee
brings an action against both the lessor-seller and the buyer (a) to rescind
the sale and (b) to compel specific performance of his right of first refusal
in the sense that the lessor should be ordered to execute a deed of absolute
sale in favor of the lessee at the same price. The defendants contend that
the plaintiff can neither seek rescission of the sale nor compel specific
performance of a “mere” right of first refusal. Decide the case.

(3) X was the owner of a 10, 000 square meter property. X married Y and out
of their union, A, B and C were born. After the death of Y, X married Z and
they begot as children, D, E and F. After the death of X, the children of the
first and second marriages executed an extrajudicial partition of the
aforestated property on May 1, 1970. D, E and F were given a one
thousand square meter portion of the property. They were minors at the
time of the execution of the document. D was 17 years old, E was 14 and
F was 12; and they were made to believe by A, B and C that unless they
sign the document they will not get any share. Z was not present then. In
January 1974, D E and F filed an action in court to nullify the suit alleging
they discovered the fraud only in 1973. a) Can the minority of D, E and F
be a basis to nullify the partition? Explain your answer b) How about
fraud? Explain your answer.

(4) Sometime in 1955, Tomas donated a parcel of land to his stepdaughter

Irene, subject to the condition that she may not sell, transfer or cede the
same for twenty years. Shortly thereafter, he died. In 1965, because she
needed money for medical expenses, Nene sold the land to Conrado. The
following year, Irene died, leaving as her sole heir a son by the name of
Armando. When Armando learned that the land which he expected to
inherit had been sold by Irene to Conrado, he filed an action against the
latter for annulment of the sale, on the ground that it violated the
restriction imposed by Tomas. Conrado filed a motion to dismiss, on the
ground that Armando did not have the legal capacity to sue. If you were
the judge, how will you rule on this motion to dismiss? Explain.

As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. Armando has no personality to bring the
action for annulment of the sale to Conrado. Only an aggrieved party to the contract
may bring the action for annulment thereof (Art. 1397. NCC).
While Armando is heir and successor-in-interest of his
mother (Art. 1311, NCC), he [standing in place of his mother) has no personality
to annul the contract. Both are not aggrieved parties on account of their own violation
of the condition of, or restriction on, their ownership imposed by the donation. Only
the donor or his heirs would have the
personality to bring an action to revoke a donation for violation of a condition
thereof or a restriction thereon. (Garridou
vs.CA,236 SCRA 450).Consequently, while the donor or his heirs were not parties
to the sale, they have the right to annul the contract of sale because their rights are
prejudiced by one of the contracting parties
thereof [DBP v. CA, 96 SCRA 342; Teves vs. PHHC. 23 SCRA 114]. Since Arm
ando is neither the donor nor heir of the donor, he has no personality to bring the
action for annulment.


As judge, I will grant the motion to dismiss. Compliance with a condition imposed
by a donor gives rise to an action to revoke the donation under Art. 764, NCC.
However, the right of action belongs to the donor. Is transmissible to his heirs, and
may be exercised against the donee’s heirs. Since Armando is an heir of the donee,
not of the donor, he has no legal capacity to sue for revocation of the donation.
Although he is not seeking such revocation but an annulment of the sale which
his mother, the donee, had
executed in violation of the condition imposed by the
donor, an action for annulment of a contract may be brought only by those
who are principally or subsidiarily obliged thereby (Art. 1397, NCC). As an
exception to the rule, it has been held that a person not so obliged may nevertheless
ask for annulment if he is prejudiced in his rights regarding one of the contracting
parties (DBP vs.CA, 96SCRA342 and othercases) and can show the
detriment which would result to him from the contract in which he had no
intervention, (Teves vs. PHHC, 23 SCRA 114).

Such detriment or prejudice cannot be shown by Armando. As a forced

heir, Armando’s interest in the property was, at best, a mere expectancy. The sale
of the land by his mother did not impair any vested right. The fact remains that the
premature sale made by his mother (premature because only half of the period of
the ban had elapsed) was not voidable at all, none of the vices of consent under Art.
139 of the NCC being present. Hence, the motion to dismiss should be granted.
(5) Maria Enriquez failed to pay the realty taxes on her unregistered
agricultural land located in Magdugo, Toledo City. In 1989, to satisfy the
taxes due, the City sold it at public auction to Juan Miranda, an employee
at the Treasurer’s Office of said City, whose bid at P10, 000.00 was the
highest. In due time, a final bill of sale was executed in his favor. Maria
refused to turn-over the possession of the property to Juan alleging that
(1) she had been, in the meantime, granted a free pantent and on the basis
thereof an Original Cetificate of Title was issued to her, and (2) the sale in
favor of Juan is void from the beginning in view of the provision in the
Administrative Code of 1987 which prohibits officers and employees of the
government from purchasing directly or indirectly any property sold by the
government for non-payment of any tax, fee or other public charge. a) Is
the sale to Juan valid? If so, is the effect of the issuance of the Certificate
of Title to Maria? b) If the sale is void, may Juan recover the P10, 000.00?
If not, why not? c) If the sale is void, did it not nevertheless, operate to
divent Maria of her ownership? If it did, who then is the owner of the

(6) In 1950, the Bureau of Lands issued a Homestead patent to A. Three years
later, A sold the homestead to B. A died in 1990, and his heirs filed an
action to recover the homestead from B on the ground that its sale by their
father to the latter is void under Section 118 of the Public Land Law. B
contends, however, that the heirs of A cannot recover the homestead from
him anymore because their action has prescribed and that furthermore, A
was in pari delicto. Decide.

(7) Bert offers to buy Simeon’s property under the following terms and
conditions: P1 million purchase price, 10% option money, the balance
payable in cash upon the clearance of the property of all illegal occupants.
The option money is promptly paid and Simeon clears the property of
illegal occupants in no time at all. However, when Bert tenders payment
of the balance and ask Simeon for the deed for absolute sale, Simeon
suddenly has a change of heart, claiming that the deal is disadvantageous
to him as he has found out that the property can fetch three time the
agreed purchase price. Bert seeks specific performance but Simeon
contends that he has merely given Bert an option to buy and nothing more,
and offers to return the option money which Bert refuses to accept. A. Will
Bert’s action for specific performance prosper? Explain. B. May Simeon
justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is
financially disadvantageous to him? Explain.
(8) Spouses Biong and Linda wanted to sell their house. They found a
prospective buyer, Ray. Linda negotiated with Ray for the sale of the
property. They agreed on a fair price of P2 Million. Ray sent Linda a letter
confirming his intention to buy the property. Later, another couple, Bernie
and Elena, offered a similar house at a lower price of P1.5 Million. But Ray
insisted on buying the house of Biong and Linda for sentimental reasons.
Ray prepared a deed of sale to be signed by the couple and a manager's
check for P2 Million. After receiving the P2 Million, Biong signed the deed
of sale. However, Linda was not able to sign it because she was abroad.
On her return, she refused to sign the document saying she changed her
mind. Linda filed suit for nullification of the deed of sale and for moral and
exemplary damages against Ray. 1) Will the suit proper? 2) Does Ray have
any cause of action against Biong and Linda? Can he also recover damages
from the spouses? Explain.