Civil Law: Sales and Lease

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BAR 1980 TO 2016
BAR EXAMINATION
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
CIVIL LAW
SALES and LEASE
Submitted to:
Atty. Stephanie Rachel Castro
Submitted by:
4A
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 1

I. Definition and Essential Requisites of a Contract of Sale
Jackie, 16, inherited a townhouse. Because she wanted to study in an exclusive

school, she sold her townhouse by signing a Deed of Sale and turning over
possession of the same to the buyer. When the buyer discovered she was still a
minor, she promised to execute another Deed of Sale when she turns 18. When
Jackie turned 25 and was already working, she wanted to annul the sale and return
the buyer's money to recover her townhouse. Was the sale contract void, voidable or
valid? Can Jackie still recover the property? Explain. (2015 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
The contract of sale was voidable on the ground that Jackie is incapable of giving consent
at the time of the execution of the sale (Art. 1390 and Art. 1327). Jackie can no longer
recover the townhouse unit because if a contract is voidable on the ground of minority, the
action to annul it must be filed within four (4) years from attainment of the age of majority.
Since Jackie was already 25 years old, the action has clearly prescribed because she
should have filed it before she reached the age of 22 (Art. 1391).
Z, a gambler, wagered and lost P2 Million in baccarat, a card game. He was

pressured into signing a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the winner covering a
parcel of land with improvements worth P20 Million. One month later, the supposed
vendee of the property demanded that he and his family vacate the property subject
of the deed of sale. Was the deed of sale valid? What can Z do? (2015 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
The sale is valid. Being pressured to sign the deed of sale is not equivalent to vitiation of
consent under Art. 1390(2). Mere pressure cannot constitute intimidation because for
intimidation to arise, the party must be compelled by a reasonable or well- grounded fear of
an imminent & grave danger upon person & property of himself, spouse, ascendants or
descendants. It also cannot constitute undue influence or when a person takes improper
advantage of his power over will of another depriving latter of reasonable freedom of choice
because there was no indication that the winner has moral ascendency or power over Z.
However, Z can recover his losses from the winner because the law provides that no action
can be maintained by the winner for the collection of what he has won in any game of
chance. But any loser in a game of chance may recover his loss from the winner, with legal
interests from the time he paid the amount lost (Art. 2014).
Tess leased her 1,500 sq. m. lot in Antipolo City to Ruth for a period of three (3)
years, from January 2010 to February 2013. On March 19, 2011, Tess sent a letter to
Ruth, part of which reads as follows: "I am offering you to buy the property you are
presently leasing at P5,000.00 per sq. m. or for a total of P7,500,000.00. You can pay
the contract price by installment for two (2) years without interest. I will give you a
period of one (1) year from receipt of this letter to decide whether you will buy the
property." After the expiration of the lease contract, Tess sold the property to her
niece for a total consideration of P4 million. Ruth filed a complaint for the annulment
of the sale, reconveyance and damages against Tess and her niece. Ruth alleged
that the sale of the leased property violated her right to buy under the principle of
right of first refusal. Is the allegation of Ruth tenable? (2014 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
NO, the allegation of Ruth is not tenable. The letter written by Tess did not grant a right of
first refusal to Ruth. At most, it is to be construed as an option contract whereby Ruth was
given the right to buy or not to buy the leased property. An option is itself not a purchase
but it merely secures the privilege to buy. However, the option is not valid because it was
not supported by a cause or consideration distinct from the price of the property (Art. 1479).

Also, Ruth does not appear to have exercised her option before the offer was withdrawn by
the subsequent sale of the property to the niece of Tess.
Lino entered into a contract to sell with Ramon, undertaking to convey to the latter
one of the five lots he owns, without specifying which lot it was, for the price of P1
million. Later, the parties could not agree which of five lots he owned Lino undertook
to sell to Ramon. What is the standing of the contract? (2011 BAR)
(A) Unenforceable.
(B) Voidable.
(C) Rescissible.
(D) Void.
Spouses Biong and Linda wanted to sell their house. They found a prospective
buyer, Ray. Linda negotiated with Ray for the sale of the property. They agreed on a
fair price of P2 Million. Ray sent Linda a letter confirming his intention to buy the
property. Later, another couple, Bemie and Elena, offered a similar house at a lower
price of PI.5 Million. But Ray insisted on buying the house of Biong and Linda for
sentimental reason. Ray prepared a deed of sale to be signed by the couple and a
manager’s check of P2 Million. After receiving the P2 Million, Biong signed the deed
of sale. However, Linda was not able to sign it because she was abroad. On her
return she refused to sign the document saying she changed her mind. Linda filed
suit for nullification of the deed of sale and for moral and exemplary damages
against Ray. (1) Will the suit prosper? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
The suit will prosper. The sale was void because Linda did not give her written consent to
the sale. In Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa, 374 SCRA 498 (2002), the Supreme Court has ruled
that the sale of conjugal property is void if both spouses have not given their written
consent to it and even if the spouse who did not sign the Deed of Sale participated in the
negotiation of the contract. In Abalos v. Macatangay, 439 SCRA 649 (2004), the Supreme
Court even held that for the sale to be valid, the signatures of the spouses to signify their
written consent must be on the same document. In this case, Linda, although she was the
one who negotiated the sale, did not give her written consent to the sale. Hence, the sale is
void. However, Linda will not be entitled to damages because Ray is not in any way in bad
faith.
Another Suggested Answer:
The suit will not prosper because the contract of sale has already been perfected and partly
consummated. The contract of sale is perfected upon the meeting of the minds of the buyer
and seller on to the thing to be sold and on the price thereof. In this case, Linda had a
meeting of minds with Ray when they agreed that the property will be sold for 2 million
pesos at the conclusion of her negotiations with him, while Biong had a meeting of minds
with Ray when he signed the Deed of Sale and accepted the 2 millionpeso payment by
Ray. Linda is estopped from questioning the validity of the contract she herself negotiated
with Ray.
(2) Does Ray have any cause of action against Biong and Linda? Can he also recover
damages from the spouses? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, Ray has a cause of action against Linda and Biong for the return of the 2 million pesos
he paid for the property. He may recover damages from the spouses, if it can be proven
that they were in bad faith in backing out from the contract, as this is an act contrary to
morals and good customs under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.

Assuming that the contract of sale has been perfected, Ray may file a counterclaim against
Linda and Biong for specific performance or rescission, with damages in either case. Linda
has breached the obligation created by the contract when she filed an action for nullification
of sale. On account of Linda’s bad faith or fraud, Ray may ask for damages under Article
1170 of the Civil Code.
Distinguish between a contract of real estate mortgage and a contract of sale with
right of repurchase. (1989 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
1) Real estate mortgage is an accessory contract. A contract of sale with right of

repurchase is a principal contract.
2) Real estate mortgage involves no transfer of title. A contract of sale involves a
conditional transfer of title.
3) Real estate mortgage involves no transfer of possession. A contract of sale involves a
conditional transfer of possession.
4) In a real estate mortgage the creditor has no rights to the fruits. In a contract of sale, the
vendee is entitled to the fruits.
5) In a real estate mortgage, upon default the creditor is not the owner. In a contract of
sale, upon consolidation, the vendee is the owner.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE: Any three (3) of the foregoing distinctions

should be given full credit.
II. Parties to a Contract of Sale
Nante, a registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City, sold the property to
Monica under a deed of sale which reads as follows: "That for and in consideration
of the sum of P500,000.00, value to be paid and delivered to me, and receipt of which
shall be acknowledged by me to the full satisfaction of Monica, referred to as
Vendee, I hereby sell, transfer, cede, convey, and assign, as by these presents, I do
have sold, transferred, ceded, conveyed and assigned a parcel of land covered by
TCT No. 2468 in favor of the Vendee." After delivery of the initial payment of
P100,000.00, Monica immediately took possession of the property. Five (5) months
after, Monica failed to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price. Nante filed
an action for the recovery of possession of the property. Nante alleged that the
agreement was one to sell, which was not consummated as the full contract price
was not paid. Is the contention of Nante tenable? (2014 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
NO, the contention of Nante is not tenable. The deed itself states that for consideration
received, he sells, transfers, and conveys the land to Monica and there was delivery of the
property to the latter. The contract is clearly one of sale as there was no reservation of
ownership on the part of the seller Nante. The non-payment of the price in a contract of
sale would only entitle the seller to rescind the contract but it does not thereby prevent the
transfer of ownership particularly so as in this case, where there was already delivery to the
buyer.
Rica petitioned for the annulment of her ten-year old marriage to Richard. Richard
hired Atty. Cruz to represent him in the proceedings. In payment for Atty. Cruz's
acceptance and legal fees, Richard conveyed to Atty. Cruz a parcel of land in Taguig
that he recently purchased with his lotto winnings. The transfer documents were
duly signed and Atty. Cruz immediately took possession by fencing off the
property's entire perimeter. Desperately needing money to pay for his mounting legal
fees and his other needs and despite the transfer to Atty. Cruz, Richard offered the
same parcel of land for sale to the spouses Garcia. After inspection of the land, the
spouses considered it a good investment and purchased it from Richard.
Immediately after the sale, the spouses Garcia commenced the construction of a
three-story building over the land, but they were prevented from doing this by Atty.

Cruz who claimed he has a better right in light of the prior conveyance in his favor. Is
Atty. Cruz's claim correct? (2013 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
NO, Atty. Cruz is not correct. At first glance, it may appear that Atty. Cruz is the one who
has a better right because he first took possession of the property. However, a lawyer is
prohibited under Art. 1491 of the Civil Code from acquiring the property and rights which
may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
While the suit is for annulment of marriage and it may be argued that the land itself is not
the object of the litigation, the annulment of marriage, if granted, will carry with it the
liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of the spouses as the case
may be (Art. 50 in relation to Art. 43, FC). Richard purchased the land with his lotto
winnings during the pendency of the suit for annulment and on the assumption that the
parties are governed by the regime of absolute community or conjugal partnership,
winnings from gambling or betting will form part thereof. Also, since the land is part of the
absolute community or conjugal partnership of Richard and Rica, it may not be sold or
alienated without the consent of the latter and any disposition or encumbrance of the
property of the community or conjugal property without the consent of the other spouse is
void (Art. 96 and Art. 124, FC).
III. Subject Matter
Which phrase most accurately completes the statement – If at the time the contract
of sale is perfected, the thing which is the object of the contract has been entirely
lost: (2012 BAR)
a) the buyer bears the risk of loss.

b) the contract shall be without any effect.
c) the seller bears the risk of loss.
d) the buyer may withdraw from the contract.
Can future inheritance be the subject of a contract of sale?(2011 BAR)
(A) No, since it will put the predecessor at the risk of harm from a tempted buyer, contrary
to public policy.
(B) Yes, since the death of the decedent is certain to occur.
(C) No, since the seller owns no inheritance while his predecessor lives.
(D) Yes, but on the condition that the amount of the inheritance can only be ascertained
after the obligations of the estate have been paid.
IV. Obligations of the Seller to Transfer Ownership
JV, owner of a parcel of land, sold it to PP. But the deed of sale was not registered.
One year later, JV sold the parcel again to RR, who succeeded to register the deed
and to obtain a transfer certificate of title over the property in his own name. Who
has a better right over the parcel of land, RR or PP? Why? Explain the legal basis for
your answer. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
It depends on whether or not RR is an innocent purchaser for value. Under the Torrens
System, a deed or instrument operated only as a contract between the parties and as
evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make the registration. It is the registration
of the deed or the instrument that is the operative act that conveys or affects the land. (Sec.
51, P.D. No. 1529). In cases of double sale of titled land, it is a well-settled rule that the
buyer who first registers the sale in good faith acquires a better right to the land. (Art. 1544,
Civil Code). Persons dealing with property covered by Torrens title are not required to go
beyond what appears on its face. (Orquiola v. CA386, SCRA301, [2002]; Domingo v.
Roces 401 SCRA 197, [2003]). Thus, absent any showing that RR knew about, or ought to

have known the prior sale of the land to PP or that he acted in bad faith, and being first to
register the sale, RR acquired a good and a clean title to the property as against PP.
On June 15, 1995, Jesus sold a parcel of registered land to Jaime. On June 30. 1995,
he sold the same land to Jose. Who has a better right if:
a. the first sale is registered ahead of the second sale, with knowledge of the latter.
Why? (3%)
b. the second sale is registered ahead of the first sale, with knowledge of the latter?
Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
a. The first buyer has the better right if his sale was first to be registered, even though the
first buyer knew of the second sale. The fact that he knew of the second sale at the time of
his registration does not make him as acting in bad faith because the sale to him was
ahead in time, hence, has a priority in right. What creates bad faith in the case of double
sale of land is knowledge of a previous sale.
b. The first buyer is still to be preferred, where the second sale is registered ahead of the
first sale but with knowledge of the latter. This is because the second buyer, who at the
time he registered his sale knew that the property had already been sold to someone else,
acted in bad faith. (Article 1544, C.C.)
If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, to whom shall the
ownership be transferred? (1989 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be
transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it
should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong
to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be an inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith
was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the
oldest title, provided there is good faith.
Miguel, Carlos and Lino are neighbors. Miguel owned a piece of registered land
which both Carlos and Lino wanted to buy. Miguel sold the land to Carlos. The sale
was not registered upon the request of Miguel. Later on, the same property was sold
by Miguel to Lino. Miguel told Carlos about the second sale. Carlos immediately tried
to see Lino to discuss the matter and inform him of the previous sale to him (Carlos)
of the same property but Lino refused to see Carlos. Thereupon Carlos annotated in
the Registry of Property his adverse claim on the property. A week later, Lino
registered the sale on his favor and had a new transfer certificate of title issued in
his name. However, the adverse claim of Carlos was duly annotated in the title.
Notwithstanding, Lino took possession of the property and built a small bungalow
thereon. Who is the rightful owner of the property? Explain. (1987 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
In double sales, under Article 1544 the land sold belongs to the first registrant in good faith.
If none, it belongs to the first possessor in good faith. If none it belongs to the person with
the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Carlos, who has the oldest title, is therefore the
rightful owner of the property, because there was no registration in good faith by Lino.
V. Price
Sergio is the registered owner of a 500-square meter land. His friend, Marcelo, who
has long been interested in the property, succeeded in persuading Sergio to sell it to
him. On June 2, 2012, they agreed on the purchase price of P600,000 and that Sergio

would give Marcelo up to June 30, 2012 within which to raise the amount. Marcelo, in
a light tone usual between them, said that they should seal their agreement through
a case of Jack Daniels Black and P5,000 "pulutan" money which he immediately
handed to Sergio and which the latter accepted. The friends then sat down and drank
the first bottle from the case of bourbon. On June 15, 2013, Sergio learned of another
buyer, Roberto, who was offering P800,000 in ready cash for the land. When Roberto
confirmed that he could pay in cash as soon as Sergio could get the documentation
ready, Sergio decided to withdraw his offer to Marcelo, hoping to just explain
matters to his friend. Marcelo, however, objected when the withdrawal was
communicated to him, taking the position that they have a firm and binding
agreement that Sergio cannot simply walk away from because he has an option to
buy that is duly supported by a duly accepted valuable consideration. (2013 BAR)
a. Does Marcelo have a cause of action against Sergio?
Suggested Answer:
YES. Marcelo has a cause of action against Sergio. Under Art. 1324, when the offerer has
allowed the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time
before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is founded
upon a consideration, as something paid or promised. An accepted unilateral promise to
buy or to sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon the promissor if the
promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price (Art. 1479). Consideration in
an option contract may be anything of value, unlike in sale where it must be the price
certain in money or its equivalent (San Miguel Properties Inc v. Spouse: Huang, G.R. No.
137290, July 31, 2000). Here, the ease of Jack Daniels Black and the 5,000 “pulutan”
money was a consideration to “seal their agreement", an agreement that Marcelo is given
until June 30, 2012 to buy the parcel of land. There is also no showing that such
consideration will be considered part of the purchase price. Thus, Sergio‘s unilateral
withdrawal of the offer violated the Option Contract between him and Marcelo.
b. Can Sergio claim that whatever they might have agreed upon cannot be enforced
because any agreement relating to the sale of real property must be supported by
evidence in writing and they never reduced their agreement to writing?
Suggested Answer:
NO. Sergio‘s claim has no legal basis. The contract at issue in the present case is the
option contract, not the contract of sale for the real property. Therefore, Art. I403 does not
apply. The Statute of Frauds covers an agreement for the sale of real property or of an
interest therein. Such agreement is unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some
note or memorandum, thereof, be in writing (Art. 1403 [e]). Here, Marcelo and Sergio
merely entered into an Option Contract, which refers to a unilateral promise to buy or sell,
which need not be in writing to be enforceable. (Sanchez v. Rigos, G.R. No. L-25494, June
14, I972, citing Atkins, Kroll and Co., Inc. v. Cua Hian Tek and Southwestern Sugar &
Molasses Co. v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.).
A contract granting a privilege to a person, for which he has paid a consideration,

which gives him the right to buy certain merchandise or specified property, from
another person, at anytime within the agreed period, at a fixed price. What contract
is being referred to? (2012 BAR)
a) Option Contract
b) Contract to Sell
c) Contract of Sale
d) Lease
VI. Formation of Contract of Sale
Michael Fermin, without the authority of Pascual Lacas, owner of a car, sold the
same car in the name of Mr. Lacas to Atty. Buko. The contract between Atty. Buko
and Mr. Lacas is --- (2012 BAR)

a) void because of the absence of consent from the owner, Mr. Lacas.
b) valid because all of the essential requisites of a contract are present.
c) unenforceable because Michael Fermin had no authority but he sold the car in the
name of Mr. Lacas, the owner.
d) rescissible because the contract caused lesion to Atty. Buko
Which of the following contracts is void? (2012 BAR)
a) An oral sale of a parcel of land.

b) A sale of land by an agent in a public instrument where his authority from the
principal is oral.
c) A donation of a wrist watch worth P 4,500.00.
d) A relatively simulated contract.
Aligada orally offered to sell his two-hectare rice land to Balane for P 10Million. The
offer was orally accepted. By agreement, the land was to be delivered (through
execution of a notarized Deed of Sale) and the price was to be paid exactly one-
month from their oral agreement. Which statement is most accurate? (2012 BAR)
a) If Aligada refuses to deliver the land on the agreed date despite payment by Balane, the
latter may not successfully sue Aligada because the contract is oral.
b) If Aligada refused to deliver the land, Balane may successfully sue for fulfillment of the
obligation even if he has not tendered payment of the purchase price.
c) The contract between the parties is rescissible.
d) The contract between the parties is subject to ratification by the parties.
A contract to sell is the same as a conditional contract of sale. Do you agree?

Explain your answer. (2012 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
NO. A contract to sell is specie of conditional sale. The contract to sell does not sell a thing
or property; it sells the right to buy the property. A conditional sale is a sale subject to the
happening or performance of a condition, such as payment of the full purchase price, or the
performance of other prestation to give, to do, or not to do. Compliance with the condition
automatically gives the right to the vendee to demand the delivery of the object of the sale.
In a contract to sell, however, the compliance with the condition does not automatically sell
the property to the vendee. It merely gives the vendee the right to compel the vendor to
execute the deed of absolute sale.
On July 14, 2004, Pedro executed in favor of Juan a Deed of Absolute Sale over a
parcel of land covered by TCT No. 6245. It appears in the Deed of Sale that Pedro
received from Juan P120,000.00 as purchase price. However, Pedro retained the
owner’s duplicate of said title. Thereafter, Juan, as lessor, and Pedro, as lessee,
executed a contract of lease over the property for a period of one (1) year with a
monthly rental of P1,000.00. Pedro, as lessee, was also obligated to pay the realty
taxes on the property during the period of lease. Subsequently, Pedro filed a
complaint against Juan for the reformation of the Deed of Absolute Sale, alleging
that the transaction covered by the deed was an equitable mortgage. In his verified
answer to the complaint, Juan alleged that the property was sold to him under the
Deed of Absolute Sale, and interposed counterclaims to recover possession of the
property and to compel Pedro to turn over to him the owner's duplicate of title.
Resolve the case with reasons. (6%) (2005 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
An equitable mortgage arises from a transaction, regardless of its form, which results into a
security, or an offer or attempt to pledge land as security for a debt or liability. Its essence
is the intent of the parties to create a mortgage, lien or charge on the property sufficiently
described or identified to secure an obligation, which intent must be clearly established in
order that such a mortgage may exist. Defendant's defense that he acquired the land

through an Absolute Deed of Sale and not through pacto de retro is untenable. The
presumption of equitable mortgage under Article 1602 of the Civil Code, equally applies to
a contract purporting to be an absolute sale (Article 1604, NCC). The facts and
circumstances that Pedro retained possession of the Owner's Duplicate Copy of the
Certificate of Title; that he remained in possession of the land as lessee; that he bound
himself to pay the realty taxes during the period of lease, are matters collectively and
strongly indicating that the Deed of Absolute Sale is an equitable mortgage. In case of
doubt, the Deed of Sale should be considered as a loan with mortgage, because this
juridical relation involves a lesser transmission of rights and interests. If the transaction is
proven to be an equitable mortgage, Pedro's prayer for reformation of the instrument
should be granted in accordance with Article 1605 of the Civil Code. Thus, in case of non-
payment, he may foreclose the mortgage and consolidate his ownership of the land. In that
event, Juan's counterclaim to recover possession of the land and to compel Pedro to
surrender the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the title becomes a consequential right.
In a true pacto de retro sale, the title and ownership of the property sold are
immediately vested in the vendee a retro subject only to the resolutory condition of
repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated period. This is known as (2011
BAR)
(A) equitable mortgage.

(B) conventional redemption.
(C) legal redemption.
(D) equity of redemption
Arturo gave Richard a receipt which states: “Receipt Received from Richard as down
payment
For my 1995 Toyota Corolla with

plate No. XYZ-1 23 .............................. P50.000.00
Balance payable: 12/30/01 …….......... P50 000.00
September 15, 2001.
(Sgd.) Arturo
Does this receipt evidence a contract to sell? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
It is a contract of sale because the seller did not reserve ownership until he was fully paid.
A. State the basic difference (only in their legal effects) – a. Between a contract to
sell, on the one hand, and a contract of sale, on the other; b. Between a conditional
sale, on the one hand, and an absolute sale, on the other hand. (1997 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
a. In a contract of sale, ownership is transferred to the buyer upon delivery of the object to
him while in a contract to sell, ownership is retained by the seller until the purchase price is
fully paid. In a contract to sell, delivery of the object does not confer ownership upon the
buyer. In a contract of sale, there is only one contract executed between the seller and the
buyer, while in a contract to sell, there are two contracts, first the contract to sell (which is a
conditional or preparatory sale) and a second, the final deed of sale or the principal
contract which is executed after full payment of the purchase price.
b. A conditional sale is one where the vendor is granted the right to unilaterally rescind the
contract predicated on the fulfillment or non-fulfillment, as the case may be, of the
prescribed condition. An absolute sale is one where the title to the property is not reserved
to the vendor or if the vendor is not granted the right to rescind the contract based on the
fulfillment or non-fulfillment, as the case may be, of the prescribed condition.
On 20 December 1970, Juliet, a widow, borrowed from Romeo P4.000.00 and, as

security therefore, she executed a deed of mortgage over one of her two (2)

registered lots which has a market value of P4 5,000.00. The document and the
certificate of title of the property were delivered to Romeo. On 2 June 1971, Juliet
obtained an additional sum of P3,000.00 from Romeo. On this date, however, Romeo
caused the preparation of a deed of absolute sale of the above property, to which
Juliet affixed her signature without first reading the document. The consideration
indicated is P7.000.00. She thought that this document was similar to the first she
signed. When she reached home, her son X, after reading the duplicate copy of the
deed, informed her that what she signed was not a mortgage but a deed of absolute
sale. On the following day, 3 June 1971, Juliet, accompanied by X, went back to
Romeo and demanded the reformation it, Romeo prepared and signed a document
wherein, as vendee in the deed of sale above mentioned, he obligated and bound
himself to resell the land to Juliet or her heirs and successors for the same
consideration as reflected in the deed of sale (P7.000.00) within a period of two (2)
years, or until 3 June 1973. It is further stated therein that should the Vendor (Juliet)
fail to exercise her right to redeem within the said period, the conveyance shall be
deemed absolute and irrevocable. Romeo did not take possession of the property.
He did not pay the taxes thereon. Juliet died in January 1973 without having
repurchased the property. Her only surviving heir, her son X, failed to repurchase the
property on or before 3 June 1973. in 1975, Romeo sold the property to Y for
P50.000.00. Upon learning of the sale, X filed an action for the nullification of the sale
and for the recovery of the property on the ground that the so-called deed of
absolute sale executed by his mother was merely an equitable mortgage, taking into
account the inadequacy of the price and the failure of Romeo to take possession of
the property and to pay the taxes thereon. Romeo and Y maintain that there was a
valid absolute sale and that the document signed by the former-on 3 June 1973 was
merely a promise to sell.
A. If you were the Judge, would you uphold the theory f X?
B. If you decide in favor of Romeo and Y, would you uphold the validity of the
promise to sell? (1991 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
A. I will not uphold the theory of X for the nullification of the sale and for the recovery of the
property on the ground that the so-called sale was only an equitable mortgage. An
equitable mortgage may arise only if, in truth, the sale was one with the right of repurchase.
The facts of the case state that the right to repurchase was granted after the absolute deed
of sale was executed. Following the rule in Cruzo vs. Carriaga (174 SCRA 330), a deed of
repurchase executed independently of the deed of sale where the two stipulations are
found in two instruments instead of one document, the right of repurchase would amount
only to one option granted by the buyer to the seller. Since the contract cannot be upheld
as a contract of sale with the right to repurchase, Art. 1602 of the Civil Code on equitable
mortgage will not apply. The rule could have been different if both deeds were executed on
the same occasion or date, in which case, Cinder the ruling in spouses Claravall v. CA (190
SCRA 439), the contract may still be sustained as an equitable mortgage, given the
circumstances expressed in Art. 1602. The reserved right to repurchase is then deemed an
original intention.
B. If I were to decide in favor of Romeo and Y. I would not uphold the validity of the promise
to sell, so as to enforce it by an action for specific performance. The promise to sell would
only amount to a mere offer and, therefore, it is not enforceable unless it was sought to be
exercised before a withdrawal or denial thereof. Even assuming the facts given at the end
of the case, there would have been no separate consideration for such promise to sell. The
contract would at most amount to an option which again may not be the basis for an action
for specific performance.
“X” came across an advertisement in the “Manila Daily Bulletin” about the rush sale
of three slightly used TOYOTA cars, Model 1989 for only P200,000 each. Finding the
price to be very cheap and in order to be sure that he gets one unit ahead of the
others, “X” immediately phoned the advertiser “Y” and place an order for one car.
“Y” accepted the order and promised to deliver the ordered unit on July 15, 1989. On
the said date, however, “Y” did not deliver the unit. “X” brings an action to compel

“Y” to deliver the unit. Will such action prosper? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar
Question)
Suggested Answer:
The contract in this case has been perfected. However, the contract is unenforceable under
the statute of frauds. The action will prosper if there is no objection to the oral evidence,
which amounts to a waiver of the statute of frauds.
Eulalia was engaged in the business of buying and selling large cattle. In order to
secure the financial capital, she advanced for her employees (biyaheros). She
required them to surrender TCT of their properties and to execute the corresponding
Deeds of Sale in her favor. Domeng Bandong was not required to post any security
but when Eulalia discovered that he incurred shortage in cattle procurement
operation, he was required to execute a Deed of Sale over a parcel of land in favor of
Eulalia. She sold the property to her grand neice Jocelyn who thereafter instituted an
action for ejectment against the Spouses Bandong. To assert their right, Spouses
Bandong filed an action for annulment of sale against Eulalia and Jocelyn alleging
that there was no sale intended but only equitable mortgage for the purpose of
securing the shortage incurred by Domeng in the amount of P 70, 000.00 while
employed as "biyahero" by Eulalia. Was the Deed of Sale between Domeng and
Eulalia a contract of sale or an equitable mortgage? Explain. (2012 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
The contract between Domeng Bandong and Eulalia was an equitable mortgage rather
than a contract of sale. The purported deed of sale was actually intended to merely secure
the payment of the shortage incurred by Domeng in the conduct of the cattlebuying
operations. Under Art. 1602, the contract shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage
when it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is simply to secure the
payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation. The present transaction was
clearly intended to just secure the shortage incurred by Eulalia because Bandong remained
in possession of the property in spite of the execution of the sale.
a. x x x
b. One-half of a parcel of land belonging to A and B was sold by X to Y for the
amount of PI ,500.00. The sale was executed verbally. One year later, A and B sold
the entire land to X. Is the sale executed verbally by X to Y valid and binding?
Reasons.
c. Distinguish between a contract of sale and a contract to sell. (1988 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
(b) The sale, although not contained in a public instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless
valid and binding for the time- honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale qf real
estate produces legal effects between the parties. In the premises, Art. 1434 or the Civil
Code, which declares that when a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates
and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by
operation of law to the buyer or grantee, is applicable. (Bucton vs. Gabar, 55 SCRA 499.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS TO (b): 1. The contract of sale is valid and enforceable in view
of the payment of the price of P1,500 But there is no showing the problem that there was
delivery of the land. Accordingly, Article 1434 does not apply. However, Y can compel
under Article 1357 to observe the proper form of a deed of sale involving real property and
simultaneously compel specific performance to deliver. 2. The verbal sale of land is
unenforceable since there is no statement in the problem that the agreed price of P1,500
was paid, nor was the land delivered. Being, Article 1434 will not apply since it is predicated
on a valid or enforceable contract of sale.
(c) The two may be distinguished from each other in the following ways:

1. In the first, title passes to the vendee upon delivery of the thing sold, whereas in the
second, by agreement, ownership is reserved in the vendor and is not to pass until full
payment of the price.
2. In the first, nonpayment is a negative resolutory condition, whereas in the second, full
payment is a positive suspensive condition.
3. In the first, the vendor has lost and cannot recover ownership until and unless the
Contract is resolved or rescinded, whereas in the second, title remains in the vendor, and
when he seeks to eject the vendee because of noncompliance by such vendee with the
suspensive condition stipulated, he is enforcing the contract and not resolving the same.
(Santos vs. Santos, CA, 47 Off. Gaz; 6372.)
VII. Transfer of Ownership
May a person sell something that does not belong to him? Explain. (2003 Bar
Question)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, a person may sell something which does not belong to him. For the sale to be valid,
the law does not require the seller to be the owner of the property at the time of the sale.
(Article 1434, NCC). If the seller cannot transfer ownership over the thing sold at the time of
delivery because he was not the owner thereof, he shall be liable for breach of contract.
A granted B the exclusive right to sell his brand of Maong pants in Isabela, the price
for his merchandise payable within 60 days from delivery, and promising B a
commission of 20% on all sales. After the delivery of the merchandise to B but
before he could sell any of them, BOs store in Isabela was completely burned
without his fault, together with all of A’s pants. Must B pay A for his lost pants?
Why? (5%) (1999 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
The contract between A and B is a sale not an agency to sell because the price is payable
by B upon 60 days from delivery even if B is unable to resell it. If B were an agent, he is not
bound to pay the price if he is unable to resell it. As a buyer, ownership passed to B upon
delivery and, under Art. 1504 of the Civil Code, the thing perishes for the owner. Hence, B
must still pay the price.
Using a falsified manager’s check, Justine, as the buyer, was able to take delivery of
a second hand car which she had just bought from United Car Sales, Inc. The sale
was registered with the Land Transportation Office. A week later, the seller learned
that the check had been dishonored, but by that time, Justine was nowhere to be
seen. It turned out that Justine had sold the car to Jerico, the present possessor who
knew nothing about the falsified check. In a suit by United Car Sales, Inc. against
Jerico for recovery of the car, plaintiff alleges it had been unlawfully deprived of its
property through fraud and should, consequently, be allowed to recover it without
having to reimburse the defendant for the price the latter had paid. Should the suit
prosper? (5%) (1998 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
The suit should prosper as to the recovery of the car. However, since Jerico was not guilty
of any fraud and appears to be an Innocent purchaser for value, he should be reimbursed
for the price he paid. This is without prejudice to United Car Sales, Inc. right of action
against Justine. As between two innocent parties, the party causing the Injury should suffer
the loss. Therefore, United Car Sales, Inc. should suffer the loss.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, the suit will prosper because the criminal act of estafa
should be deemed to come within the meaning of unlawful deprivation under Art. 559, Civil
Code, as without it plaintiff would not have parted with the possession of its car.

ANOTHER ANSWER: No, the suit will not prosper. The sale is valid and Jerico is a buyer
in good faith.
ANOTHER ANSWER: Under the law on Sales, when the thing sold is delivered by the
seller to the buyer without reservation of ownership, the ownership is transferred to the
buyer. Therefore in the suit of United Car Sales, Inc. against Jerico for the recovery of the
car, the plaintiff should not be allowed to recover the car without reimbursing the defendant
for the price that the latter paid. (EDCA Publishing and Distributing Corp. vs. Santos.184
SCRA 614, April 26, 1990)
In a 20-year lease contract over a building, the lessee is expressly granted a right of
first refusal should the lessor decide to sell both the land and building. However, the
lessor sold the property to a third person who knew about the lease and in fact
agreed t respect it. Consequently, the lessee brings an action against both the
lessor-seller and the buyer (a) to rescind the sale and (b) to compel specific
performance of his right of first refusal in the sense that the lessor should be
ordered to execute a deed of absolute sale infavor of the lessee at the same price.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff can neither seek rescission of the sale nor
compel specific performance of a “mere" right of first refusal. Decide the case. [5%]
(1998 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
The action filed by the lessee, for both rescission of the offending sale and specific
performance of the right of first refusal which was violated, should prosper. The ruling in
Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. vs. Mayfair Theater, Inc. (264 SCRA 483), a case with
similar facts, sustains both rights of action because the buyer in the subsequent sale knew
the existence of right of first refusal, hence in bad faith.
ANOTHER ANSWER: The action to rescind the sale and to compel the right to first refusal
will not prosper. (Ang Yu Asuncion vs. CA, 238 SCRA 602). The Court ruled in a
unanimous en banc decision that the right of first refusal is not founded upon contract but
on a quasi-delictual relationship covered by the principles of human relations and unjust
enrichment (Art. 19, et seq. Civil Code). Hence the only action that will prosper according to
the Supreme Court is an "action for damages in a proper forum for the purpose."
Peter Co, a trader from Manila, has dealt business with Allied Commodities in
Hongkong for five years. All through the years. Peter Go accumulated an
indebtedness of P500,000.00 with Allied Commodities. Upon demand by its agent in
Manila, Peter Co paid Allied Commodities by check the amount owed. Upon deposit
in the payee’s account in Manila, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of
funds. For and in consideration of PI.00, Allied Commodities assigned the credit to
Hadji Butu who brought suit against Peter Co in the RTC of Manila for recovery of
the amount owed. Peter Co moved to dismiss the complaint against him on the
ground that Hadji Butu was not a real party in interest and. therefore, without legal
capacity to sue and that he had not agreed to a subrogation of creditor. Will Peter
Co’s defense of absence of agreement to a subrogation of creditor prosper? (1993
Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
No, Co’s defense will not prosper. This is not a case of subrogation, but an assignment of
credit. Assignment of credit is the process of transferring the right of the assignor to the
assignee. The assignment may be done either gratuitously or onerously, in which case, the
assignment has an effect similar to that of a sale (Nyco Sales Corp.v.BA Finance Corp.
G.R. No.71694, Aug. 16, 1991 200 SCRA 637). As a result of the assignment, the plaintiff
acquired all the rights of the assignor including the right to sue in his own name as the legal
assignee. In assignment, the debtor’s consent is not essential for the validity of the
assignment (Art. 1624; 1475, CC; Rodriguez v. CA, et al, G. R No. 84220. March 25, 1992
207 SCRA 553).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, the defense of Peter Co will not prosper. Hadji Butu validly
acquired his right by an assignment of credit under Article 1624 of the Civil Code. However,
the provisions on the contract of sale (Article 1475 Civil Code) will apply, and the
transaction is covered by the Statute of Frauds. (Art. 1403 par. (2) Civil Code)
Pablo sold his car to Alfonso who issued a postdated check in full payment therefor.
Before the maturity of the check, Alfonso sold the car to Gregorio who later sold it to
Gabriel. When presented for payment, the check issued by Alfonso was dishonored
by the drawee bank for the reason that he, Alfonso, had already closed his account
even before he issued his check. Pablo sued to recover the car from Gabriel alleging
that he (Pablo) had been unlawfully deprived of it by reason of Alfonso’s deception.
Will the suit prosper? (1991 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
No. The suit will not prosper because Pablo was not unlawfully deprived of the car although
he was unlawfully deprived of the price. The perfection of the sale and the delivery of the
car was enough to allow Alfonso to have a right of ownership over the car, which can be
lawfully transferred to Gregorio. Art. 559 applies only to a person who is in possession in
good faith of the property, and not to the owner thereof. Alfonso, in the problem, was the
owner, and, hence, Gabriel acquired the title to the car. Non-payment of the price in a
contract of sale does not render ineffective the obligation to deliver. The obligation to
deliver a thing is different from the obligation to pay its price. EDCA Publishing Co. v.
Santos (1990)
VIII. Risk of Loss
D sold a second-hand car to E for P150,000.00 The agreement between D and E was
that half of the purchase price, or P75,000.00, shall be paid upon delivery of the car
to E and the balance of P75,000.00 shall be paid in five equal monthly installments of
P15,000.00 each. The car was delivered to E, and E paid the amount of P75,000.00 to
D. Less than one month thereafter, the car was stolen from E’s garage with no fault
on E’s part and was never recovered. Is E legally bound to pay the said unpaid
balance of P75,000.00? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, E is legally bound to pay the balance of P75,000.00. The ownership of the car sold
was acquired by E from the moment it was delivered to him. Having acquired ownership, E
bears the risk of the loss of the thing under the doctrine of res perit domino. (Articles 1496,
1497, Civil Code).
IX. Documents of Title
X. Remedies of an Unpaid Seller
Spouses Macario and Bonifacia Dakila entered into a contract to sell with Honorio
Cruz over a parcel of industrial land in Valenzuela, Bulacan for a price of Three
Million Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,500,000.00). The spouses would give a
downpayment of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) upon the signing of
the contract, while the balance would be paid for the next three (3) consecutive
months in the amount of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) per month. The spouses
paid the first two (2) installments but not the last installment. After one (1) year, the
spouses offered to pay the unpaid balance which Honorio refused to accept. The
spouses filed a complaint for specific performance against Honorio invoking the
application of the Maceda Law. If you are the judge, how will you decide the case?
(2014 BAR)
Suggested Answer:
I will rule in favor of Honorio. The invocation of the Maceda Law is misplaced. The law
applies only to sale or financing of realty on installment payments including residential units

or residential condominium apartments and does not apply to sales of industrial units or
industrial lands like in the case presented. Another reason why the Maceda law will not
apply is that, the sale in the case at bar is not the sale on installment as contemplated by
the law. The sale on installment covered by the Maceda Law is one where the price is paid
or amortized over a certain period in equal installments. The sale to the Spouses Dakila is
not a sale on installment but more of a straight sale where a down payment is to be made
and the balance to be paid in a relatively short period of three months.
Priscilla purchased a condominium unit in Makati City from the Citiland Corporation
for a price of P10 Million, payable P3 Million down and the balance with interest
thereon at 14% per annum payable in sixty (60) equal monthly installments of P
198,333.33. They executed a Deed of Conditional Sale in which it is stipulated that
should the vendee fail to pay three (3) successive installments, the sale shall be
deemed automatically rescinded without the necessity of judicial action and all
payments made by the vendee shall be forfeited in favor of the vendor by way of
rental for the use and occupancy of the unit and as liquidated damages. For 46
months, Priscilla paid the monthly installments religiously, but on the 47th and 48th
months, she failed to pay. On the 49th month, she tried to pay the installments due
but the vendor refused to receive the payments tendered by her. The following
month, the vendor sent her a notice that it was rescinding the Deed of Conditional
Sale pursuant to the stipulation for automatic rescission, and demanded that she
vacate the premises. She replied that the contract cannot be rescinded without
judicial demand or notarial act pursuant to Article 1592 of the Civil Code. a. Is Article
1592 applicable? (3%) b. Can the vendor rescind the contract? (2%) (2000 Bar
Question)
Suggested Answer:
a) Article 1592 of the Civil Code does not apply to a conditional sale. In Valarao v. CA, 304
SCRA 155, the Supreme Court held that Article 1592 applies only to a contract of sale and
not to a Deed of Conditional Sale where the seller has reserved title to the property until full
payment of the purchase price. The law applicable is the Maceda Law. b) No, the vendor
cannot rescind the contract under the circumstances. Under the Maceda Law, which is the
law applicable, the seller on Installment may not rescind the contract till after the lapse of
the mandatory grace period of 30 days for every one year of Installment payments, and
only after 30 days from notice of cancellation or demand, for rescission by a notarial act. In
this case, the refusal of the seller to accept payment from the buyer on the 49th month was
not justified because the buyer was entitled to 60 days grace period and the payment was
tendered within that period. Moreover, the notice of rescission served by the seller on the
buyer was not effective because the notice was not by a notarial act. Besides, the seller
may still pay within 30 days from such notarial notice before rescission may be effected. All
these requirements for a valid rescission were not complied with by the seller. Hence, the
rescission is invalid.
What are the so-called “Maceda” and “Recto” laws in connection with sales on
installments? Give the most important features of each law. (5%) (1999 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
The Maceda Law (R.A. 655) is applicable to sales of immovable property on installments.
The most important features are (Rillo v. CA, 247 SCRA 461): (1) After having paid
installments for at least two years, the buyer is entitled to a mandatory grace period of one
month for every year of installment payments made, to pay the unpaid installments without
interest. If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall refund to the buyer the cash surrender
value equivalent to fifty percent (50%) of the total payments made, and after five years of
installments, an additional five percent (5%) every year but not to exceed ninety percent
(90%) of the total payments made. (2) In case the installments paid were less than 2 years,
the seller shall give the buyer a grace period of not less than 60 days. If the buyer fails to
pay the installments due at the expiration of the grace period, the seller may cancel the
contract after 30 days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or demand for
rescission by notarial act. The Recto Law (Art. 1484) refers to sale of movables payable in
installments and limiting the right of seller, in case of default by the buyer, to one of three

remedies: (a) exact fulfillment; (b) cancel the sale if two or more installments have not been
paid; (c) foreclose the chattel mortgage on the things sold, also in case of default of two or
more installments, with no further action against the purchaser.
XI. Performance of Contract
A buyer ordered 5,000 apples from the seller at P20 per apple. The seller delivered
6,000 apples. What are the rights and obligations of the buyer? (2011 BAR)
(A) He can accept all 6,000 apples and pay the seller at P20 per apple.
(B) He can accept all 6,000 apples and pay a lesser price for the 1,000 excess apples.
(C) He can keep the 6,000 apples without paying for the 1,000 excess since the seller
delivered them anyway.
(D) He can cancel the whole transaction since the seller violated the terms of their
agreement.
X sold a parcel of land to Y on 01 January 2002, payment and delivery to be made on

01 February 2002. It was stipulated that if payment were not to be made by Y on 01
February 2002, the sale between the parties would automatically be rescinded. Y
failed to pay on 01 February 2002, but offered to pay three days later, which payment
X refused to accept, claiming that their contract of sale had already been rescinded.
Is X's contention correct? Why? (2003 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
No, X is not correct. In the sale of immovable property, even though it may have been
stipulated, as in this case, that upon failure to pay the price at the time agreed upon the
rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay, even after the
expiration of the period, as long as no demand for rescission of the contract has been
made upon him either judicially or by a notarial act (Article 1592, New Civil Code). Since no
demand for rescission was made on Y, either judicially or by a notarial act, X cannot refuse
to accept the payment offered by Y three (3) days after the expiration of the period.
This is a contract to sell and not a contract of absolute sale, since as there has been no
delivery of the land. Article 1592 of the New Civil Code is not applicable. Instead, Article
1595 of the New Civil Code applies. The seller has two alternative remedies: (1) specific
performance, or (2) rescission or resolution under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code. In
both remedies, damages are due because of default.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, the contract was automatically rescinded upon Y’s failure
to pay on 01 February 2002. By the express terms of the contract, there is no need for X to
make a demand in order for rescission to take place. (Article 1191, New Civil Code; Suria v.
IAC, 151 SCRA 661 [1987]; U.P. v. de los Angeles, 35 SCRA 102 [1970]).
Bert offers to buy Simeon’s property under the following terms and conditions: P1
million purchase price, 10% option money, the balance payable in cash upon the
clearance of the property of all illegal occupants. The option money is promptly paid
and Simeon clears the property of all illegal occupants in no time at all. However,
when Bert tenders payment of the balance and asks Simeon for the deed of absolute
sale, Simeon suddenly has a change of heart, claiming that the deal is
disadvantageous to him as he has found out that the property can fetch three times
the agreed purchase price. Bert seeks specific performance but Simeon contends
that he has merely given Bert an option to buy and nothing more, and offers to
return the option money which Bert refuses to accept.
a. Explain the nature of an option contract. (2%)
b. Will Bert’s action for specific performance prosper? Explain. (4%)
c. May Simeon justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is
financially disadvantageous to him? Explain. (4%) (2002 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:

A. An option contract is one granting a privilege to buy or sell within an agreed time and at
a determined price. It must be supported by a consideration distinct from the price. (Art.
1479 and 1482, NCC)
B. Bert’s action for specific performance will prosper because there was a binding
agreement of sale, not just an option contract. The sale was perfected upon acceptance by
Simeon of 10% of the agreed price. This 3mount is in reality earnest money which, under
Art. 1482, “shall be considered a3 part of the price arid as proof of the perfection of the
contract.” (Topacio v. CA, 211 SCRA 291[1992j; Villongco Realty v. Bormaheco, 65 SCRA
352 [1975]).
C. Simeon cannot justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is
financially disadvantageous to him. Having made a bad bargain is not a legal ground for
pulling out of a binding contract of sale, in the absence of some actionable wrong by the
other party (Vales v. Villa, 35 Phil. 769 [1916]), and no such wrong has been committed by
Bert.
LT applied with BPI to purchase a house and lot in Quezon City, one of its acquired
assets. The amount offered was P1,000,000.00 payable, as follows: P200,000.00
down payment, the balance of P800.000.00 payable within 90 days from June 1, 1985.
BPI accepted the offer, whereupon LT drew a check for P200,000.00 in favor of BPI
which the latter thereafter deposited in its account. On September 5, 1985, LT wrote
BPI requesting extension until October 10, 1985, within which to pay the balance, to
which BPI agreed. On October 5, 1985, due to the expected delay in the remittance of
the needed amount by his financier from the United States, LT wrote BPI requesting
a last extension until October 30, 1985. within which to pay the balance. BPI denied
LTs request because another had offered to buy the same property for
P1,500,000.00, cancelled its agreement with LT and offered to return to him the
amount of P200,200.00 that LT had paid to it. On October 20, 1985, upon receipt of
the amount of P800,000.00 from his US financier, LT offered to pay the amount by
tendering a cashier’s check therefor but which BPI refused to accept. LT then filed a
complaint against BPI in the RTC for specific performance and deposited in court the
amount of P800,000.00.
Is BPI legally correct in cancelling its contract with LT? (1993 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
BPI is not correct in cancelling the contract with LT. In Lina Topacio v. Court of Appeals
and BPI Investment (G. R. No. 102606, July 3. 1993, 211 SCRA 291), the Supreme Court
held that the earnest money is part of the purchase price and is proof of the perfection of
the contract. Secondly, notarial or judicial rescission under Art. 1592 and 1991 of the Civil
Code is necessary (Taguba v. de Leon, 132 SCRA 722).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: BPI is correct in cancelling its contract with LT but BPI must do
so by way of judicial rescission under Article 1191 Civil Code. The law requires a judicial
action, and mere notice of rescission is insufficient if it is resisted. The law also provides
that slight breach is not a ground for rescission (Song Fo & Co. vs. Hawaiian Phil. Co., 47
Phils. 821). Delay in the fulfillment of the obligation (Art. 1169, Civil Code) is a ground to
rescind, only if time is of the essence. Otherwise, the court may refuse the rescission if
there is a just cause for the fixing of a period.
A sold to B a house and lot for P50,000.00 payable 30 days after the execution of the
deed of sale. It was expressly agreed in the deed that the sale would ipso facto be of
no effect upon the buyer’s failure to pay as' agreed. B failed to pay on maturity, and
A sued to declare the contract of no force and effect. If B tendered payment before
the action was filed, but subsequent to the stipulated date of payment, would the
action prosper? Why? (1988 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
The action would not prosper in such a case. According to the law, “in the sale of
immovable property, even though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to pay the

price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the contract shall of right take place, the
vendee may pay, even after the expiration of the period, so long as no demand for the
rescission of the contract has been made upon him either judicially or by notarial act. After
the demand, the court may not grant him a new term.” (Art. 1592, CC.) Here, at the time B
tendered payment of the purchase price, there was still no demand made upon him by A for
the payment of said purchase price either judicially or by notarial act.
XII. Warranties
Knowing that the car had a hidden crack in the engine, X sold it to Y without
informing the latter about it. In any event, the deed of sale expressly stipulated that X
was not liable for hidden defects. Does Y have the right to demand from X a
reimbursement of what he spent to repair the engine plus damages? (2011 BAR)
(A) Yes. X is liable whether or not he was aware of the hidden defect.
(B) Yes, since the defect was not hidden; X knew of it but he acted in bad faith in not
disclosing the fact to Y.
(C) No, because Y is in estoppel, having changed engine without prior demand.
(D) No, because Y waived the warranty against hidden defects.
Acme Cannery produced sardines in cans known as "Sards." Mylene bought a can of
Sards from a store, ate it, and suffered from poisoning caused by a noxious
substance found in the sardines. Mylene filed a case for damages against Acme.
Which of the following defenses will hold? (2011 BAR)
(A) The expiry date of the "Sards" was clearly printed on its can, still the store sold
and Mylene bought it.
(B) Mylene must have detected the noxious substance in the sardines by smell, yet she still
ate it.
(C) Acme had no transaction with Mylene; she bought the "Sards" from a store, not directly
from Acme.
(D) Acme enjoys the presumption of safeness of its canning procedure and Mylene has not
overcome such presumption.
A warranty inherent in a contract of sale, whether or not mentioned in it, is known as

the (2011 BAR)
(A) warranty on quality.

(B) warranty against hidden defects.
(C) warranty against eviction.
(D) warranty in merchantability.
XIII. Breach of Contract
XIV. Extinguishment of the Sale
Dux leased his house to Iris for a period of 2 years, at the rate of P25,000.00 monthly,
payable annually in advance. The contract stipulated that it may be renewed for
another 2-year period upon mutual agreement of the parties. The contract also
granted Iris the right of first refusal to purchase the property at any time during the
lease, if Dux decides to sell the property at the same price that the property is
offered for sale to a third party. Twenty-three months after execution of the lease
contract, Dux sold the house to his mother for P2 million. Iris claimed that the sale
was a breach of her right of first refusal. Dux said there was no breach because the
property was sold to his mother who is not a third party. Iris filed an action to
rescind the sale and to compel Dux to sell the property to her at the same price.
Alternatively, she asked the court to extend the lease for another 2 years on the
same terms. Can Iris seek rescission of the sale of the property to Dux’s mother?
(3%) (2008 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:

Iris can seek rescission because pursuant to Equatorial Realty Co. v. Mayfair Theater (264
SCRA 483 [1996]) rescission is a relief allowed for the protection of one of the contracting
parties and even third persons from all injury and damage the contract of sale may causes
or the protection of some incompatible and preferred right.
Adela and Beth are co-owners of a parcel of land. Beth sold her undivided share of
the property to Xandro, who promptly notified Adela of the sale and furnished the
latter a copy of the deed of absolute sale. When Xandro presented the deed for
registration, the register of deeds also notified Adela of the sale, enclosing a copy of
the deed with the notice. However, Adela ignored the notices. A year later, Xandro
filed a petition for the partition of the property. Upon receipt of summons, Adela
immediately tendered the requisite amount for the redemption. Xandro contends that
Adela lost her right of redemption after the expiration of 30 days from her receipt of
the notice of the sale given by him. May Adela still exercise her right of redemption?
Explain. (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, Adela may still exercise her right of redemption notwithstanding the lapse of more
than 30 days from notice of the sale given to her because Article 1623 of the New Civil
Code requires that the notice in writing of the sale must come from the prospective vendor
or vendor as the case may be. In this case, the notice of the sale was given by the vendee
and the Register of Deeds. The period of 30 days never tolled. She can still avail of that
right.
FIRST ALTERNATIVE MAIN ANSWER: Adela can no longer exercise her right of
redemption. As co-owner, she had only 30 days from the time she received written notice of
the sale which in this case took the form of a copy of the deed of sale being given to her
(Conejero v. CA, 16 SCRA 775 [196SJ). The law does not prescribe any particular form of
written notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner (Etcuban v. CA,
148 SCRA 507 [1987]). So long as the redemptioner was informed in writing, he has no
cause to complain (Distrito v. CA, 197 SCRA 606, 609 [1991]). In fact in Distrito, a written
notice was held unnecessary where the co-owner had actual knowledge of the sale, having
acted as middleman and being present when the vendor signed the deed of sale.
Betty and Lydia were co-owners of a parcel of land. Last January 31, 2001, when she
paid her real estate tax, Betty discovered that Lydia had sold her share to Emma on
November 10, 2000. The following day, Betty offered to redeem her share from
Emma, but the latter replied that Betty's right to redeem has already prescribed. Is
Emma correct or not? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Emma, the buyer, is not correct. Betty can still enforce her right of legal redemption as a
co-owner. Article 1623 of the Civil Code gives a co-owner 30 days from written notice of the
sale by the vendor to exercise his right of legal redemption. In the present problem, the 30-
day period for the exercise by Betty of her right of redemption had not even begun to run
because no notice in writing of the sale appears to have been given to her by Lydia.
On January 2, 1980, A and B entered into a contract whereby A sold to B a parcel of

land for and in consideration of P 10,000.00, A reserving to himself the right to
repurchase the same. Because they were friends, no period was agreed upon for the
repurchase of the property.
A. Until when must A exercise his right of repurchase?
B. If A fails to redeem the property within the allowable period, what would you
advise B to do for his better protection? (1993 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:

A. A can exercise his right of repurchase within four (4) years from the date of the contract
(Art. 1606, Civil Code). b. I would advise B to file an action for consolidation of title and
obtain a judicial order of consolidation which must be recorded in the Registry of Property
(Art. 1607, Civil Code).
“X” offered to buy the house and lot of “Y” for P300,000. Since “X” had only
P200,000 in cash at the time, he proposed to pay the balance of P100,000 in four (4)
equal monthly installments. As the title to the property was to be immediately
transferred to the buyer, “X”, to secure the payment of the balance of purchase
price, proposed to constitute a first mortgage on the property in favor of “Y”. “Y”
agreed to the proposal so that on April 15, 1987, the contract of sale in favor of “X”
was executed and on the same date (April 15, 1987), “X” constituted the said first
mortgage. When the first installment became due. “X” defaulted in the payment
thereof. “Y” now brings an action to rescind the contract of sale, which “X” opposed.
How would you decide the conflict? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Either of the following answers should be given full credit:
1. “Y” cannot rescind. The relationship is no longer that of buyer and seller because the
sale was already perfected and consummated. The relationship is already that of
mortgagor and mortgagee. Rescission is not a principal action retaliatory in character but a
subsidiary one available only in the absence of any other legal remedy. Foreclosure is not
only a legal but a contractual remedy. The debtor must pay and, in case of breach, the
mortgagee may foreclose.
2. “Y” can rescind. Specific performance and rescission are alternative remedies in breach
of reciprocal obligations. The contract is only partly consummated. The price is not fully
paid. The mortgage is an accessory contract of guarantee arid can be waived by the
creditor who can avail of his remedies in the principal contract.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS: 1. Considering that the default covers only P25,000.00 and
the sum of P2OO,OOO.0O has already been paid, there is only, a slight or casual breach
negating the right of the seller to rescind the contract of sale. 2. Rescission is available
provided that the vendor give the vendee the 60-day period as required by the Maceda Law
or the Realty Installment Buyers Law.
XV. The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree (P.D. 957)
Bernie bought on installment a residential subdivision lot from DEVLAND. After

having faithfully paid the installments for 48 months. Bernie discovered that
DEVLAND had failed to develop the subdivision in accordance with the approved
plans and specifications within the time frame in the plan. He thus wrote a letter to
DEVLAND informing it that he was stopping payment. Consequently, DEVLAND
cancelled the sale and wrote Bernie, informing him that his payments are forfeited in
its favor. Was the action of DEVLAND proper? Explain (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Assuming that the land is a residential subdivision project under P.D. No. 957 (The
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), DEVLAND’s action is not proper
because under Section 23 of said Decree, no installment payment shall be forfeited to the
owner or developer when the buyer, after due notice, desists from further payment due to
the failure of the owner-developer to develop the subdivision according to the approved
plans and within the time limit for complying with the same.
Discuss the rights of Bernie under the circumstances. (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:

Under the same Section of the Decree, Bernie may, at his option, be reimbursed the total
amount paid including amortization interests but excluding delinquency interests at the
legal rate. He may also ask the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board to apply penal
sanctions against DEVLAND consisting of payment of administrative fine of not more than
P20.000.00 and/or imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
Supposing DEVLAND had fully developed the subdivision but Bernie failed to pay
further installments after 4 years due to business reverses. Discuss the rights and
obligations of the parties. (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Under R.A. No. 6552 (Maceda Law). DEVLAND has the right to cancel the contract but it
has to refund Bernie the cash surrender value of the payments on the property equivalent
to 50% of the total payments made.
ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED ANSWER: Bernie has the right to pay, without additional
interest, the unpaid installments within the grace period granted him by R.A 6552
equivalent to one-month for every year of installment payments, or four months in this case.
After the lapse of four months DEVLAND may cancel the contract after thirty days from and
after Bernie receives a notice of cancellation or demand for rescission of the contract by
notarial act. (Sec. 4, R.A. 6552) Bernie also has the right to sell or assign his rights before
the cancellation of the contract (Sec. 5)
XVI. The Condominium Act (R.A. No. 4726)
The Ifugao Arms is a condominium project in Baguio City. A strong earthquake

occurred which left huge cracks in the outer walls of the building. As a result, a
number of condominium units were rendered unfit for use. May Edwin, owner of one
of the condominium units affected, legally sue for partition by sale of the whole
project? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
Suggested Answer:
Yes, Edwin may legally sue for partition by sale of the whole condominium project under
the following conditions: (a) the damage or destruction caused by the earthquake has
rendered one-half (½) or more of the units therein untenantable, and (b) that the
condominium owners holding an aggregate of more than thirty (30%) percent interest of the
common areas are opposed to the restoration of the condominium project (Section 8[b],
Republic Act No. 4726 “Condominium Act”).
LEASE
I. Lease of Things
II. Lease of Work or Services
Jo-Ann asked her close friend, Aissa, to buy some groceries for her in the
supermarket.
Was there a nominate contract entered into between Jo-Ann and Aissa? In. the
affirmative, what was it? Explain. (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there was a nominate contract. On the assumption that Aissa accepted the request of
her close friend Jo-Ann to buy some groceries for her in the supermarket, what they
entered into was the nominate contract of Agency. Article 1868 of the New Civil code
provides that by the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to

do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the

latter.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, they entered into a nominate contract of lease of service in the absence of a relation
of principal and agent between them (Article 1644, New Civil Code).
III. Lease of Rural and Urban Lands
Under a written contract dated December 1, 1989, Victor leased his land to Joel for a
period of five (5) years at a monthly rental of P1,000.00, to be increased to P1,200.00
and P1,500.00 on the third and fifth year, respectively. On January 1, 1991, Joel
subleased the land to Conrad for a period of two (2) years at a monthly rental of
P1,500.00.
On December 31, 1992, Joel assigned the lease to his compadre, Ernie, who acted on
the belief that Joel was the rightful owner and possessor of the said lot Joel has
been faithfully paying the stipulated rentals to Victor. When Victor learned on May
15, 1992 about the sublease and assignment, he sued Joel, Conrad and Ernie for
rescission of the contract of lease and for damages.
Will the action prosper? If so, against whom? Explain. (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the action for rescission of the lease will prosper because Joel cannot assign the
lease to Ernie without the consent of Victor. (Art. 1649, Civil Code). But Joel may sublet to
Conrad because there is no express prohibition (Art. 1650, Civil Code; Alipio v. Court of
Appeals, 341 SCRA 441 (20001).
Victor can rescind the contract of lease with Joel, and the assignment of the lease to Ernie,
on the ground of violation of law and of contract. The sub-lease to Conrad remained valid
for two (2) years from January 1, 1991, and had not yet lapsed when the action was filed on
May 15, 1992.
In case of rescission, discuss the rights and obligations of the parties. (2%) (2005
Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In case of rescission, the rights and obligations of the parties should be as follows: At the
time that Victor filed suit on May 15, 1992, the assignment had not yet lapsed. It would
lapse on December 1, 1994, the very same date that the 5-year basic lease would expire.
Since the assignment is void, Victor can get the property back because of the violation of
the lease. Both Joel and Ernie have to surrender possession and are liable for damages.
But Conrad has not yet incurred any liability on the sublease which still subsisted at the
time of the filing of the action on May 15, 1992.
Ernie can file a cross-claim against Joel for damages on account of the rescission of the
contract of assignment. Conrad can file a counter-claim against Victor for damages for lack
of causes of action at the time of the filing of the suit.
A leased his house to B with a condition that the leased premises shall be used for
residential purposes only. B subleased the house to C who used it as a warehouse
for fabrics. Upon learning this. A demanded that C stop using the house as a
warehouse, but C ignored the demand. A then filed an action for ejectment against C.
who raised the defense that there is no privity of contract between him and A, and
that he has not been remiss in the payment of rent. Will the action prosper? (3%)
(2000 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the action will prosper. Under Article 1651 of the Civil Code, the sublessee is bound to
the lessor for all acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the
manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee.
A. May a lessee sublease the property leased without the consent of the lessor, and
what are the respective liabilities of the lessee and sub-lessee to the lessor in case
of such sublease? (3%)
B. Under what circumstances would an implied new lease of a tacita reconduccion

arise? (2%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, provided that there is no express prohibition against subleasing. Under the law, when
in the contract of lease of things there is no express prohibition, the lessee may sublet the
thing leased without prejudice to his responsibility for the performance of the contract
toward the lessor. (Art. 1650)
In case there is a sublease of the premises being leased, the sublessee is bound to the
lessor for all the acts which refer to the use and preservation of the thing leased in the
manner stipulated between the lessor and the lessee. (Art. 1651)
The sublessee is subsidiarily liable to the lessor for any rent due from the lessee. However,
the sublessee shall not be responsible beyond the amount of the rent due from him. (Art.
1652)
As to the lessee, the latter shall still be responsible to the lessor for the rents; bring to the
knowledge of the lessor every usurpation or untoward act which any third person may have
committed or may be openly preparing to carry out upon the thing leased; advise the owner
the need for all repairs; to return the thing leased upon the termination of the lease just as
he received it, save what has been lost or impaired by the lapse of time or by ordinary wear
and tear or from an inevitable cause; responsible for the deterioration or loss of the thing
leased, unless he proves that it took place without his fault.
An implied new lease or tacita reconduccion arises if at the end of the contract the lessee
should continue enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor,
and unless a notice to the contrary by either parties has previously been given (Art. 1670).
In short, in order that there may be tacita reconduccion there must be expiration of the
contract; there must be continuation of possession for15 days or more; and there must be
no prior demand to vacate.
A leased a parcel of land to B for a period of two years. The lease contract did not
contain any express prohibition against the assignment of the leasehold or the
subleasing of the leased premises. During the third year of the lease, B subleased
the land to C. In turn, C, without A’s consent, assigned the sublease to D. A then
filed an action for the rescission of the contract of lease on the ground that B has
violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. If you were the judge, how
would you decide the case, particularly with respect to the validity of:
A. B’s sublease to C? and

B. C's assignment of the sublease to D?
Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. B’s sublease to C is valid. Although the original period of two years for the lease contract
has expired, the lease continued with the acquiescence of the lessor during the third year.
Hence, there has been an implied renewal of the contract of lease. Under Art. 1650 of the
Civil Code, the lessee may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part, when the contract of
lease does not contain any express prohibition. (Articles 1650, 1670 Civil Code). A’s action
for rescission should riot prosper on this ground.
B. C’s assignment of the sublease to D is not valid. Under Art. 1649, of the Civil Code, the
lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a
stipulation to the contrary. There is no such stipulation in the contract. If the law prohibits
assignment of the lease without the consent of the lessor, all the more would
the assignment of a sublease be prohibited without such consent. This is a violation of the
contract and is a valid ground for rescission by A.
IV. Rights and Obligations of Lessor and Lessee
Dorotea leased portions of her 2,000 sq. m. lot to Monet, Kathy, Celia, and Ruth
for five (5) years. Two (2) years before the expiration of the lease contract, Dorotea
sold the property to PM Realty and Development Corporation. The following month,
Dorotea and PM Realty stopped accepting rental payments from
all the lessees because they wanted to terminate the lease contracts. Due to the
refusal of Dorotea to accept rental payments, the lessees , Ruth, et al., filed a
complaint for consignation of the rentals before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Manila without notifying Dorotea.
Is the consignation valid? (2014 BAR)
Answer:
NO, the consignation is not valid. For consignation of the thing or sum due to be proper,
there must be prior notice to the creditor that the debtor is going to consign the payment in
court (Art.1257). This notice is intended to give the creditor the opportunity to accept
payment and thus avoid liability for costs in case it is found that the act of consignation was
properly made. Even on the assumption that Dorotea was no longer the creditor as she had
already sold the property to DM Realty, the facts do not state that the realty corporation
was also given notice before filing the case for consignation.
Isaac leased the apartment of Dorotea for two (2) years. Six (6) months after, Isaac
subleased a portion of the apartment due to financial difficulty. Is the sublease
contract valid? (2014 BAR)
Answer:
YES, it is valid if there is no express prohibition for subleasing in the lease contract.
Anselmo is the registered owner of a land and a house that his friend Boboy
occupied for a nominal rental and on the condition that Boboy would vacate the
property on demand. With Anselmo's knowledge, Boboy introduced renovations
consisting of an additional bedroom, a covered veranda, and a concrete block fence,

at his own expense. Subsequently, Anselmo needed the property as his residence
and thus asked Boboy to vacate and turn it over to him. Boboy, despite an
extension, failed to vacate the property, forcing Anselmo to send him a written
demand to vacate. In his own written reply, Boboy signified that he was ready to
leave but Anselmo must first reimburse him the value of the improvements he
introduced on the property as he is a builder in good faith. Anselmo refused,
insisting that Boboy cannot ask for reimbursement as he is a mere lessee. Boboy
responded by removing the improvements and leaving the building in its original
state. (2013 BAR)
Resolve Boboy's claim that as a builder in good faith, he should be

reimbursed the value of the improvements he introduced.
Answer:
Boboy’s claim that he is a builder in good faith has no basis. A builder in good faith is
someone who occupies the property in the concept of an owner. The provisions on builder-
planter-sower under the Civil Code cover cases in which the builder, planter and sower
believe themselves to be owners of the land, or at least, to have a claim of title thereto.
As Boboy is a lessee of the property, even if he was paying nominal rental, Art. 1678, is
applicable. Under this provision, if the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements
which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or
substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease, shall pay the
lessee one-half of the value of improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to
reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements, even though the
principal thing may suffer damage thereby.
Can Boboy be held liable for damages for removing the improvements over
Anselmo's objection?
Answer:
NO. Boboy cannot be held liable for damages. The lessor, Anselmo, refused to reimburse
one-half of the value of the improvements, so the lessee, Boboy, may remove the same,
even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. If in removing the useful
improvements Boboy caused more impairment in the property leased than is necessary, he
will be liable for damages (Art. 1678).
The term of a 5-year lease contract between X the lessor and Y the lessee, where
rents were paid from month to month, came to an end. Still, Y continued using the
property with X’s consent. In such a case, it is understood that they impliedly
renewed the lease (2011 BAR)
A. from month to month under the same conditions as to the rest.

B. under the same terms and conditions as before.
C. under the same terms except the rent which they or the court must fix.
D. for only a year, with the rent raised by 10% pursuant to the rental control law.
A had a 4-storey building which was constructed by Engineer B. After five years, the
building developed cracks and its stairway eventually gave way and collapsed,
resulting to injuries to some lessees. Who should the lessees sue for damages? (1%)
(2010 Bar Question)

A. the owner
B. the engineer
C. both A & B
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. Both A & B.
The lessee may proceed against A for breach of contract, and against B for tort or statutory
liability.
Under Article 1654 (2, of the) New Civil Code, the lessor is obliged to make all the
necessary repairs in order to keep the leased property suitable for the use to which it has
been devoted. Consequently, under Article 1659 NCC, the proprietor of a building or
structure is responsible for the damages resulting from its total or partial collapse, if it is due
to the lack of necessary repairs.
Under Article 1723 NCC, the engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
specifications for a building is liable for damages if within 15 years from the completion of
the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and
specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. This liability may be enforced against the
architect or engineer even by a third party who has no privity of contract with the architect
or engineer under Article 2192 NCC.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A -. A, the owner.
The lessee can sue only the lessor for breach of contract under Article 1659 in relation to
Article 1654 NCC. The lessee cannot sue the architect or the engineer because there was
no privity of contract between them. When sued, however, the lessor may file a third party
claim against the architect or the engineer.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
B - B, the Engineer.
Under Article 1723 (NCC), the engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
specifications for a building is liable for damages if within 15 years from the completion of
the structure, the same should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and
specifications, or due to the defects in the ground. Under Article 2192 (NCC), however, if
the damages should be the result of any of the defect in the construction mentioned in
Article 1723 (NCC), the third person suffering damages may proceed only against the
engineer or architect or contractor within the period fixed therein. The damages suffered by
the lessee in the problem are clearly those resulting from defects in the construction plans
or specifications.
Jude owned a building which he had leased to several tenants. Without informing his
tenants, Jude sold the building to Ildefonso. Thereafter, the latter notified all the
tenants that he is the new owner of the building. Ildefonso ordered the tenants to
vacate the premises within thirty (30) days from notice because he had other plans
for the building. The tenants refused to vacate, insisting that they will only do so
when the term of their lease shall have expired. Is Ildefonso bound to respect the
lease contracts between Jude and his tenants? Explain your answer. (3%) (2009 Bar
Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Ildefonso must respect the lease contracts between Jude and his tenants. While it is
true that the said lease contracts were not registered and annotated on the title to the
property, Ildefonso is still not an innocent purchaser for value. He ought to know the
existence of the lease because the building was already occupied by the tenants at the
time he bought it. Applying the principle of caveat emptor, he should have checked and
known the status of the occupants or their right to occupy the building before buying it.
Dux leased his house to Iris for a period of 2 years, at the rate of P25,000.00 monthly,
payable annually in advance. The contract stipulated that it may be renewed for
another2-year period upon mutual agreement of the parties. The contract also
granted Iris the right of first refusal to purchase the property at any time during the
lease, if Dux decides to sell the property at the same price that the property is
offered for sale to a third party. Twenty-three months after execution of the lease
contract, Dux sold the house to his mother for P2 million. Iris claimed that the sale
was a breach of her right of first refusal. Dux said there was no breach because the
property was sold to his mother who is not a third party. Iris filed an action to
rescind the sale and to compel Dux to sell the property to her at the same price.
Alternatively, she asked the court to extend the lease for another 2 years on the
same terms.
x x x
Will the alternative prayer for extension of the lease prosper? (2%) (2008 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the extension of the lease should be upon the mutual agreement of the parties.
Alberto and Janine migrated to the United States of America, leaving behind their 4
children, one of whom is Manny. They own a duplex apartment and allowed Manny to
live in one of the units. While in the United States, Alberto died. His widow and all his
children executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Alberto’s estate wherein the 2-door
apartment was assigned by all the children to their mother, Janine. Subsequently,
she sold the property to George. The latter required Manny to sign a prepared Lease
Contract so that he and his family could continue occupying the unit. Manny refused
to sign the contract alleging that his parents allowed him and his family to continue
occupying the premises.
If you were George’s counsel, what legal steps will you take? Explain. 5% (2006 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As George’s counsel, I will give Manny a written demand to vacate within a definite period,
say 15 days. After the lapse of 15-day period, I will file an action for unlawful detainer to
recover the possession of the apartment from Manny. Manny’s occupation of the premises
was by mere tolerance of his parents. When all the co-heirs/co-owners assigned the 2-door
apartment to Janine in the extrajudicial partition, Janine became the sole owner of the
same. He continued to occupy it under the same familial arrangement. Upon the sale of the
property to George, Manny’s lawful occupation of the property was terminated and Manny’s
refusal to sign the lease contract and to vacate the premises after the period to vacate
lapsed made his occupation unlawful, hence, entitling George to the remedy of unlawful
detainer.
On January 1, 1980, Nestor leased the fishpond of Mario for a period of three years at
a monthly rental of P1,000.00, with an option to purchase the same during the period

of the lease for the price of P500.000.00. After the expiration of the three-year period,
Mario allowed Nestor to remain in the leased premises at the same rental rate. On
June 15, 1983, Nestor tendered the amount of P500,000.00 to Mario and demanded
that the latter execute a deed of absolute sale of the fishpond in his favor. Mario
refused, on the ground that Nestor no longer had an option to buy the fishpond.
Nestor filed an action for specific performance. Will the action prosper or not? Why?
(5%) (2001 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the action will not prosper. The implied renewal of the lease on a month-to-month basis
did not have the effect of extending the life of the option to purchase which expired at the
end of the original lease period. The lessor is correct in refusing to sell on the ground that
the option had expired.
Stating briefly the thesis to support your answer to each of the following cases, will
the death -
(a) of the lessee extinguish the lease agreement? (1997 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The death of the lessee will not extinguish the lease agreement, since lease is not
personal in character and the right is transmissible to the heirs. (Heirs of Dimaculangan vs.
LAC, 170 SCRA 393).
In January 1993, Four-Gives Corporation leased the entire twelve floors of the GQS
Towers Complex, for a period of ten years at a monthly rental of P3,000,000.00. There
is a provision in the contract that the monthly rentals should be paid within the first
five days of the month. For the month of March, May, June, October and December
1993, the rentals were not paid on time with some rentals being delayed up to ten
days. The delay was due to the heavy paper work involved in processing the checks.
Four-Gives Corporation also subleased five of the twelve floors to wholly-owned

subsidiaries. The lease contract expressly prohibits the assignment of the lease
contract or any portion thereof. The rental value of the building has' increased by
50% since its lease to Four-Gives Corporation.
A. Can the building owner eject Four-Gives Corporation on grounds of the

repeated delays in the payment of the rent?
B. Can the building owner ask for the cancellation of the contract for violation of
the provision against assignment? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The “repeated delays" in the payment of rentals would, at best, be a slight or casual
breach which does not furnish a ground for ejectment especially because the delays were
only due to heavy paper work. Note that there was not even a demand for payment
obviously because the delay lasted for only-a few days (10 days being the longest), at the
end of which time payments were presumably made and were accepted. There was,

therefore, no default. Note also that there was no demand made upon the lessee to vacate
the premises for non-payment of the monthly rent.”
There is. Therefore no cause of action for ejectment arising from the “repeated delays.”
The building owner cannot eject Four-Gives Corporation on the ground of repeated delays
in the payment of rentals. The delay in the payment of the rentals is minimal and cannot be
made the basis of an ejectment suit. The delay was due to the heavy paper work involved
in processing the checks. It would be otherwise if the lease contract stated that in the
payment of rentals within the first five days of the month, time is of the essence or that the
lessee will be in delay if he fails to pay within the agreed period without need of demand. In
this case he can judicially eject the tenant on the ground of lack of payment of the price
stipulated after a demand to vacate. (Article 1673(2), New Civil Code).
b) No. Resolution of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only
for such substantial and fundamental breach as would defeat the very object of the parties
in making the agreement. (Zepeda v. CA, 216 SCRA 293). The delay of ten (10) days is not
such a substantial and fundamental breach to warrant the resolution of the contract of lease
specially so when the delay was due to the heavy paperwork in processing the checks.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) No. Sublease is different from assignment of lease. Sublease, not being prohibited by
the contract of lease is therefore allowed and cannot be invoked as a ground to cancel the
lease.
b) No, the lessor cannot have the lease cancelled for alleged violation of the provision
against assignment. The lessee did not assign the lease, or any portion thereof, to the
subsidiaries. It merely subleased some floors to its subsidiaries. Since the problem does
not state that the contract of lease contains a prohibition against sublease, the sublease is
lawful, the rule being that in the absence of an express prohibition a lessee may sublet the
thing leased, in whole or in part, without prejudice to his/its responsibility to the lessor for
the performance of the contract.
A is the owner of a lot on which he constructed a building in the total cost of

P10,000,000.00. Of that amount B contributed P5,000,000.00 provided that the
building as a whole would be leased to him (B) for a period of ten years from January
1, 1985 to December 31, 1995 at a rental of P10,000.00 a year. To such condition, A
agreed. On December 20. 1990, the building was totally burned. Soon thereafter, A’s
workers cleared the debris and started construction of a new building. B then served
notice upon A that he would occupy the building being constructed upon
completion, for the unexpired portion of the lease term, explaining that he had spent
partly for the construction of the building that was burned. A rejected B’s demand.
Did A do right in rejecting B’s demand? (1993 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A was correct in rejecting the demand of B. As a result of the total destruction of the
building by fortuitous event, the lease was extinguished. (Art. 1655, Civil Code.)
A vacant lot several blocks from the center of the town was leased by its owner to a
young businessman B. for a term of fifteen (15) years renewal upon agreement of the
parties. After taking possession of the lot, the lessee built thereon a building of
mixed materials and a store. As the years passed, he expanded his business,
earning more profits. By the tenth (10th) year of his possession, he was.able to build
a three (3)- storey building worth at least P300,000.00. Before the end of the term of
the lease, B negotiated with the landowner for its renewal, but despite their attempts
to do so, they could not agree on the new conditions for the renewal. Upon the
expiration of the term of the lease, the landowner asked B to vacate the premises
and remove his building and other improvements. B refused unless he was

reimbursed for necessary and useful expenses. B claimed that he was a possessor
and builder in good faith, with right of retention. This issue is now before the court
for resolution in a pending litigation.
A. What are the rights of B?
B. What are the rights of the landowner? (1990 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. B has the right to remove the building and other improvements unless the landowner
decides to retain the building at the time of the termination of the lease and pay the lessee
one-half of the value of the improvements at that time. The lessee may remove the building
even though the principal thing may suffer damage but B should not cause any more
impairment upon the property leased than is necessary. The claim of B that he was a
possessor and builder in good faith with the right of retention is not tenable. B is not a
builder in good faith, because as lessee he does not claim ownership over the property
leased.
b. The landowner/lessor may refuse to reimburse 1 /2 of the value of the improvements and
require the lessee to remove the improvements. (Article 1678, Civil Code).
Fred sold to Juan a parcel of land, belonging to his minor son, Lino, then under his
guardianship, without judicial approval. After the sale, Juan immediately took pos-
session of the land, built a house and religiously paid the taxes thereon. Nine years
thereafter, Lino, no longer a minor, rented the ground floor of the house built by
Juan. Lino paid the rent for the first month, then stopped paying. Two years
thereafter, when pressed for payment of the accrued rent, Lino refused, claiming
ownership over the property, alleging that the sale of the property to Juan while he
was a minor without the approval of the guardianship court rendered the sale null
and void.
Is the claim of Lino valid and meritorious? Explain. (1987 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Lino’s claim is not valid and not meritorious because Lino is in estoppel. A lessee
cannot assail the right and title of the lessor and cannot claim ownership as against the
lessor. The fact that the sale was made while Lino was a minor is of no moment because
he recognized and ratified the contract after he was already of majority age.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Lino’s claim is not valid and not meritorious because Juan had already become the
owner of the land by ordinary acquisitive prescription through adverse possession of the
land for over ten (10) years.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Lino's claim is not valid and not meritorious. Lino can no longer recover the land
because of laches.
V. Special Rules for Lease of Rural/Urban Lands

In 1995, Mark leased the rice land of Narding in Nueva Ecija for an annual rental of
P1,000.00 per hectare. In 1998, due to the El Nino phenomenon, the rice harvest fell
to only 40% of the average harvest for the previous years. Mark asked Narding for a
reduction of the rental to P500.00 per hectare for that year but the latter refused. Is
Mark legally entitled to such reduction? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Mark is not entitled to a reduction. Under Article 1680 of the Civil Code, the lessee of a
rural land is entitled to a reduction of the rent only in case of loss of more than 1/2 of the
fruits through extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous events. While the drought brought
about by the “El Nino" phenomenon may be classified as extraordinary, it is not considered
as unforeseen.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Mark is entitled to a reduction of the rent. His loss was more than 1 /2 of the fruits and
the loss was due to an extraordinary and unforeseen fortuitous event. The “El Nino"
phenomenon is extraordinary because it is uncommon; it does not occur with regularity.
And neither could the parties have foreseen its occurrence. The event should be
foreseeable by the parties so that the lessee can change the time for his planting, or refrain
from planting, or take steps to avoid the loss. To be foreseeable, the time and the place of
the occurrence, as well as the magnitude of the adverse effects of the fortuitous event must
be capable of being predicted. Since the exact place, the exact time, and the exact
magnitude of the adverse effects of the “El Nino" phenomenon are still unpredictable
despite the advances in science, the phenomenon is considered unforeseen.

Civil Law: Sales and Lease

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law: Sales and Lease

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law: Sales and Lease

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO BAR 1980 TO 2016

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 1

I. Definition and Essential Requisites of a Contract of Sale

Jackie, 16, inherited a townhouse. Because she wanted to study in an exclusive

Z, a gambler, wagered and lost P2 Million in baccarat, a card game. He was

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 2

Another Suggested Answer:

Another Suggested Answer:

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 3

1) Real estate mortgage is an accessory contract. A contract of sale with right of

RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE: Any three (3) of the foregoing distinctions

II. Parties to a Contract of Sale

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 4

III. Subject Matter

a) the buyer bears the risk of loss.

Can future inheritance be the subject of a contract of sale?(2011 BAR)

IV. Obligations of the Seller to Transfer Ownership

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 5

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 6

a. Does Marcelo have a cause of action against Sergio?

A contract granting a privilege to a person, for which he has paid a consideration,

VI. Formation of Contract of Sale

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 7

Which of the following contracts is void? (2012 BAR)

a) An oral sale of a parcel of land.

A contract to sell is the same as a conditional contract of sale. Do you agree?

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 8

(A) equitable mortgage.

For my 1995 Toyota Corolla with

On 20 December 1970, Juliet, a widow, borrowed from Romeo P4.000.00 and, as

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 9

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 10

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 11

VII. Transfer of Ownership

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 12

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 13

VIII. Risk of Loss

IX. Documents of Title

X. Remedies of an Unpaid Seller

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 14

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 15

XI. Performance of Contract

X sold a parcel of land to Y on 01 January 2002, payment and delivery to be made on

Another Suggested Answer:

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 16

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 17

A warranty inherent in a contract of sale, whether or not mentioned in it, is known as

(A) warranty on quality.

XIII. Breach of Contract

XIV. Extinguishment of the Sale

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 18

On January 2, 1980, A and B entered into a contract whereby A sold to B a parcel of

A. Until when must A exercise his right of repurchase?

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 19

Either of the following answers should be given full credit:

Bernie bought on installment a residential subdivision lot from DEVLAND. After

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 2 Sales and Lease 20

XVI. The Condominium Act (R.A. No. 4726)