Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sales Digest-Dizon Vs Dizon

    Uploaded by

    ladygeorgina
    40 views1 page
    1. The petitioner purchased a house and lot from the respondent but the respondent failed to deliver the property. The trial court rescinded the contract and scheduled an auction sale of the respondent's properties. 2. At the auction, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder with an offer of P180,000. However, later that day the sheriff presented a supplemental document offering a new higher bid of P1,690,074.41 from the petitioner. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that once the auctioneer declares the sale perfected by the fall of the hammer, any bid retraction or new bids are invalid. Since the auction was already completed, the supplemental sale document with the increased bid was not allowed.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Sales Digest-Dizon vs Dizon

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The petitioner purchased a house and lot from the respondent but the respondent failed to deliver the property. The trial court rescinded the contract and scheduled an auction sale of the respondent's properties. 2. At the auction, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder with an offer of P180,000. However, later that day the sheriff presented a supplemental document offering a new higher bid of P1,690,074.41 from the petitioner. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that once the auctioneer declares the sale perfected by the fall of the hammer, any bid retraction or new bids are invalid. Since the auction was already completed, the supplemental sale document with the increased bid was not allowed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views1 page

    Sales Digest-Dizon Vs Dizon

    Uploaded by

    ladygeorgina
    1. The petitioner purchased a house and lot from the respondent but the respondent failed to deliver the property. The trial court rescinded the contract and scheduled an auction sale of the respondent's properties. 2. At the auction, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder with an offer of P180,000. However, later that day the sheriff presented a supplemental document offering a new higher bid of P1,690,074.41 from the petitioner. 3. The Supreme Court ruled that once the auctioneer declares the sale perfected by the fall of the hammer, any bid retraction or new bids are invalid. Since the auction was already completed, the supplemental sale document with the increased bid was not allowed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sales/Jules

    Dizon vs Dizon GR No. 156539, 5 September 2007

    FACTS Petitioner Domingo Dizon purchased from his nephew, herein respondent Elpidio Dizon a house and lot located in Tondo, Manila. Respondent failed to deliver the house and lot to petitioner. Co-owner of the lot, respondents brother Ricardo, did not give said respondent a written authority to sell his share. Petitioner then filed with the RTC a complaint for specific performance and sum of money with damages against respondent. RTC rendered a decision rescinding the contract between the parties. The trial court issued a writ of execution implemented by sheriff Cesar Cabildo, who then scheduled the auction sale of respondents properties. Petitioners attorney-in-fact as well as respondent and counsel participated. Petitioner was the highest bidder having offered P180,000.00. In the afternoon of said auction date, the sheriff went to respondents house and showed Supplemental Minutes on Sheriffs Sale offering a new bid at P1,690,074.41 in lieu of the earlier bid. Respondent refused to sign contending that it would be difficult for himto redeem the property and besides, the auction sale had already been perfected and the subsequent sale is a new or second sale. He moved to quash the minutes but the trial court denied the motion. His MR was also denied. On petition for certiorari and prohibition before the CA, it granted the petition and set aside the questioned orders. ISSUE Has petitioner the option to amend his bid being the highest bidder to conform to the amounts awarded in his favor by the trial court? HELD No. Article 1476 (2) of the Civil Code provides: xxx (2) A sale by auction is perfected when the auctioneer announces its perfection by the fall of the hammer, or in other customary manner. Until such announcement is made, any bidder may retract his bid; and the auctioneer may withdraw the goods from the sale unless the auction has been announced to be without reserve. During the public auction conducted, which began at 10:25 AM and ended at 10:45 AM, the sheriff declared petitioner as the highest bidder. Considering that the auction sale had already been perfected, a supplemental sale with the higher consideration at the instance of only one partycould no longer be validly executed. CA affirmed; petition denied.

    You might also like