CASE NO.

72

DOCTRINE: Art. 1544 of the civil code does not apply in this case. Petitioners failed to pay the purchase
price in full, while Aquino did. As far as this Court is concerned, there is only one sale - and that is, the
one in Aquino's favor. "Since there is only one valid sale, the rule on double sales under Article 1544 of
the Civil Code does not apply." (Domingo v. Manzano; G.R. No. 201883; 16 November 2016)

CASE NO. 73

DOCTRINE: A warranty is not necessarily written. It may be oral as long as it is not given as a mere
opinion or judgment. It must be a positive affirmation of a fact that buyers rely upon, and that influences or
induces them to purchase the product. The oral statements of Angbengco created an express warranty.
They were positive affirmations of fact that the buyer relied on, and that induced him to buy petitioner’s
primer-coated G.I. sheets. (Philippine Steel Coating Corp. v. Quiñones; G.R. No. 194533; 19 April 2017)

CASE NO. 74

DOCTRINE: At the time of the execution of the contract to sell, it is an admitted fact that Ricardo de Leon
knew that a third party was occupying a part of the lot subject of the sale. Nonetheless, Ricardo de Leon
knowingly assumed the risk when he bought the land and was even called a vendee in bad faith by the
Court of Appeals. In doing so, he clearly is not an innocent purchaser in good faith. This Court is impelled
to declare that private respondents were lacking in good faith for knowing beforehand, at the time of the
sale, the presence of an obstacle to their taking over the possession of the land. One who purchases real
estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title
thereto in good faith, as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein. Without being shown
to be vendees in good faith, herein respondents are not entitled to the warranty against eviction nor are
they On titled to recover damages. (JM Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. L-41233;
November 21, 1979)

CASE NO. 75

DOCTRINE: In order that a vendor's liability for eviction may be enforced, the following requisites must
concur—a) there must be a final judgment; b) the purchaser has been deprived of the whole or part of the
thing sold; c) said deprivation was by virtue of a right prior to the sale made by the vendor; and d) the
vendor has been summoned and made co-defendant in the suit for eviction at the instance of the vendee.
In the case at bar, the fourth requisite— is not present. All that the petitioners did, per their very
admission, was to furnish respondents, by registered mail, with a copy of the opposition they (petitioners
filed in the eviction suit. Decidedly, this is not the kind of notice prescribed by the aforequoted Articles
1558 and 1559 of the New Civil Code. The term "unless he is summoned in the suit for eviction at the
instance of the vendee" means that the respondents as vendor/s should be made parties to the suit at the
instance of petitioners-vendees, either by way of asking that the former be made a co-defendant or by the
filing of a third-party complaint against said vendors. Nothing of that sort appeared to have been done by
the petitioners in the instant case. (Escaler v. Court of Appeals; G.R. No. L-42636; August 1, 1985)

CASE NO. 76

DOCTRINE: Unless goods are sold as to raise an implied warranty, the general rule is that no implied
warranty exists in a sale of secondhand articles. However, the same does not come without exceptions. A
redhibitory defect must be an imperfection or defect of such nature as to engender a certain degree of
importance. An imperfection or defect of little consequence does not come within the category of being
redhibitory. (Moles v.IAC; G.R. No. 73913; January 31, 1989)