DOCTRINES

SALES AND LEASE

ART 1458 - 1478

DIGNOS v CA
The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals saying stated that all the elements of
a valid contract of sale are present in the document and that the spouses Dignos had no right to sell
the land in question because an actual delivery of its possession has already been made in favor of
Jabil as early as March 1965. It was also found that the spouses Dignos never notified Jabil by notarial
act that they were rescinding the contract, and neither did they file a suit in court to rescind the sale.
There is no showing that Jabil properly authorized a certain Cipriano Amistad to tell petitioners that he
was already waiving his rights to the land in question.

TAN v BENORILAO

ARTATES v URBI

HEIRS OF ENRIQUE ZAMBALES v CA

QUIROGA v PARSONS

CONCRETE AGREGATES v CTA

PEOPLEs HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP v CA

TOYOTA SHAW v CA

SAMPAGUITA PICTURES v JALWINDOR MANUFACTURES

ART 1479 1483 AND 1504

SOUTHERN SUGAR AND MOLLASES v ATLANTIC GULF

ARKINS KROLL AND CO v CUA HIAN TEK

NATINO v IAC

SERRA v CA

ROMAN v GRIMALT

EQUATORIAL REALTY v MAYFAIR THEATER

NORKIS DISTRIBUTIONS IN v CA

ART 1484 1491

SOUTHERN MOTORS v MOSCOSO

PASCUA v UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORP

FILINVEST CREDIT CORP v CA

RIDAD v FILIPINAS INVESTMENTS

SPS DELA CRUZ v CA

LEOVILLO AGUSTIN v CA

FIESTAN v CA

BORBON II v SERVICEWIDE SPECIALIST

ART 1493 1520

DIZON v SUNTAY

EDCA PUBLISHING v SANTOS

LAYUG v IAC

POWER COMMERCIAL vs CA

ADDISON v FELIX AND TIOCO

TEN FORTY REALTY v CRUZ