MIDTERM

SALES

ATTY. RYAN PAUL N. OLFINDO

1. Facts: Ms. Frondoso, the seller and Mr. Brondial, the buyer were the co-
owners in equal shares of a motorboat. By written contract, Ms. Frondoso sold her
undivided interest in the to Mr. Brondial payable in three (3) equal installments.
In case of default “the buyer authorizes the seller to recover her one-half
participation of ownership of the boat without obligation to reimburse the
payments made by the buyer”. Ms Frondoso defaulted after P750 was paid. Later,
the boat was damaged by a typhoon.
Ms. Frondoso filed action to recover the balance of the purchase price.
Mr. Brondial answered that he had notified Ms. Frondoso to take over her half
interest in the boat, which she refused to do.
• Question: Under the contract, is Mr. Brondial relieved of the obligation to pay
the purchase price?
2. Facts: Bernadette (seller) and Jonelle (buyer) executed an instrument,
entitled “Option to Purchase,” whereby Bernadette agreed, promised, and
committed “xxx to sell” to Jonelle for a certain sum a parcel of land within two (2)
years with the understanding that said option shall deemed “terminated and
elapsed” shall fail to exercise the right to buy property “within the stipulated
period.”
Inasmuch as several tenders of payment made by Jonelle were rejected by
Bernadette, the former commenced an action for specific performance.
• Question: Can the promisor withdraw an option to sell, after acceptance, if
the option is not supported by any consideration?
3. Facts: Maria (buyer) delivered to Inigo (seller) a promissory note
covering the purchase price of a motor vehicle bought by Maria from Inigo,
secured by a chattel mortgage over such automobile. Inigo negotiated the note to
Francis (third person), assigning all the Inigo’s rights to the same, the
assignment including the right of recourse against Inigo.
Maria defaulted. The car was sold at public auction, but the proceeds still
left a deficiency.
• Question: After the foreclosure and sale by Francis, could it hold Inigo liable
for the payment of the outstanding balance, plus attorney’s fees and costs?
4. Facts: In the Deed of Absolute Sale, Iris the
buyer, assumed liability for taxes and other expenses
“relative to the execution and / or implementation of
the Deed” including, among others, documentation,
documentary and service stamps, expenses for
registration and transfer of titles.”
• Question: Is Iris liable for overdue real estate taxes?
5. What law govern expropriation of
property?
6. Facts: Leny (vendee), gave his consent to the
purchase and sale of certain goods on the assertion of
Tony (vendor), stated in the contract, that the goods
were already on the way. The goods did not arrive.
•Question: Has Tony the right to demand from
Leny the payment of the price?
7. Facts: Mr. Hermoso (buyer) identifying himself as Professor JC, placed an order by
telephone with petitioner EDCA (seller) for 406 books payable on delivery. EDCA, petitioner,
prepared the corresponding invoice and delivered the books for which Mr. Hermoso issued a
personal check covering the purchase price, which was dishonored. Mr. Hermoso sold the books to
Mr. Delgado who, after verifying the seller’s ownership from the invoice Mr. Hermoso showed her,
paid Mr. Hermoso.
Petitioner argues that the impostor acquired no title to the books that he could have validly
transferred to Mr. Delgado, the private respondent. Its reason is that as the payment check bounced
for lack of funds, there was a failure of consideration that the nullified the contract of sale between it
and Mr. Hermoso.
• Question: Has EDCA been unlawfully deprived of the books because the check issued by the
impostor Mr. Hermoso in payment therefor was dishonored?
8. Facts: Geneva (buyer) sold to Melissa (seller) lot No. 20, Calle San
Jose, Ermita, Manila for the sum of P3,200. The document recites that
the tract contains 152.46 square meters. On the date assigned for the
execution of the final deed of sale, Geneva refused to pay the agreed price
claiming that the land was less in area than that stated in the contract.
Geneva claimed a proportional reduction of the price or else he
would not buy. So, Melissa brought action for specific performance.
• Question: Is Geneva relieved from the obligation of paying the price?
9. Facts: Melba (seller) sold to Amada (buyer) the hacienda Maria which,
according to Melba, contained an area of 258 hectares more or less, the standing crop
thereon capable of yielding not less than 2,000 piculs of sugar. During the negotiations,
Amada always doubted the correctness of the area and the amount of crop given by
Melba who always assured Amada that they were correct.
In short, the parties made the sale with particular attention to the area.
It turned out that the land contained only 18 hectares and the crop yielded only
800 piculs of sugar.
• Question: Has Amada the right to ask for rescission of the sale or the proportionate
reduction of the price?
10. Facts: Benedict (seller) sold a parcel of land to Marlyn (buyer)
under pacto de retro. The sale was executed in a public instrument but
was not recorded in the registry of deeds. Marlyn never took material
possession of land. The period for repurchase elapsed without Benedict
making use of it. Later, Benedict sold the same by means of a private
document to Joed (third person), who immediately took material
possession thereof.
Marlyn brought action for recovery of the land.
• Question: Who has better right to the land, Marlyn or Joed?