This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As found by the Court of Appeals, the two conditional deeds of sale entered into by the parties are contracts to sell, as they both contained a stipulation that ownership of the properties shall not pass to the vendee until after full payment of the purchase price. In a conditional sale, as in a contract to sell, ownership remains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price.[25] The full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, and non-fulfillment of the condition prevents the obligation to sell from arising.[26] To differentiate, a deed of sale is absolute when there is no stipulation in the contract that title to the property remains with the seller until full payment of the purchase price. Ramos v. Heruela[27] held that Articles 1191 and 1592 of the Civil Code[28] are applicable to contracts of sale, while R.A. No. 6552 applies to contracts to sell. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Ramos v. Heruela[35] differentiates a contract of absolute sale and a contract of conditional sale as follows: Article 1458 of the Civil Code provides that a contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. A contract of sale is absolute when title to the property passes to the vendee upon delivery of the thing sold. A deed of sale is absolute when there is no stipulation in the contract that title to the property remains with the seller until full payment of the purchase price. The sale is also absolute if there is no stipulation giving the vendor the right to cancel unilaterally the contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period. In a conditional sale, as in a contract to sell, ownership remains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. The full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, and non-fulfillment of the condition prevents the obligation to sell from arising.[36] | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| For respondent's delay in the payment of the installments, the Court, in its discretion, and applying Article 2209[14] of the Civil Code, may award interest at the rate of 6% per annum[15] on the unpaid balance considering that there is no stipulation in the Contract to Sell for such interest. For purposes of computing the legal interest, the reckoning period should be the filing of the complaint for unlawful detainer on April 8, 1997. | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| A contract of sale is absolute when title to the property passes to the vendee upon delivery of the thing sold. A deed of sale is absolute when there is no stipulation in the contract that title to the property remains with the seller until full payment of the purchase price. The sale is also absolute if there is no stipulation giving the vendor the right to cancel unilaterally the contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period. In a conditional sale, as in a contract to sell, ownership remains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. The full payment of the purchase price partakes of a suspensive condition, and non-fulfillment of the condition prevents the obligation to sell from arising.[30] | |||||
|
2006-10-31 |
CARPIO-MORALES, J. |
||||
| The non-fulfillment by the respondent of his obligation to pay, which is a suspensive condition to the obligation of the petitioners to sell and deliver the title to the property, rendered the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect. The parties stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed. Article 1191 of the New Civil Code will not apply because it presupposes an obligation already extant. There can be no rescission of an obligation that is still non-existing, the suspensive condition not having happened. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted] The subject contract to sell clearly states that "title will be transferred by the owner (petitioners) to the buyer (respondent) upon complete payment of the agreed purchase price."[27] Since respondent failed to fully pay the purchase price, petitioners' obligation to convey title to the properties did not arise. While rescission does not apply in this case, petitioners may nevertheless cancel the contract to sell, their obligation not having arisen.[28] This brings this Court to Republic Act No. 6552 (THE REALTY INSTALLMENT BUYER PROTECTION ACT). In Ramos v. Heruela[29] this Court held: Articles 1191 and 1592 of the Civil Code are applicable to contracts of sale. In contracts to sell, RA 6552 applies. In Rillo v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court declared: x x x Known as the Maceda Law, R.A. No. 6552 recognizes in conditional sales of all kinds of real estate (industrial, commercial, residential) the right of the seller to cancel the contract upon non-payment of an installment by the buyer, which is simply an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring binding force. It also provides the right of the buyer on installments in case he defaults in the payment of succeeding installments x x x. [Emphasis supplied] The properties subject of the contract having been intended for commercial, and not for residential, purposes,[31] petitioners are entitled to retain the payments already made by respondent. RA 6552 expressly recognizes the vendor's right to cancel contracts to sell on installment basis industrial and commercial properties with full retention of previous payments.[32] But even assuming that the properties were not intended for commercial or industrial purpose, since respondent paid less than two years of installments, it is not entitled to any refund.[33] It is on this score that a modification of the challenged issuances of the appellate court is in order. | |||||