Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUZON DEVELOPMENT BANK v. ANGELES CATHERINE ENRIQUEZ

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168078 2016-01-13	FABIO CAHAYAG v. COMMERCIAL CREDIT CORPORATION SERENO, C.J.
Petitioners equate a contract to sell to a contract of sale, in which the vendor loses ownership over the property upon its delivery.[54] But a contract to sell, standing alone, does not transfer ownership.[55] At the point of perfection, the seller under a contract to sell does not even have the obligation to transfer ownership to the buyer.[56] The obligation arises only when the buyer fulfills the condition: full payment of the purchase price.[57] In other words, the seller retains ownership at the time of the execution of the contract to sell.[58]
	GR No. 182133 2015-06-23	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS-HLURB PERALTA, J.
It is the court's duty to interpret the law as intended by the legislature. As stated before, "[t]he lofty aspirations of P.D. No. 957 should be read in every provision of the statute, in every contract that undermines its objects, in every transaction which threatens its fruition."[67] The law is a tool for social justice. Circumvention should not be tolerated.[68]
	GR No. 182128 2014-02-19	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. TERESITA TAN DEE REYES, J.
Nevertheless, 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. The petitioner was well aware that the properties mortgaged by PEPI were also the subject of existing contracts to sell with other buyers. While it may be that the petitioner is protected by Act No. 3135, as amended, it cannot claim any superior right as against the installment buyers. This is because the contract between the respondents is protected by P.D. No. 957, a social justice measure enacted primarily to protect innocent lot buyers.[33] Thus, in Luzon Development Bank v. Enriquez,[34] the Court reiterated the rule that a bank dealing with a property that is already subject of a contract to sell and is protected by the provisions of P.D. No. 957, is bound by the contract to sell.[35]
	GR No. 179965 2013-02-20	NICOLAS P. DIEGO v. RODOLFO P. DIEGO DEL CASTILLO, J.
This ponente has had occasion to rule that "[a] contract to sell is one where the prospective seller reserves the transfer of title to the prospective buyer until the happening of an event, such as full payment of the purchase price. What the seller obliges himself to do is to sell the subject property only when the entire amount of the purchase price has already been delivered to him. 'In other words, the full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which prevents the obligation to sell from arising and thus, ownership is retained by the prospective seller without further remedies by the prospective buyer.' It does not, by itself, transfer ownership to the buyer."[43]
	GR No. 194024 2012-04-25	PHILIP L. GO v. DISTINCTION PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT MENDOZA, J.
This provision must be read in light of the law's preamble, which explains the reasons for enactment of the law or the contextual basis for its interpretation.[22] A statute derives its vitality from the purpose for which it is enacted, and to construe it in a manner that disregards or defeats such purpose is to nullify or destroy the law.[23] P.D. No. 957, as amended, aims to protect innocent subdivision lot and condominium unit buyers against fraudulent real estate practices.[24]