FILINVEST CREDIT VS.

CA FACTS: the spouses Jose Sy Bang and Iluminada Tan, were engaged in the sale of gravel produced from crushed rocks and used for construction purposes. In order to increase their production, they engaged the services of Mr. Ruben Mercurio, the proprietor of Gemini Motor Sales in Lucena City, to look for a rock crusher which they could buy. Mr. Mercurio referred the private respondents to the Rizal Consolidated Corporation which then had for sale one such machinery described as:ONE UNIT LIPPMAN PORTABLE CRUSHING PLANT (RECONDITIONED) [sic], JAW CRUSHER-10xl6 DOUBLE ROLL CRUSHER 16x16, 3 UNITS PRODUCT CONVEYOR, 75 HP ELECTRIC MOTOR, 8 PCS. BRAND NEW TIRES CHASSIS NO. 19696 GOOD RUNNING CONDITION 3Oscar Sy Bang, a brother of private respondent Jose Sy Bang, went to inspect the machine at the Rizal Consolidated's plant site. Apparently satisfied with the machine, the private respondents signified their intent to purchase the same. They were however confronted with a problem-the rock crusher carried a cash price tag of P 550,000.00. Bent on acquiring the machinery, the private respondents applied for financial assistance from the petitioner, Filinvest Credit Corporation. The petitioner agreed to extend to the private respondents financial aid on the following conditions: that the machinery be purchased in the petitioner's name; that it be leased (with option to purchase upon the termination of the lease period) to the private respondents; and that the private respondents execute a real estate mortgage in favor of the petitioner as security for the amount advanced by the latter. Accordingly, on May 18,1981, a contract of lease of machinery (with option to purchase) was entered into by the parties whereby the private respondents agreed to lease from the petitioner the rock crusher for two years starting from July 5, 1 981. The contract likewise stipulated that at the end of the two-year period, the machine would be owned by the private respondents. Thus, the private respondents issued in favor of the petitioner a check for P150,550.00, as initial rental (or guaranty deposit), and twenty-four (24) postdated checks corresponding to the 24 monthly rentals. In addition, to guarantee their compliance with the lease contract, the private respondents executed a real estate mortgage over two parcels of land in favor of the petitioner. The rock crusher was delivered to the private respondents on June 9, 1981. Three months from the date of delivery, or on September 7, 1981, however, the private respondents, claiming that they had only tested the machine that month, sent a letter-complaint to the petitioner, alleging that contrary to the 20 to 40 tons per hour capacity of the machine as stated in the lease contract, the machine could only process 5 tons of rocks and stones per hour. They then demanded that the petitioner make good the stipulation in the lease contract. They followed that up with similar written complaints to the petitioner, but the latter did not, however, act on them. Subsequently, the private respondents stopped payment on the remaining checks they had issued to the petitioner. 5 As a consequence of the non-payment by the private respondents of the rentals on the rock crusher as they fell due despite the repeated written demands, the petitioner extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage. 6 On April 18, 1983, the private respondents received a Sheriff s Notice of Auction Sale informing them that their mortgaged properties were going to be sold at a public auction. To thwart the impending auction of their properties, the private respondents filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon, on May 4, 1983, 8 a complaint against the petitioner, for the rescission of the contract of lease, annullment of the real estate mortgage, and for injunction and damages, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. three days before the scheduled auction sale, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order commanding the Provincial Sheriff of Quezon, and the petitioner, to refrain and desist from proceeding with the public auction. The RTC issued a TRO and later on made the injunction permanent and ordered petitioner to rescind the contract and return the deposit and all rentals paid by private respondents. The petitioner argues that it is a financing institution engaged in quasi-banking activities, primarily the lending of money to entrepreneurs such as the private respondents and the general public, but certainly not the leasing or selling of heavy machineries like the subject rock crusher. The petitioner denies being the seller of the rock crusher and only admits having financed its acquisition by the private respondents. ISSUE: W/N Petitioneris the owner and lessor of the rock machineries. RULING: Yes. the fact that the rock crusher was purchased from Rizal Consolidated Corporation in the name and with the funds of the petitioner proves beyond doubt that the ownership thereof was effectively transferred to it. It is precisely this ownership which enabled the petitioner to enter into the "Contract of Lease of Machinery and Equipment" with the private respondents.

Be that as it may, the real intention of the parties should prevail. The nomenclature of the agreement cannot change its true essence, i.e., a sale on installments. It is basic that a contract is what the law defines it and the parties intend it to be, not what it is called by the parties. 13 It is apparent here thatthe intent of the parties to the subject contract is for the so-called rentals to be the installment payments. Upon the completion of the payments, then the rock crusher, subject matter of the contract, would become the property of the private respondents. This form of agreement has been criticized as a lease only in name. (1484 & 1485) SOUTHERN MOTORS VS. MOSCOSSO FACTS: On June 6, 1957, plaintiff-appellee Southern Motors, Inc. sold to defendant-appellant Angel Moscoso one Chevrolet truck, on installment basis, for P6,445.00. Upon making a down payment, the defendant executed a promissory note for the sum of P4,915.00, representing the unpaid balance of the purchase price, to secure the payment of which, a chattel mortgage was constituted on the truck in favor of the plaintiff. Of said account of P4,915.00, the defendant had paid a total of P550.00, of which P110.00 was applied to the interest up to August 15, 1957, and P400.00 to the principal, thus leaving an unpaid balance of P4,475.00. The defendant failed to pay 3 installments on the balance of the purchase price. On November 4, 1957, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant, to recover the unpaid balance of the promissory note. Upon plaintiff's petition, embodied in the complaint, a writ of attachment was issued by the lower court on the properties Of the defendant. Pursuant thereto, the said Chevrolet truck, and a house and lot belonging to defendant, were attached by the Sheriff of San Jose, Antique, where defendant was residing on November 25, 1957, and said truck was brought to the plaintiff's compound in Iloilo City, for safe keeping. After attachment and before the trial of the case on the merits, acting upon the plaintiff's motion, for the immediate sale of the mortgaged truck, the Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo on January 2, 1958, sold the truck at public auction in which plaintiff itself was the only bidder for P1,000.00. The trial court condemned the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of P4,475.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from August 16, 1957, until fully paid, plus 10% thereof as attorneys fees and costs against which defendant interposed the present appeal. Appellant contends that appellee had availed itself of the third remedy viz, the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage on the truck, that the appellee did not content itself by waiting for the judgment on the complaint and then executed the judgment which might be rendered in its favor, against the properties of the appellant; that the appellee obtained a preliminary attachment on the subject of the chattel mortgage itself and caused said truck to be sold at public auction petition, in which he was bidder for P1,000.00; the result of which, was similar to what would have happened, had it foreclosed the mortgage pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 14 of Act No. 1508 (Chattel Mortgage Law) the said appellee had availed itself of the third remedy aforequoted. ISSUE: W/N Southern Motors has chosen the third remedy. RULING: NO. The complaint is an ordinary civil action for recovery of the remaining unpaid balance due on the promissory note. The plaintiff had not adopted the procedure or methods outlined by Sec. 14 of the Chattel Mortgage Law but those prescribed for ordinary civil actions, under the Rules of Court. Had appellee elected the foreclosure, it would not have instituted this case in court; it would not have caused the chattel to be attached under Rule 59, and had it sold at public auction, in the manner prescribed by Rule 39. That the herein appellee did not intend to foreclose the mortgage truck, is further evinced by the fact that it had also attached the house and lot of the appellant at San Jose, Antique. RIDAD VS. FILIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORP. FACTS: On April 14, 1964, plaintiffs purchased from the Supreme Sales arid Development Corporation two (2) brand new Ford Consul Sedans complete with accessories, for P26,887 payable in 24 monthly installments. To secure payment thereof, plaintiffs executed on the same date a promissory note covering the purchase price and a deed of chattel mortgage not only on the two vehicles purchased but also on another car (Chevrolet) and plaintiffs' franchise or certificate of public convenience granted by the defunct Public Service Commission for the operation of a taxi fleet. Then, with the conformity of the plaintiffs, the

vendor assigned its rights, title and interest to the above-mentioned promissory note and chattel mortgage to defendant Filipinas Investment and Finance Corporation. Due to the failure of the plaintiffs to pay their monthly installments as per promissory note, the defendant corporation foreclosed the chattel mortgage extra-judicially, and at the public auction sale of the two Ford Consul cars, of which the plaintiffs were not notified, the defendant corporation was the highest bidder and purchaser. Another auction sale was held on November 16, 1965, involving the remaining properties subject of the deed of chattel mortgage since plaintiffs' obligation was not fully satisfied by the sale of the aforesaid vehicles, and at the public auction sale, the franchise of plaintiffs to operate five units of taxicab service was sold for P8,000 to the highest bidder, herein defendant corporation, which subsequently sold and conveyed the same to herein defendant Jose D. Sebastian, who then filed with the Public Service Commission an application for approval of said sale in his favor. plaintiffs filed an action for annulment of contract which was decided in their favor and the certificate of sale was cancelled. ISSUE: W/N Appellant may proceed against the taxi cab franchise and other vehicle after foreclosure of the purchased personal properties. (W/N foreclosure of the taxi cab franchise and other vehicle was valid). RULING: No.Under ART. 1484, Whichever right the vendor elects, he cannot avail of the other, these remedies being alternative, not cumulative. 2 Furthermore, if the vendor avails himself of the right to foreclose his mortgage, the law prohibits him from further bringing an action against the vendee for the purpose of recovering whatever balance of the debt secured not satisfied by the foreclosure sale. 3 The precise purpose of the law is to prevent mortgagees from seizing the mortgaged property, buying it at foreclosure sale for a low price and then bringing suit against the mortgagor for a deficiency judgment, otherwise, the mortgagor-buyer would find himself without the property and still owing practically the full amount of his original indebtedness. defendant corporation elected to foreclose its mortgage upon default by the plaintiffs in the payment of the agreed installments. Having chosen to foreclose the chattel mortgage, and bought the purchased vehicles at the public auction as the highest bidder, it submitted itself to the consequences of the law as specifically mentioned, by which it is deemed to have renounced any and all rights which it might otherwise have under the promissory note and the chattel mortgage as well as the payment of the unpaid balance. ATKINS KROLL & CO. VS. CHUA HIAN TEK FACTS: Dated September 13, 1951, petitioner sent to respondent a letter of the following tenor: Sir (s) /Madam: We are pleased to make you herewith the following firm offer, subject to reply by September 23, 1951: Quantity and Commodity: 400 Ctns. Luneta brand Sardines in Tomato Sauce 48/15-oz. Ovals at $8.25 Ctn. 300 Ctns. Luntea brand Sardines Natural 48/15 oz. talls at $6.25 Ct. 300 Ctns. Luneta brand Sardines in Tomato Sauce 100/5-oz. talls at $7.48 Ct. Price(s): All prices C ad F Manila Cosular Fees of $6.00 to be added. Shipmet: Durig September/October from US Ports. Supplier: Atkins, Kroll & Co., Sa Frasisco, Cal. U.S.A. We are looking forward to receive your valued order and remain . Very truly yours, The Court of first instance and the Court of Appeals1 found that B. Cua Hian Tek accepted the offer unconditionally and delivered his letter of acceptance Exh. B on September 21, 1951. However, due to shortage of catch of sardines by the packers in California, Atkins Kroll & Co., failed to deliver the commodities it had offered for sale. The offer Exh. A, petitioner argues, "was a promise to sell a determinate thing for a price certain. Upon its acceptance by respondent, the offer became an accepted unilateral

promise to sell a determinate thing for price certain. Inasmuch as there was no consideration to support the promise to sell distinct from the price, it follows that under Art. 1479 aforequoted, the promise is not binding on the petitioner even if it was accepted by respondent." Petitioner, however, insists the offer was a mere offer of option, because the "firm offer" Exh. A. was a continuing offer to sell until September 23, "an option is nothing more than a continuing offer" for a specified time. ISSUE: W/N the contract was an option to buy. RULING: No. an option is unilateral: a promise to sell3 at the price fixed whenever the offeree should decide to exercise his option within the specified time. After accepting the promise and before he exercises his option, the holder of the option is not bound to buy. He is free either to buy or not to later. In this case, however, upon accepeting herein petitioner's offer a bilateral promise to sell and to buy ensued, and the respondent ipso facto assumed the obligations of a purchaser. He did not just get the right subsequently to buy or not to buy. It was not a mere option then; it was bilalteral contract of sale. a bilateral cotract to sell and to buy was created upon acceptance. So much so that B. Cua Hian Tek could be sued, he had backed out after accepting, by refusing to get the sardines and/or to pay for their price. Indeed, the word "option" is found neither in the offer nor in the acceptance. On the copntrary Exh. B accepted "the firm offer for the sale" and adds, "the undersigned buyer has immediately filed an application for import license . . ." . As to peitioners second contention, it implies the legal obligation to keep open for the time specified. 2 Yet the letter Exh. A did not by itself produce the legal obligation of keeping the offer open up ot Septmber 23. It could be withdrawn before acceptance, because it is admitted, there was no consideration for it. even supposing that Exh. A granted an option which is not binding for lack of consideration, the authorities hold that If the option is given without a consideration, it is a mere offer of a contract of sale, which is not binding until accepted. If, however, acceptance is made before a withdrawal, it constitutes a binding contract of sale, even though the option was not supported by a sufficient consideration. It can be taken for granted, as contended by the defendants, that the option contract was not valid for lack of consideration. But it was, at least, an offer to sell, which was accepted by letter, and of this acceptance the offerer had knowledge before said offer was withdrawn. The concurrence of both actsthe offer and the acceptancecould at all events have generated a contract, if none there was before. SOUTHWESTERN SUGAR MOLASSES CO. VS. ATLANTIC GULF FACTS: Atlantic Gulf for short, granted an option to Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. (Far East) Inc., hereafter called Southwestern Company, to buy its barge No. 10 for the sum of P30,000 to be exercised within a period of ninety days. On May 11, 1953, the Southwestern Company wrote to Atlantic Gulf advising the latter that it wanted "to exercise our option at your earliest convenience" and requested that it be notified as soon as the barge was available. On May 12, 1953, the Atlantic Gulf replied stating that their understanding was that the "offer of option" is to be a cash transaction and to be effected "at the time the lighter is available", and, on June 25, 1953, reiterating the unavailability of the barge, it further advised the Southwestern Company that since there is still further work for it, and as this situation still applies" the barge could not be turned over to the latter company. On June 27, 1953, in view if such vacillating attitude, the Southwestern Company instituted the present action to compel the Atlantic Gulf to sell the barge in line with the option, depositing with the court a check covering the sum of P30,000. This check however was later withdrawn with the approval of the court. On June 29, 1953, the Atlantic Gulf withdraw its "offer of option" with due notices to the Southwestern Company stating as reason therefor that the option was granted merely as a favor. The Atlantic Gulf set up as a defense the option to sell made by it to the Southwestern Company is null and void because it is not supported by any consideration. After due trial, the lower court rendered judgment granting plaintiff's prayer for specific performance. It further ordered the defendant to pay damages in an amount equivalent to 6 per centum per annum on the sum of P30,000 from the date of the filing of the complaint, and to pay the sum of P600 as attorney's fees, plus the costs of action. The main contention of appellant is that the option granted to appellee to sell to it barge No. 10 for the sum of P30,000 under the terms stated above has no legal effect because it is not supported by any consideration and in support thereof it invokes article 1479 of the new Civil Code. appellee contends that, even granting that the "offer of option" is not supported by any consideration, that option became binding on appellant

when the appellee gave notice to its acceptance, and that having accepted it within the period of option, the offer can no longer be withdrawn and in any event such withdrawal is ineffective. ISSUE: W/N Atlantic Gulf may withdraw the option. RULING: Yes. under article 1479 of the new Civil Code "an option to sell", or a "promise to buy or to sell", as used in said article, to be valid must be "supported by a consideration distinct from the price." This is clearly inferred from the context of said article that a unilateral promise to buy or sell, even if accepted, is only binding if supported by a consideration. In other words, "an accepted unilateral promise" can only have a binding effect if supported by a consideration, which means that the option can still be withdrawn, even if accepted, if the same is not supported by any consideration. Here it is not disputed that the option is without consideration. It can therefore be withdrawn notwithstanding the acceptance made of it by appellee. SANCHEZ VS. RIGOS FACTS: on April 3, 1961, plaintiff Nicolas Sanchez and defendant Severina Rigos executed an instrument entitled "Option to Purchase," whereby Mrs. Rigos "agreed, promised and committed ... to sell" to Sanchez the sum of P1,510.00, a parcel of land situated in the barrios of Abar and Sibot, municipality of San Jose, province of Nueva Ecija, and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-12528 of said province, within two (2) years from said date with the understanding that said option shall be deemed "terminated and elapsed," if "Sanchez shall fail to exercise his right to buy the property" within the stipulated period. Inasmuch as several tenders of payment of the sum of Pl,510.00, made by Sanchez within said period, were rejected by Mrs. Rigos, on March 12, 1963, the former deposited said amount with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and commenced against the latter the present action, for specific performance and damages. the lower court rendered judgment for Sanchez, ordering Mrs. Rigos to accept the sum judicially consigned by him and to execute, in his favor, the requisite deed of conveyance. plaintiff alleges that, by virtue of the option under consideration, "defendant agreed and committed to sell" and "the plaintiff agreed and committed to buy" the land described in the option, copy of which was annexed to said pleading as Annex A thereof and is quoted on the margin. 1 Hence, plaintiff maintains that the promise contained in the contract is "reciprocally demandable," pursuant to the first paragraph of said Article 1479. ISSUE: W/N the option has imposed an obligation upon the plaintiff and defendant.

RULING: No. Although defendant had really "agreed, promised and committed" herself to sell the land to the plaintiff, it is not true that the latter had, in turn, "agreed and committed himself " to buy said property. Said Annex A does not bear out plaintiff's allegation to this effect. The option did not impose upon plaintiff the obligation to purchase defendant's property. Annex A is not a "contract to buy and sell." It merely granted plaintiff an "option" to buy. And both parties so understood it, as indicated by the caption, "Option to Purchase," given by them to said instrument. Under the provisions thereof, the defendant "agreed, promised and committed" herself to sell the land therein described to the plaintiff for P1,510.00, but there is nothing in the contract to indicate that her aforementioned agreement, promise and undertaking is supported by a consideration "distinct from the price" stipulated for the sale of the land. Relying upon Article 1354 of our Civil Code, the lower court presumed the existence of said consideration, and this would seem to be the main factor that influenced its decision in plaintiff's favor. It should be noted, however, that: (1) Article 1354 applies to contracts in general, whereas the second paragraph of Article 1479 refers to "sales" in particular, and, more specifically, to "an accepted unilateral promise to buy or to sell." In other words, Article 1479 is controlling in the case at bar. (2) In order that said unilateral promise may be "binding upon the promisor, Article 1479 requires the concurrence of a condition, namely, that the promise be "supported by a consideration distinct from the price." Accordingly, the promisee can not compel the promisor to comply with the promise, unless the

former establishes the existence of said distinct consideration. In other words, the promisee has the burden of proving such consideration. Plaintiff herein has not even alleged the existence thereof in his complaint. (3) Upon the other hand, defendant explicitly averred in her answer, and pleaded as a special defense, the absence of said consideration for her promise to sell and, by joining in the petition for a judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff has impliedly admitted the truth of said averment in defendant's answer. In other words, since there may be no valid contract without a cause or consideration, the promisor is not bound by his promise and may, accordingly, withdraw it. Pending notice of its withdrawal, his accepted promise partakes, however, of the nature of an offer to sell which, if accepted, results in a perfected contract of sale.

FIESTAN VS. CA FACTS: Lot No. 2-B was acquired by the DBP as the highest bidder at a public auction sale on August 6, 1979 after it was extrajudicially foreclosed by the DBP in accordance with Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No. 4118, for failure of petitioners to pay their mortgage indebtedness. A certificate of sale was subsequently issued by the Provincial Sheriff of Ilocos Sur on the same day and the same was registered on September 28, 1979 in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur. Earlier, or on September 26, 1979, petitioners executed a Deed of Sale in favor of DBP which was likewise registered on September 28, 1979. Upon failure of petitioners to redeem the property within the one (1) year period which expired on September 28, 1980, petitioners' TCT T-13218 over Lot No. 2-B was cancelled by the Register of Deeds and in lieu thereof TCT T-19077 was issued to the DBP upon presentation of a duly executed affidavit of consolidation of ownership. On April 13,1982, the DBP sold the lot to Francisco Peria in a Deed of Absolute Sale and the same was registered on April 15, 1982 in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur. Subsequently, the DBP's title over the lot was cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT T-19229 was issued to Francisco Peria. After title over said lot was issued in his name, Francisco Peria secured a tax declaration for said lot and accordingly paid the taxes due thereon. He thereafter mortgaged said lot to the PNB Vigan Branch as security for his loan of P115,000.00 as required by the bank to increase his original loan from P49,000.00 to P66,000.00 until it finally reached the approved amount of P115,000.00. Since petitioners were still in possession of Lot No. 2-B, the Provincial Sheriff ordered them to vacate the premises. On the other hand, petitioners filed on August 23, 1982 a complaint for annulment of sale, mortgage and cancellation of transfer certificates of title against the DBP, PNB, Francisco Peria and the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur. Court rendered its decision 2 on November 14, 1983 dismissing the complaint, declaring therein, as valid the extrajudicial foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property in favor of the DBP as highest bidder in the public auction sale held on August 6, 1979, and its subsequent sale by DBP to Francisco Peria as well as the real estate mortgage constituted thereon in favor of PNB Vigan as security for the P115,000.00 loan of Francisco Peria. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC. The nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale in the instant case is further sought by petitioners on the ground that the DBP cannot acquire by purchase the mortgaged property at the public auction sale by virtue of par. (2) of Article 1491 and par. (7) of Article 1409 of the Civil Code which prohibits agents from acquiring by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction either in person or through the mediation of another, the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them unless the consent of the principal has been given. ISSUE: W/N DBP was prohibited to purchase the land by virtue of ART. 1491 (2) and ART. 1409. RULING: The prohibition mandated by par. (2) of Article 1491 in relation to Article 1409 of the Civil Code does not apply in the instant case where the sale of the property in dispute was made under a special power inserted in or attached to the real estate mortgage pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended. It is a familiar rule of statutory construction that, as between a specific statute and general statute, the former must prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than a general statute does. 7 The Civil Code (R.A. 386) is of general character while Act No. 3135, as amended, is a special enactment and therefore the latter must prevail. 8

Under Act No. 3135, as amended, a mortgagee-creditor is allowed to participate in the bidding and purchase under the same conditions as any other bidder, as in the case at bar, thus: Section 5. At any sale, the creditor, trustee, or other person authorized to act for the creditor, may participate in the bidding and purchase under the same conditions as any other bidder, unless the contrary has been expressly provided in the mortgage or trust deed under which the sale is made. In other words, Section 5 of Act No. 3135, as amended, creates and is designed to create an exception to the general rule that a mortgagee or trustee in a mortgage or deed of trust which contains a power of sale on default may not become the purchaser, either directly or through the agency of a third person, at a sale which he himself makes under the power. Under such an exception, the title of the mortgagee-creditor over the property cannot be impeached or defeated on the ground that the mortgagee cannot be a purchaser at his own sale. Needless to state, the power to foreclose is not an ordinary agency that contemplates exclusively the representation of the principal by the agent but is primarily an authority conferred upon the mortgagee for the latter's own protection. PASCUAL VS. UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORP. FACTS: The plaintiffs executed the real estate mortgage subject matter of this complaint on December 14, 1960 to secure the payment of the indebtedness of PDP Transit, Inc. for the purchase of five (5) units of Mercedez Benz trucks with a total purchase price or principal obligation of P152,506.50 but plaintiffs' guarantee is not to exceed P50,000.00 which is the value of the mortgage. the principal obligation of P152,506.50 was to bear interest at 1% a month from December 14, 1960. as of April 5, 1961 with reference to the two units mentioned above and as of May 22, 1961 with reference to the three units, PDP Transit, Inc., plaintiffs' principal, had paid to the defendant Universal Motors Corporation the sum of P92,964.91, thus leaving a balance of P68,641.69 including interest due as of February 8, 1965. That the aforementioned obligation guaranteed by the plaintiffs under the Real Estate Mortgage, subject of this action, is further secured by separate deeds of chattel mortgages on the Mercedez Benz units covered by the aforementioned invoices in favor of the defendant Universal Motors Corporation. on March 19, 1965, the defendant Universal Motors Corporation filed a complaint against PDP Transit, Inc. to collect the balance due under the Chattel Mortgages and to repossess all the units to sold to plaintiffs' principal PDP Transit, Inc. including the five (5) units guaranteed under the subject Real (Estate) Mortgage. Universal Motors Corporation admitted during the hearing that in its suit against the PDP Transit, Inc. it was able to repossess all the units sold to the latter, including the five (5) units guaranteed by the subject real estate mortgage, and to foreclose all the chattel mortgages constituted thereon, resulting in the sale of the trucks at public auction. the spouses Lorenzo Pascual and Leonila Torres, the real estate mortgagors, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City (Civil Case No. 8189) for the cancellation of the mortgage they constituted on two (2) parcels of land 1 in favor of the Universal Motors Corporation to guarantee the obligation of PDP Transit, Inc. to the extent of P50,000. The court rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, ordered the cancellation of the mortgage. The lower court stated in its decision that there does not seem to be any doubt that Art. 1484 2 of the New Civil Code may be applied in relation to a chattel mortgage constituted upon personal property on the installment basis (as in the present case) precluding the mortgagee to maintain any further action against the debtor for the purpose of recovering whatever balance of the debt secured, and even adding that any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void." The appellant now disputes the applicability of Article 1484 on the ground that there is no evidence on record that the purchase by PDP Transit, Inc. of the five (5) trucks, the payment of the price of which was partly guaranteed by the real estate mortgage in question, was payable in installments and that the purchaser had failed to pay two or more installments. The appellant also contends that in any event what article 1484 prohibits is for the vendor to recover from the purchaser the unpaid balance of the price after he has foreclosed the chattel mortgage on the thing sold, but not a recourse against the security put up by a third party.

ISSUE: W/N the sale was one on installments; W/N art. 1484 withholds from the vendor is the right to recover any deficiency from the purchaser after the foreclosure of the chattel mortgage and not a recourse to the additional security put up by a third party to guarantee the purchaser's performance of his obligation RULING: First Issue: On this issue the lower court found that it was, and that there was failure to pay two or more installments. This finding is not subject to review by this Court. The appellant's bare allegation to the contrary cannot be considered at this stage of the case. Second Issue: "(T)o sustain appellant's argument is to overlook the fact that if the guarantor should be compelled to pay the balance of the purchase price, the guarantor will in turn be entitled to recover what she has paid from the debtor vendee (Art. 2066, Civil Code); so that ultimately, it will be the vendee who will be made to bear the payment of the balance of the price, despite the earlier foreclosure of the chattel mortgage given by him. Thus, the protection given by Article 1484 would be indirectly subverted, and public policy overturned." NORKIS VS. CA FACTS: Norkis Distributors, Inc. (Norkis for brevity), is the distributor of Yamaha motorcycles in Negros Occidental with office in Bacolod City with Avelino Labajo as its Branch Manager. On September 20, 1979, private respondent Alberto Nepales bought from the Norkis-Bacolod branch a brand new Yamaha Wonderbike motorcycle. The price of P7,500.00 was payable by means of a Letter of Guaranty from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), which Norkis' Branch Manager Labajo agreed to accept. Hence, credit was extended to Nepales for the price of the motorcycle payable by DBP upon release of his motorcycle loan. As security for the loan, Nepales would execute a chattel mortgage on the motorcycle in favor of DBP. Branch Manager Labajo issued Norkis Sales Invoice No. 0120 (Exh.1) showing that the contract of sale of the motorcycle had been perfected. Nepales signed the sales invoice to signify his conformity with the terms of the sale. In the meantime, however, the motorcycle remained in Norkis' possession. On November 6, 1979, the motorcycle was registered in the Land Transportation Commission in the name of Alberto Nepales. A registration certificate (Exh. 2) in his name was issued by the Land Transportation Commission on November 6, 1979 (Exh. 2-b). The registration fees were paid by him, evidenced by an official receipt, Exhibit 3. On January 22, 1980, the motorcycle was delivered to a certain Julian Nepales who was allegedly the agent of Alberto Nepales but the latter denies it (p. 15, t.s.n., August 2, 1984). The record shows that Alberto and Julian Nepales presented the unit to DBP's AppraiserInvestigator Ernesto Arriesta at the DBP offices in Kabankalan, Negros Occidental Branch (p. 12, Rollo). The motorcycle met an accident on February 3, 1980 at Binalbagan, Negros Occidental. An investigation conducted by the DBP revealed that the unit was being driven by a certain Zacarias Payba at the time of the accident (p. 33, Rollo). The unit was a total wreck (p. 36, t.s.n., August 2,1984; p. 13, Rollo), was returned, and stored inside Norkis' warehouse. On March 20, 1980, DBP released the proceeds of private respondent's motorcycle loan to Norkis in the total sum of P7,500. As the price of the motorcycle later increased to P7,828 in March, 1980, Nepales paid the difference of P328 (p. 13, Rollo) and demanded the delivery of the motorcycle. When Norkis could not deliver, he filed an action for specific performance with damages against Norkis in the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Sixth (6th) Judicial Region, Branch LVI, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 1272. He alleged that Norkis failed to deliver the motorcycle which he purchased, thereby causing him damages. Norkis answered that the motorcycle had already been delivered to private respondent before the accident, hence, the risk of loss or damage had to be borne by him as owner of the unit. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent and was affirmed by the CA less the awarding of damages. Norkis concedes that there was no "actual" delivery of the vehicle. However, it insists that there was constructive delivery of the unit upon: (1) the issuance of the Sales Invoice No. 0120 (Exh. 1) in the name of the private respondent and the affixing of his signature thereon; (2) the registration of the vehicle on November 6, 1979 with the Land Transportation Commission in private respondent's name (Exh. 2); and (3) the issuance of official receipt (Exh. 3) for payment of registration fees. ISSUE: W/N there was an actual or constructive delivery of the motorcycle.

RULING: There was no actual or constructive delivery. As pointed out by the private respondent, the issuance of a sales invoice does not prove transfer of ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. An invoice is nothing more than a detailed statement of the nature, quantity and cost of the thing sold and has been considered not a bill of sale. In all forms of delivery, it is necessary that the act of delivery whether constructive or actual, be coupled with the intention of delivering the thing. The act, without the intention, is insufficient. When the motorcycle was registered by Norkis in the name of private respondent, Norkis did not intend yet to transfer the title or ownership to Nepales, but only to facilitate the execution of a chattel mortgage in favor of the DBP for the release of the buyer's motorcycle loan. The Letter of Guarantee (Exh. 5) issued by the DBP, reveals that the execution in its favor of a chattel mortgage over the purchased vehicle is a pre-requisite for the approval of the buyer's loan. If Norkis would not accede to that arrangement, DBP would not approve private respondent's loan application and, consequently, there would be no sale. In other words, the critical factor in the different modes of effecting delivery, which gives legal effect to the act, is the actual intention of the vendor to deliver, and its acceptance by the vendee. Without that intention, there is no tradition. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the purpose of the execution of the sales invoice dated September 20, 1979 (Exh. B) and the registration of the vehicle in the name of plaintiff-appellee (private respondent) with the Land Registration Commission (Exhibit C) was not to transfer to Nepales the ownership and dominion over the motorcycle, but only to comply with the requirements of the Development Bank of the Philippines for processing private respondent's motorcycle loan. On March 20, 1980, before private respondent's loan was released and before he even paid Norkis, the motorcycle had already figured in an accident while driven by one Zacarias Payba. Payba was not shown by Norkis to be a representative or relative of private respondent. The latter's supposed relative, who allegedly took possession of the vehicle from Norkis did not explain how Payba got hold of the vehicle on February 3, 1980. Norkis' claim that Julian Nepales was acting as Alberto's agent when he allegedly took delivery of the motorcycle (p. 20, Appellants' Brief), is controverted by the latter. Alberto denied having authorized Julian Nepales to get the motorcycle from Norkis Distributors or to enter into any transaction with Norkis relative to said motorcycle. NATINO VS. IAC extension of redemption period, loan of 2,000. FACTS: On 12 October 1970 petitioners executed a real estate mortgage in favor of respondent bank as security for a loan of P2,000.00. Petitioners failed to pay the loan on due date. The bank applied for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage. At the foreclosure sale on 11 December 1974 the respondent bank was the highest and winning bidder with a bid of P2,945.11. A certificate of sale was executed in its favor by the sheriff and the same was registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds on 29 January 1975. The certificate of sale, a copy of which was furnished the petitioners by registered mail, expressly provided that the redemption period shall be two years from the registration thereof. Since no redemption was made by petitioners within the two-year period, which expired on 29 January 1977, the sheriff issued a Final Deed of Sale on 15 February 1977. Petitioners, however, claimed that they were granted by respondent bank an extension of the redemption period; but the latter denied it. On 22 November 1979 respondent bank file a petition for a writ of possession, which petitioners later opposed on the ground that they had consigned the redemption money of P4,000.00 on 12 December 1979. The court rejected the opposition and issued the writ of possession. However, to prevent its execution, petitioners instituted with the then Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a complaint against respondent bank and the Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff for the annulment of the aforementioned final deed of sale and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 15573 which was raffled to Branch II thereof. In their complaint petitioners alleged that the final deed of sale was prematurely issued since they were granted an extension of time to redeem the property. RTC rendered decision in favor of petitioners holding that the defendant bank has not rebutted evidence and testimony presented by petitioners hence it is deemed that the redemption period was extended and that the same was not provided so the court has to set the period for redemption. CA reversed the decision of the RTC holding that there was no extension and the assurance given by the defendant bank was made before the expiration of the redemption period. The offer of the petitioners was done after the expiration and hence is an offer to repurchase the property. ISSUE: W/N There was an extension of the redemption period based on the acts of the defendant bank.

RULING: No. In respect to the alleged assurance given by Mrs. Brodeth, the President and Manager of the Bank, sometime in May of 1978 to the effect that petitioners can redeem the property as soon as they have the money, it is obvious that this took place after the expiration of the redemption period. As correctly pointed out by the respondent IAC, this could only relate to the matter of resale of the property, not redemption. Even if Mrs. Brodeth is to be understood to have promised to allow the petitioners to buy the property at any time they have the money, the Bank was not bound by the promise not only because it was not approved or ratified by the Board of Directors but also because, and more decisively, it was a promise unsupported by a consideration distinct from the re-purchase price. The second paragraph of Article 1479 of the Civil Code expressly provides: xxx xxx xxx An accepted unilateral. promise to buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissory if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. Thus in Rural Bank of Paraaque Inc. vs. Remolado, et al., 8 a commitment by the bank to resell a property, within a specified period, although accepted by the party in whose favor it was made, was considered an option not supported by a consideration distinct from the price and, therefore, not binding upon the promissor. Pursuant to Southwestern Sugar and Molasses Co. vs. Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company, 9 it was void. Roman vs grimalt Roman ngbenta ng banka ky grimalt(thru verbal agreement).pumayag c grimalt,ngagree cla pareho sa price at inispect pa ang banka kung ok o hindi.ang pagbayad ay 3 gives,500 each.nilagay nila sa public instrument ang agreement nila. Bgo ang delivery, lumubog ang banka. Issue cno dpat ang mgbear ng loss? Ruling: c roman.walang perfected sale kc hindi pala sya ang owner!(nkapangalan ang bangka sa isang paulina giron).dahil walang ngang perfected sale,c roman dpat mgbear ng loss. Layug vs IAC Layug ngenter sa contract w/ gabuya. 12 lots,10k each. Nsa contract na 3 bigayan ng 40k per yr(40k downpayment,40k after 12 mos,40k after 24mos.).nsa contract din na kpag di nkpagbayad c layug, maccancel ang contract, ung binayad parang mgging rentals. Ngbayad c layag ng 80k.hindi nkabayad nung huling 40k.ngdemand c gabuya,tablado, kaya ngfile ng annulment of contract at recovery 4 damages sa court. Cnclaim ni layug na dhl nkabayad na sya ng 80k,dpat 8 lots ay mapunta sa kanya(ngcite pa ng ruling sa calasanz vs angeles) Issue- dpat b mpunta 8 lots ky layug Ruling: hindi daw dhl my bgong statute (RA 6552) na nggovern ng contracts over sale of real property.under d2, pwede icancel ng vendor ung contract kapag hindi sinunod nung vendee.entitled lang c layug sa 50% nung binayad nya pursuant dun sa ra 6552. Serra vs CA Serra ay owner ng lot sa masbate. Ngenter into a lease contract(with option to buy) w/ rcbc. Sabi sa contract 25 years ung lease. 10 yrs after nung signing nung contract, pwedeng bilhin un ni rcbc at a price

not greater than 210 pesos. Ang monthly rental ay 700 per month. Pwede mgconstruct ng building c rcbc kaso pg di nya binili ang lupa, mpupunta ang building ky serra after 25 yrs. Dpat din daw kumuha ng torrens title c serra sa lupa. After makakuha ng torrens title c serra, pinilit na nya ung rcbc na bilhin ung lupa pero ayaw pa ng rcbc(3 yrs after signing ng contract). 9 yrs after, pumayag na c rcbc. Pero ayaw na ni Serra ngyn ibenta ang lupa(dahil daw unfair ang terms nung contract[rcbc ng prepare nung contract,thus contract of adhesion un], hindi nmn daw binding dhl unsupported by a consideration distinct from the price tska ngkaroon dawn g extraordinary inflation). Ngdemand ng specific performance c rcbc ky serra. Issue: tama b c serra Ruling : hindi dw dhl: 1) valid ung contracts of adhesion. Hindi unfair kc nbasa nmn ni serra ang terms and conditions,hindi din sya maloloko kc CPA-lawyer sya.2)bilateral promise na kc tinanggap na nya kaya wala ng atrasan 3)dun sa inflation, hindi nmn daw extraordinary un. SONNY LO vs.KJS ECO-FORMWORK SYSTEM PHIL., INC. FACTS: Respondent KJS ECO-FORMWORK System Phil., Inc. is a corporation engaged in the sale of steel scaffoldings, while petitioner Sonny L. Lo, doing business under the name and style Sans Enterprises, is a building contractor. On February 22, 1990, petitioner ordered scaffolding equipments from respondent worth P540,425.80.1 He paid a downpayment in the amount of P150,000.00. The balance was made payable in ten monthly installments. Respondent delivered the scaffoldings to petitioner.2 Petitioner was able to pay the first two monthly installments.1a\^/phi1.net His business, however, encountered financial difficulties and he was unable to settle his obligation to respondent despite oral and written demands made against him.3 On October 11, 1990, petitioner and respondent executed a Deed of Assignment,4 whereby petitioner assigned to respondent his receivables in the amount of P335,462.14 from Jomero Realty Corporation. However, when respondent tried to collect the said credit from Jomero Realty Corporation, the latter refused to honor the Deed of Assignment because it claimed that petitioner was also indebted to it.6 On November 26, 1990, respondent sent a letter7 to petitioner demanding payment of his obligation, but petitioner refused to pay claiming that his obligation had been extinguished when they executed the Deed of Assignment. Consequently, on January 10, 1991, respondent filed an action for recovery of a sum of money against the petitioner. petitioner argued that his obligation was extinguished with the execution of the Deed of Assignment of credit. Respondent, for its part, presented the testimony of its employee, Almeda Baaga, who testified that Jomero Realty refused to honor the assignment of credit because it claimed that petitioner had an outstanding indebtedness to it. On August 25, 1994, the trial court rendered a decision9 dismissing the complaint on the ground that the assignment of credit extinguished the obligation. In finding that the Deed of Assignment did not extinguish the obligation of the petitioner to the respondent, the Court of Appeals held that (1) petitioner failed to comply with his warranty under the Deed; (2) the object of the Deed did not exist at the time of the transaction, rendering it void pursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code; and (3) petitioner violated the terms of the Deed of Assignment when he failed to execute and do all acts and deeds as shall be necessary to effectually enable the respondent to recover the collectibles.12 Issue: W/N Petitioner is liable for under the warranty in the deed of assignment. Ruling: it may well be that the assignment of credit, which is in the nature of a sale of personal property,19 produced the effects of a dation in payment which may extinguish the obligation.20 However, as in any other

contract of sale, the vendor or assignor is bound by certain warranties. More specifically, the first paragraph of Article 1628 of the Civil Code provides: The vendor in good faith shall be responsible for the existence and legality of the credit at the time of the sale, unless it should have been sold as doubtful; but not for the solvency of the debtor, unless it has been so expressly stipulated or unless the insolvency was prior to the sale and of common knowledge. From the above provision, petitioner, as vendor or assignor, is bound to warrant the existence and legality of the credit at the time of the sale or assignment. When Jomero claimed that it was no longer indebted to petitioner since the latter also had an unpaid obligation to it, it essentially meant that its obligation to petitioner has been extinguished by compensation.21 In other words, respondent alleged the non-existence of the credit and asserted its claim to petitioners warranty under the assignment. Therefore, it behooved on petitioner to make good its warranty and paid the obligation. petitioner breached his obligation under the Deed of Assignment to execute and do all such further acts and deeds as shall be reasonably necessary to effectually enable said ASSIGNEE to recover whatever collectibles said ASSIGNOR has in accordance with the true intent and meaning of these presents. Indeed, by warranting the existence of the credit, petitioner should be deemed to have ensured the performance thereof in case the same is later found to be inexistent. He should be held liable to pay to respondent the amount of his indebtedness. JERRY T. MOLES vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and MARIANO M. DIOLOSA FACTS: sometime in 1977, petitioner needed a linotype printing machine for his printing business, The LM Press at Bacolod City, and applied for an industrial loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines. (hereinafter, DBP) for the purchase thereof. An agent of Smith, Bell and Co. who is a friend of petitioner introduced the latter to private respondent, owner of the Diolosa Publishing House in Iloilo City, who had two available machines. Thereafter, petitioner went to Iloilo City to inspect the two machines offered for sale and was informed that the same were secondhand but functional. On his second visit to the Diolosa Publishing House, petitioner together with Rogelio Yusay, a letter press machine operator, decided to buy the linotype machine, Model 14. The transaction was basically verbal in nature but to facilitate the loan application with the DBP, a pro forma invoice, dated April 23, 1977 and reflecting the amount of P50,000.00 as the consideration of the sale, was signed by petitioner with an addendum that payment had not yet been made but that he promised to pay the full amount upon the release of his loan from the aforementioned bank on or before the end of the month. Thereafter the machine was delivered to petitioner's publishing house at Tangub, Bacolod City where it was installed by one an employee of respondent Diolosa. Another employee of the Diolosa Publishing House, stayed at petitioners house for almost a month to train the latter's cousin in operating the machine. Under date of August 29, 1977, private respondent issued a certification wherein he warranted that the machine sold was in A-1 condition, together with other express warranties. Prior to the release of the loan, a representative from the DBP, Bacolod, supposedly inspected the machine but he merely looked at it to see that it was there . 8 The inspector's recommendation was favorable and, thereafter, petitioner's loan of P50,000.00 was granted and released. On November 29, 1977, petitioner wrote private respondent that the machine was not functioning properly as it needed a new distributor bar, that he bought it in good faith and that they found out that an expert of Linotype machine from Manila says that he will buy the machine at P5,000 only at the most. Petitioner filed a case against defendant and the trial court ruled Decreeing the rescission of the contract of sale, Ordering the defendant to return to the plaintiff the sum of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) representing the price of the linotype machine, plus interest at the legal rate, Ordering the defendant to indemnify the plaintiff. From this decision, private respondent appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court which reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed petitioner's complaint. ISSUE: W/N the contract of sale may be rescinded and the defendant to pay damages and indemnify the plaintiff.

RULING: A certification to the effect that the linotype machine bought by petitioner was in A-1 condition was issued by private respondent in favor of the former. This cannot but be considered as an express warranty. certification was a condition sine qua non for the release of petitioner's loan which was to be used as payment for the purchase price of the machine. We disagree with respondent court that private respondents express warranty as to the A-1 condition of the machine was merely dealer's talk. Private respondent was not a dealer of printing or linotype machines to whom could be ascribed the supposed resort to the usual exaggerations of trade in said items. His certification as to the condition of the machine was not made to induce petitioner to purchase it but to confirm in writing for purposes of the financing aspect of the transaction his representations thereon. Ordinarily, what does not appear on the face of the written instrument should be regarded as dealer's or trader's talk; 25 conversely, what is specifically represented as true in said document, as in the instant case, cannot be considered as mere dealer's talk. On the question as to whether the hidden defects in the machine is sufficient to warrant a rescission of the contract between the parties, we have to consider the rule on redhibitory defects contemplated in Article 1561 of the Civil Code. A redhibitory defect must be an imperfection or defect of such nature as to engender a certain degree of importance. As already narrated, an expert witness for the petitioner categorically established that the machine required major repairs before it could be used. This, plus the fact that petitioner never made appropriate use of the machine from the time of purchase until an action was filed, attest to the major defects in said machine, by reason of which the rescission of the contract of sale is sought. The factual finding, therefore, of the trial court that the machine is not reasonably fit for the particular purpose for which it was intended must be upheld, there being ample evidence to sustain the same. ENGINEERING & MACHINERY CORPORATION vs.COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Pursuant to the contract between petitioner and private respondent, the former undertook to fabricate, furnish and install the air-conditioning system in the latter's building along Buendia Avenue, Makati in consideration of P210,000.00. Petitioner was to furnish the materials, labor, tools and all services required in order to so fabricate and install said system. The system was completed in 1963 and accepted by private respondent, who paid in full the contract price. On September 2, 1965, private respondent sold the building to the National Investment and Development Corporation (NIDC). The latter took possession of the building but on account of NIDC's noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the deed of sale, private respondent was able to secure judicial rescission thereof. The ownership of the building having been decreed back to private respondent, Private respondent re-acquired possession and It was then that he learned from some NIDC, employees of the defects of the air-conditioning system of the building. Acting on this information, private respondent commissioned Engineer David R. Sapico to render a technical evaluation of the system in relation to the contract with petitioner. In his report, Sapico enumerated the defects of the system and concluded that it was "not capable of maintaining the desired room temperature. Private respondent thereafter filed an action for damages against petitioner alleging that the air-conditioning system installed by petitioner did not comply with the agreed plans and specifications. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the prescriptive period of six months had set in pursuant to Articles 1566 and 1567, in relation to Article 1571 of the Civil Code, regarding the responsibility of a vendor for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold. Private respondent countered that the contract was not a contract for sale but a contract for a piece of work under Article 1713 of the Civil Code. Thus, in accordance with Article 1144 (1) of the same Code, the complaint was timely brought within the ten-year prescriptive period. In its reply, petitioner argued that Article 1571 of the Civil Code providing for a six-month prescriptive period is applicable to a contract for a piece of work by virtue of Article 1714, which provides that such a contract shall be governed by the pertinent provisions on warranty of title and against hidden defects and the payment of price in a contract of sale6 . The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and court rendered a decision finding that petitioner failed to install certain parts and accessories called for by the contract, and deviated from the plans of the system, thus reducing its operational effectiveness to the extent that 35 window-type units had to be installed in the building to achieve a fairly desirable room temperature. On the question of prescription, the trial court ruled that the complaint was filed within the ten-year court prescriptive period although the contract was one for a piece of work, because it involved the "installation of

an air-conditioning system which the defendant itself manufactured, fabricated, designed and installed." Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. ISSUE: W/N Respondents complaint was already barred by prescription provided in Art. 1571. RULING: , a close scrutiny of the complaint filed in the trial court reveals that the original action is not really for enforcement of the warranties against hidden defects, but one for breach of the contract itself. It alleged17 that the petitioner, "in the installation of the air conditioning system did not comply with the specifications provided" in the written agreement between the parties, "and an evaluation of the airconditioning system as installed by the defendant showed the following defects and violations of the specifications of the agreement Having concluded that the original complaint is one for damages arising from breach of a written contract - and not a suit to enforce warranties against hidden defects - we here with declare that the governing law is Article 1715 (supra). However, inasmuch as this provision does not contain a specific prescriptive period, the general law on prescription, which is Article 1144 of the Civil Code, will apply. Said provision states, inter alia, that actions "upon a written contract" prescribe in ten (10) years. Since the governing contract was executed on September 10, 1962 and the complaint was filed on May 8, 1971, it is clear that the action has not prescribed. What about petitioner's contention that "acceptance of the work by the employer relieves the contractor of liability for any defect in the work"? This was answered by respondent Court19 as follows: As the breach of contract which gave rise to the instant case consisted in appellant's omission to install the equipments (sic), parts and accessories not in accordance with the plan and specifications provided for in the contract and the deviations made in putting into the air conditioning system parts and accessories not in accordance with the contract specifications, it is evident that the defect in the installation was not apparent at the time of the delivery and acceptance of the work, considering further that plaintiff is not an expert to recognize the same. From the very nature of things, it is impossible to determine by the simple inspection of air conditioning system installed in an 8-floor building whether it has been furnished and installed as per agreed specifications. Verily, the mere fact that the private respondent accepted the work does not, ipso facto, relieve the petitioner from liability for deviations from and violations of the written contract, as the law gives him ten (10) years within which to file an action based on breach thereof. DIZON VS. SUNTAY FACTS: Plaintiff is the owner of a three-carat diamond ring valued at P5,500.00. On June 13, 1962, the plaintiff and Clarita R. Sison entered into a transaction wherein the plaintiff's ring was delivered to Clarita R. Sison for sale on commission. Upon receiving the ring, Clarita R. Sison executed and delivered to the plaintiff the receipt ... . The plaintiff had already previously known Clarita R. Sison as the latter is a close friend of the plaintiff's cousin and they had frequently met each other at the place of the plaintiff's said cousin. In fact, about one year before their transaction of June 13, 1962 took place, Clarita R. Sison received a piece of jewelry from the plaintiff to be sold for P500.00, and when it was sold, Clarita R. Sison gave the price to the plaintiff. After the lapse of a considerable time without Clarita R. Sison having returned to the plaintiff the latter's ring, the plaintiff made demands on Clarita R. Sison for the return of her ring but the latter could not comply with the demands because, without the knowledge of the plaintiff, on June 15, 1962 or three days after the ring above-mentioned was received by Clarita R. Sison from the plaintiff, said ring was pledged by Melia Sison, niece of the husband of Clarita R. Sison, evidently in connivance with the latter, with the defendant's pawnshop for P2,600.00. Since the plaintiff insistently demanded from Clarita R. Sison the return of her ring, the latter finally delivered to the former the pawnshop ticket ... which is the receipt of the pledge with the defendant's pawnshop of the plaintiff's ring. When the plaintiff found out that Clarita R. Sison pledged, she took steps to file a case of estafa against the latter with the fiscal's office. Subsequently thereafter, the plaintiff, through her lawyer, wrote a letter ... dated September 22, 1962, to the defendant asking for the delivery to the plaintiff of her ring pledged with defendant's pawnshop under pawnshop receipt serial-B No. 65606, dated June 15, 1962 ... . Since the defendant refused to return the ring, the plaintiff filed the present action with the Court of First Instance of Manila for the recovery of said ring, with P500.00 as attorney's fees and costs. The plaintiff asked for the provisional remedy of replevin by the delivery of the ring to her, upon her filing the requisite bond, pending the final determination of the

action. The lower court issued the writ of replevin prayed for by plaintiff and the latter was able to take possession of the ring during the pendency of the action upon her filing the requisite bond. RULING: There is a fairly recent restatement of the force and effect of the governing codal norm in De Gracia v. Court of Appeals. 4 Thus: "The controlling provision is Article 559 of the Civil Code. It reads thus: 'The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.' Respondent Angelina D. Guevara, having been unlawfully deprived of the diamond ring in question, was entitled to recover it from petitioner Consuelo S. de Garcia who was found in possession of the same. The only exception the law allows is when there is acquisition in good faith of the possessor at a public sale, in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price. As authoritatively interpreted in Cruz v. Pahati, the right of the owner cannot be defeated even by proof that there was good faith in the acquisition by the possessor. There is a reiteration of this principle in Aznar v. Yapdiangco. Thus: 'Suffice it to say in this regard that the right of the owner to recover personal property acquired in good faith by another, is based on his being dispossessed without his consent. The common law principle that were one of two innocent persons must suffer by a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enabled the fraud to be committed, cannot be applied in a case which is covered by an express provision of the new Civil Code, specifically Article 559. Between a common law principle and a statutory provision, the latter must prevail in this jurisdiction." " 5 Not only has the ownership and the origin of the jewels misappropriated been unquestionably proven but also that the accused, acting fraudulently and in bad faith, disposed of them and pledged them contrary to agreement, with no right of ownership, and to the prejudice of the injured party, who was thereby illegally deprived of said jewels; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of article 464, the owner has an absolute right to recover the jewels from the possession of whosoever holds them, ... ." EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING VS. SANTOS FACTS: on October 5, 1981, a person identifying himself as Professor Jose Cruz placed an order by telephone with the petitioner company for 406 books, payable on delivery. 4 EDCA prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the purchase price of P8,995.65. 5 On October 7, 1981, Cruz sold 120 of the books to private respondent Leonor Santos who, after verifying the seller's ownership from the invoice he showed her, etitioner argues that it was, because the impostor acquired no title to the books that he could have validly transferred to the private respondents. Its reason is that as the payment check bounced for lack of funds, there was a failure of consideration that nullified the contract of sale between it and Cruz.paid him P1,700.00. 6Meanwhile, EDCA having become suspicious over a second order placed by Cruz even before clearing of his first check, made inquiries with the De la Salle College where he had claimed to be a dean and was informed that there was no such person in its employ. Further verification revealed that Cruz had no more account or deposit with the Philippine Amanah Bank, against which he had drawn the payment check. 7 EDCA then went to the police, which set a trap and arrested Cruz on October 7, 1981. Investigation disclosed his real name as Tomas de la Pea and his sale of 120 of the books he had ordered from EDCA to the private respondents. 8On the night of the same date, EDCA sought the assistance of the police in Precinct 5 at the UN Avenue, which forced their way into the store of the private respondents and threatened Leonor Santos with prosecution for buying stolen property. They seized the 120 books without warrant, loading them in a van belonging to EDCA, and thereafter turned them over to the petitioner. 9Protesting this high-handed action, the private respondents sued for recovery of the books after demand for their return was rejected by EDCA. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued and the petitioner, after initial refusal, finally surrendered the books to the private respondents. 10 As previously stated, the petitioner was successively rebuffed in the three courts below and now hopes to secure relief from us. Contention of the petitioner that the private respondents have not established their ownership of the disputed books because they have not even

produced a receipt to prove they had bought the stock. argument that the private respondents did not acquire the books in good faith. ISSUE: W/N EDCA may be deemed to have been "unlawfully deprived" of movable property in the hands of another.

RULING: Leonor Santos first ascertained the ownership of the books from the EDCA invoice showing that they had been sold to Cruz, who said he was selling them for a discount because he was in financial need. Private respondents are in the business of buying and selling books and often deal with hard-up sellers who urgently have to part with their books at reduced prices. To Leonor Santos, Cruz must have been only one of the many such sellers she was accustomed to dealing with. It is hardly bad faith for any one in the business of buying and selling books to buy them at a discount and resell them for a profit. Contract of sale is consensual and is perfected once agreement is reached between the parties on the subject matter and the consideration. ownership in the thing sold shall not pass to the buyer until full payment of the purchase only if there is a stipulation to that effect. Otherwise, the rule is that such ownership shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been paid. Non-payment only creates a right to demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the stipulation above noted, delivery of the thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the buyer who can in turn transfer it to another. Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz acquired ownership over the books which he could then validly transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by the private respondents to the books. Leonor Santos took care to ascertain first that the books belonged to Cruz before she agreed to purchase them. The EDCA invoice Cruz showed her assured her that the books had been paid for on delivery. By contrast, EDCA was less than cautious in fact, too trusting in dealing with the impostor. Although it had never transacted with him before, it readily delivered the books he had ordered (by telephone) and as readily accepted his personal check in payment. It did not verify his identity although it was easy enough to do this. It did not wait to clear the check of this unknown drawer. Worse, it indicated in the sales invoice issued to him, by the printed terms thereon, that the books had been paid for on delivery, thereby vesting ownership in the buyer. FIESTAN VS. CA .3FACTS: spouses Dionisio Fiestan and Juanita Arconada owners of a parcel of land (Lot No. 2B) situated in Ilocos Sur covered by TCT T-13218 which they mortgaged to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as security for their P22,400.00 loan, Lot No. 2-B was acquired by the DBP as the highest bidder at a public auction sale on August 6, 1979 after it was extrajudicially foreclosed by the DBP. Upon failure of petitioners to redeem the property within the one (1) year period which expired on September 28, 1980, petitioners' TCT T-13218 over Lot No. 2-B was cancelled by the Register of Deeds and in lieu thereof TCT T-19077 was issued to the DBP upon presentation of a duly executed affidavit of consolidation of ownership. On April 13,1982, the DBP sold the lot to Francisco Peria in a Deed of Absolute Sale and the same was registered on April 15, 1982 in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur. After title over said lot was issued in his name, Francisco Peria secured a tax declaration for said lot and accordingly paid the taxes due thereon. He thereafter mortgaged said lot to the PNB Vigan Branch as security for his loan of

P115,000.00 as required by the bank to increase his original loan from P49,000.00 to P66,000.00 until it finally reached the approved amount of P115,000.00. Since petitioners were still in possession of Lot No. 2B, the Provincial Sheriff ordered them to vacate the premises. Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of sale which was dismissed by the lower court and the court of appeals. etitioners filed the instant petition for review on certiorari with this Court. The nullity of the extrajudicial foreclosure sale in the instant case is further sought by petitioners on the ground that the DBP cannot acquire by purchase the mortgaged property at the public auction sale by virtue of par. (2) of Article 1491 and par. (7) of Article 1409 of the Civil Code which prohibits agents from acquiring by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction either in person or through the mediation of another, the property whose administration or sale may have been entrusted to them unless the consent of the principal has been given. ISSUE: W/N DBP is an agent prohibited from acquiring by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction either in person or through the mediation of another RULING: The prohibition mandated by par. (2) of Article 1491 in relation to Article 1409 of the Civil Code does not apply in the instant case where the sale of the property in dispute was made under a special power inserted in or attached to the real estate mortgage pursuant to Act No. 3135, as amended. It is a familiar rule of statutory construction that, as between a specific statute and general statute, the former must prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than a general statute does. 7 The Civil Code (R.A. 386) is of general character while Act No. 3135, as amended, is a special enactment and therefore the latter must prevail. 8 Under Act No. 3135, as amended, a mortgagee-creditor is allowed to participate in the bidding and purchase under the same conditions as any other bidder, Section 5 of Act No. 3135, as amended, creates and is designed to create an exception to the general rule that a mortgagee or trustee in a mortgage or deed of trust which contains a power of sale on default may not become the purchaser, either directly or through the agency of a third person, at a sale which he himself makes under the power. Under such an exception, the title of the mortgagee-creditor over the property cannot be impeached or defeated on the ground that the mortgagee cannot be a purchaser at his own sale. Even in the absence of statutory provision, there is authority to hold that a mortgagee may purchase at a sale under his mortgage to protect his own interest or to avoid a loss to himself by a sale to a third person at a price below the mortgage debt.