Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. BERNARDO BUENAVENTURA AND CONSOLACION JOAQUIN v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 143697 2008-01-28	DIONISIA DORADO VDA. DE DELFIN v. SALVADOR D. DELLOTA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In De Ocampo and Custodio v. Lim,[8] this Court held that in sales denominated as pacto de retro, the price agreed upon should not generally be considered as the just value of the thing sold, absent other corroborative evidence. This is because, on the part of the vendor, the right to repurchase the land makes it immaterial to him whether or not the price of the sale is the just value thereof. As for the vendee, the price does not induce him to enter into the contract as he does not acquire the thing irrevocably, but subject to repurchase at the stated period. Rather, the vendee pins his hope on the expectancy that he will acquire the thing absolutely at a favorable price should the vendor fail to redeem the thing sold. Subsequently, in Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals,[9] this Court ruled that there is no requirement in sales that the price be equal to the exact value of the thing subject matter of the sale.
	GR NO. 163562 2006-07-21	PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG GARCIA, J.
It must be stressed that a contract of sale is not a real, but a consensual contract. In Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals,[8] this Court made it clear that a contract of sale, being consensual in nature, becomes valid and binding upon the meeting of the minds of the parties as to the object and the price. If there is a meeting of the minds, the contract is valid despite the manner of payment, or even if the manner of payment was breached.
	GR NO. 158149 2006-02-09	BOSTON BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERLA P. MANALO CALLEJO, SR., J.
For their part, respondents assert that as long as there is a meeting of the minds of the parties to a contract of sale as to the price, the contract is valid despite the parties' failure to agree on the manner of payment. In such a situation, the balance of the purchase price would be payable on demand, conformably to Article 1169 of the New Civil Code. They insist that the law does not require a party to agree on the manner of payment of the purchase price as a prerequisite to a valid contract to sell. The respondents cite the ruling of this Court in Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals[48] to support their submission.
	GR NO. 152658 2005-08-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
We point out that the law on legitime does not bar the disposition of property for valuable consideration to descendants or compulsory heirs. In a sale, cash of equivalent value replaces the property taken from the estate.[26] There is no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution in values. Donations and other dispositions by gratuitous title, on the other hand, must be included in the computation of legitimes.[27]
	GR No. 152658 2005-07-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
We point out that the law on legitime does not bar the disposition of property for valuable consideration to descendants or compulsory heirs. In a sale, cash of equivalent value replaces the property taken from the estate.[26] There is no diminution of the estate but merely a substitution in values. Donations and other dispositions by gratuitous title, on the other hand, must be included in the computation of legitimes.[27]
	GR NO. 141323 2005-06-08	DAVID V. PELAYO v. MELKI E. PEREZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioners contend that the consideration stated in the deed of sale is excessively inadequate, indicating that the deed of sale was merely simulated. We are not persuaded. Our ruling in Buenaventura vs. Court of Appeals[15] is pertinent, to wit:. . . Indeed, there is no requirement that the price be equal to the exact value of the subject matter of sale. . . . As we stated in Vales vs. Villa: