[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
96 views1 page

Velasco v. CA

The petitioner sued the respondent, claiming they entered into a contract for the sale of land for P100,000, with a down payment of P10,000 and P20,000, and the remaining P70,000 payable in installments. However, the respondent refused to accept the remaining P20,000 down payment or execute the deed of sale, arguing no contract was perfected. The Supreme Court held there was no contract, as the parties did not agree on the manner of payment, which is an essential element to forming a binding contract of sale. Payment terms must be mutually agreed upon for a valid sale to occur under the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

Lino Momongan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views1 page

Velasco v. CA

The petitioner sued the respondent, claiming they entered into a contract for the sale of land for P100,000, with a down payment of P10,000 and P20,000, and the remaining P70,000 payable in installments. However, the respondent refused to accept the remaining P20,000 down payment or execute the deed of sale, arguing no contract was perfected. The Supreme Court held there was no contract, as the parties did not agree on the manner of payment, which is an essential element to forming a binding contract of sale. Payment terms must be mutually agreed upon for a valid sale to occur under the Civil Code.

Uploaded by

Lino Momongan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Velasco v.

CA
No. L-31018 (29 June 1973)

FACTS:
Petitioner: On November 29, 1962 parties entered into contract of sale of land for P100,000. The
payment terms would be a down payment of P10,000 and 20,000 and the P70,000 is payable in
installment. Petitioner then paid the P10,000 down payment on November 29, 1962. On January
8, 1964 he paid the remaining 20,000 but the respondent refused to accept and execute a deed
of sale.

Respondent: No contract of sale was perfected because the minds of the parties did not meet.
The property was leased by Socorro Velasco and the defendant indicated willingness in selling
the property for 100,000 under the terms of P30,000 down payment, 20,000 of which to be paid
on November 30, 1962 and the remaining 70,000 is payable in 10 years with 9% interest per
annum. On November 29, 1962 Socorro paid 10,000, short of the alleged 20,000 agreed down
payment. However, said payment was accepted. On January 8, 1964 Socorro tendered the
20,000 down payment but defendant refused to accept because the latter considered the contract
rescinded on the account the former’s failure to complete the down payment on or before
December 31, 1962.

ISSUE:
WON a contracted sale was perfected between the parties.

HELD:
No. The minds of the parties did not meet “in regard to the manner of payment.”

A definite agreement on the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element in
the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale.

The fact, therefore, that the petitioners delivered to the respondent the sum of P10,000 as part of
the down-payment that they had to pay cannot be considered as sufficient proof of the perfection
of any purchase and sale agreement between the parties herein under article 1482 of the new
Civil Code, as the petitioners themselves admit that some essential matter — the terms of
payment — still had to be mutually covenanted.

You might also like