Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fule v. Ca
Fule v. Ca
698
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
_______________
6
SCRA 49 (1978).
*
THIRD DIVISION.
699
699
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 1 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
700
Page 2 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
701
Page 3 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 4 of 27
702
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 5 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
703
703
Page 6 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
704
what they eventually executed was a deed of absolute sale. See in this
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 7 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
connection Article 1468 of the Civil Code which provides that: If the
consideration of the contract consists partly in money, and partly in
another thing, the transaction shall be characterized by the manifest
intention of the parties. If such intention does not clearly appear, it shall
be considered a barter if the value of the thing given as a part of the
consideration exceeds the amount of the money or its equivalent;
otherwise, it is a sale.
705
705
Page 8 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
706
Page 9 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
Plaintiff took delivery of the subject jewelries (sic) before 6:00 p.m.
of October 24, 1984. When he went at 8:00 p.m. that same day to
the residence of Atty. Belarmino already with a tester complaining
about some fake jewelries (sic), there was already undue delay
because of the lapse of a considerable length of time since he got
hold of subject jewelries (sic). The lapse of two (2) hours more or less
before plaintiff complained is considered by the Court as
3
unreasonable delay.
_______________
3
Rollo, p. 35.
707
707
Page 10 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
399). More so, since Exhibit D does not contain any proviso or
stipulation to the effect that title to the property is reserved with
the vendor until full payment of the purchase price, nor is there a
stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the
contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period
(Taguba v. Vda. De Leon, 132 SCRA 722; Luzon Brokerage Co., Inc.
vs. Maritime Building Co., Inc., 86 SCRA 305; Froilan v. Pan
4
Oriental Shipping Co., et al., 12 SCRA 276).
Ibid., p. 36.
708
708
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 11 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
Id., p. 37.
709
709
Page 12 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
710
III. THE
TRIAL
COURT
ERRED
IN
NOT
DECLARING THE DEED OF SALE OF THE
TANAY PROPERTY (EXH. D) AS NULL AND
VOID OR IN NOT ANNULLING THE SAME, AND
IN
FAILING
TO
GRANT
REASONABLE
8
DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.
As to the first allegation, the Court observes that petitioner
is essentially raising a factual issue as it invites us to
examine and weigh anew the facts regarding the
genuineness of the earrings bartered in exchange for the
Tanay property. This, of course, we cannot do without
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 13 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
711
Page 14 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
12
13
712
Page 15 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
15
16
Manlavi v. Gacott, Jr., 313 Phil. 738, citing Abiera v. Maceda, 233
713
Page 16 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
Art. 1475, Civil Code; Romero v. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 223
(1995).
19
20
21
Art. 1398, Civil Code; Ines v. Court of Appeals, 317 Phil. 373.
22
714
Page 17 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
23
24
25
715
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 18 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
26
Ibid., p. 487.
28
29
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 19 of 27
716
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
31
32
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 20 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
717
717
Page 21 of 27
33
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
98 Phil. 43.
718
718
35
36
25A C.J.S. 70, citing Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. U.S., 102 Ct. Cl. 770,
Ibid., at p. 72, citing McCracken v. Stewart, 223 P.2d 963, 170 Kan.
129.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
Page 22 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
38
39
719
Page 23 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
Rollo, p. 49.
41
720
Page 24 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
721
Page 25 of 27
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
SCRA 736 (1984), the Court said: x x x the mere fact that an action is
later found to be based on an erroneous ground does not per se make its
initiator guilty of bad faith and liable for damages x x x. Sound principles
of justice and public policy demand that persons shall have free resort to
courts of law for redress of wrongs and vindication of their rights without
fear of later on standing trial for damages should their actions lose
ground.
722
722
Page 26 of 27
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159bf1a345f28913250003600fb002c009e/p/APF397/?username=Guest
1/21/17, 11:28 AM
Page 27 of 27