Você está na página 1de 10

3. Dacion en Pago Art. 1245 Yuson v.

Vitan, 496 SCRA 540 (2007)

Mar Yuson, a cab driver w/ 8 kids, inherited some money. They used this money to buy a 2nd hand cab w/ the help of Atty Vitan, but their other plans (repair house and hold debut for daughter) was suspended bec. Atty vitan borrowed from them 100k. It was greed that it woul be paid at the end of the year in time for the debut and as a guarantee, Vitan issued several PDChecks but the bank account of the lawyer is closed. To recover the debt, Yuson sought the help of IBP National Committee on Legal Aid. The Atty defaulted so he gave a collateral for the loan: a deed of sale of vitans land in bulacan. Yusons intention was to either seel or mortage the land so that the proceeds would be used as a payment for vitans loan. However, a 2nd DOAS this time in favor of Vitan was executed. Complainant was able to mortgage the property for 30k, but vitan did not redeemed this amount but simply offered another promised to pay to the complainants. IBP took action and informed Vitan that an admin case would be filed against him, but Vitan defended that he already paid the loan by way of his DOAS in bulacan. But Vitan attached the 2nd DOAS where he was the vendee and the complainant the vendor. Vitan called this a counter DOAS. He admitted having given several postdated checks amounting to P100,000, supposedly to guarantee the indebtedness of Estur to complainant. Atty. Vitan argued for the first time that it was she who had incurred the debts, and that he had acted only as a "character reference and/or guarantor." He maintained

that he had given in to the one-sided transactions, because he was "completely spellbound by complainant's seeming sincerity and kindness." To corroborate his statements, he attached Estur's Affidavit. ISSUE: W/N Vitans obligation is extinguished by the sale of his property? NO HELD: The wordings of these promissory notes disclose that he had a personal obligation to complainant, without any mention of Estur at all. If it were true that Atty. Vitan had executed those notes for the account of his liaison officer, he should have used words to that effect. Basically, respondent is asserting that what had transpired was a dation in payment. Governed by the law on sales, it is a transaction that takes place when a piece of property is alienated to the creditor in satisfaction of a debt in money. It involves delivery and transmission of ownership of a thing -- by the debtor to the creditor -- as an accepted equivalent of the performance of the obligation. The records reveal that he did not really intend to sell and relinquish ownership over his property in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, notwithstanding the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of complainant. The second Deed of Absolute Sale, which reconveyed the property to respondent, is proof that he had no such intention. This second Deed, which he referred to as his "safety net," betrays his intention to counteract the effects of the first one.

the second Deed of Absolute Sale returned the parties right back where they started, as if there were no sale in favor of complainant to begin with. In effect, on the basis of the second Deed of Sale, respondent took back and asserted his ownership over the property despite having allegedly sold it. Thus, he fails to convince us that there was a bona fide dation in payment or sale that took place between the parties; that is, that there was an extinguishment of obligation. It appears that the true intention of the parties was to use the Bulacan property to facilitate payment. They only made it appear that the title had been transferred to complainant to authorize him to sell or mortgage the property
SSS v CA, 553 SCRA 677 (2008)
Facts: AG&P and Semirara Coal Company proposed to pay its arrears of premiums and loan amortization delinquencies through dacion en pago which was subsequently accepted by SSS. Thereafter, SSS directed herein defendant to submit certain documents necessary for the agreement which AG&P immediately complied with. SSS finally approved the dacion en pago which as of March 2001 amounted to P29, 261,902.45. To effect said transfer, a Deed of Assignment had to be executed between the two parties which SSS failed to come up. On the other hand, defendant continuously submitted drafts to SSS of the needed Deed of Assignment. ON 2003, SSS sent to AG&P a revised copy of the Deed of Assignment, however, the amount went from P29, 261,902.45 to P40, 846,610.64 allegedly because of the additional interest and penalties. AG&P requested for the deduction of these interests and penalties for the delay of the Deed of Assignment was the fault of SSS. Thus, AG&P filed a complaint for the specific performance and damages against SSS. SSS contended that the court has no jurisdiction over the case in accordance with R.A. 8282 which provides that any dispute should be filed in the Commission. RTC ruled in favor of AG&P. upon appeal, the CA held that the court has jurisdiction and that the case be reverted back to the Trial Court for actual proceedings. Thus, SSS appealed to the Court. Issue: Which body has jurisdiction over non-implementation of a dacion en pago agreed by the part. Held:

Petition was denied. From the allegations of respondents complaint, it readily appears that there is no longer any dispute with respect to respondents accountability to the SSS. Respondents had, in fact, admitted their delinquency and offered to settle them by way of dacion en

pago subsequently approved by the SSS in Resolution No. 270-s. 2001. SSS stated in said resolution that the dacion en pago proposal of AG&P Co. of Manila and Semirara Coals Corporation to pay their liabilities in the total amount ofP30,652,710.71 as of 31 March 2001 by offering their 5.8 ha. property located in San Pascual, Batangas, be, as it is hereby, approved.. This statement unequivocally evinces its consent to the dacion en pago. The controversy, instead, lies in the non-implementation of the approved and agreed dacion en pago on the part of the SSS. As such, respondents filed a suit to obtain its enforcement which is, doubtless, a suit for specific performance and one incapable of pecuniary estimation beyond the competence of the Commission. Pertinently, the Court ruled in Singson v. Isabela Sawmill, as follows: In determining whether an action is one the subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary estimation, and whether jurisdiction in the municipal courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue is something other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court has considered such actions as cases where the subject of the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money, and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance (now Regional Trial Courts).[14]

Estanislao v. East West Banking Corp., 544 SCRA 369 (2008) 4. Barter or Exchange Arts. 1468, 1638, 1641, 1954 Fule v. CA, 286 SCRA 698 (1998) 5. Agency to Buy and Sell Art. 1466 & 1868 Heacock v. Buntal Manufacturing Co., 66 Phil 245, September 26, 1938 Quiroga v. Parsons Hardware, 38 Phil 501, August 23, 1918 Ker v. Lingad, 38 SCRA 524, April 30, 1971 Del Monte Phils. v. Aragones, 461 SCRA 139, June 23, 2005 G. Puyat & Sons v. Arco amusements, 72 Phil 402 (1941) Asbestos Integrated v. Peralta, 155 SCRA 213 (1987) 6. Chattel Mortgage Art. 2140, Section 3, Chattel Mortgage Law

7. Donation II. Essential Elements of a Contract of Sale A. Consent of the contracting parties B. Parties to the Contract 1. Capacity of Parties- Arts. 1489 - 1492, 1390, 1403 2. Absolute - Arts. 1327-1328, Art. 234 Family Code (FC) as amended by RA 6809 3. Relative Art. XII, Secs. 7 & 8, 1987 Constitution, Arts. 1490-1492, 1533(5), 1476(4), 124 FC i. Contract with Third Parties Arts. 73, 96 & 124, FC ii. Between Spouses Art. 1490 & 1492 Medina v. CIR, 1 SCRA 302 (1961) iii. Applicability to Common Law Spouses Art. 133; Arts. 147-148, Family Code Calimlim-Canullas v. Fortun, 129 SCRA 675 (1984) 4. Special Disqualifications Arts. 1491-1492 a. Guardians, Agents and Administrators Philippine Trust Co. v. Roldan, 99 Phil 32 (1956) Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77 (1982) Director of Lands v. Ababa, 88 SCRA 513 (1979) b. Judges and Lawyers Rubias v. Batiller, 51 SCRA 120, May 29, 1973 c. Public Officers

Maharlika Publishing v. Tagle, GR. No. L-65594, July 9, 1986 d. Other Disqualifications Mangayao v. de Guzman, 55 SCRA 540 (1974) De Leon v. CA, GR. No. 88788, September 4, 1992 Yap v. Grageda, GR. No. L-31606, March 28, 1983 Other Cases: Rodriguez v. Mactal, 60 Phil 13, April 4, 1934 Miguel v. Catalino, 26 SCRA 234, November 29, 1968 Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs of Primitivo Hernaez, 466 SCRA 120, August 9, 2005 Mapalo v. Mapalo, 17 SCRA 114, May 19, 1966 C. Subject Matter of the Sale - Arts. 1347, 1311, 1636 (goods) 1. Requisites of a Valid Subject Matter - Arts. 1458(1), 1459-1462, 1347-1349, 1306, 1409, 1411, 1416 i. Must be Existing, Future or Contingent Art. 1347, 1348, 1462 a. Emptio Rei Speratae/Emptio Spei Arts. 1461 & 1347 Pichel v. Alonzo, 111 SCRA 34 (1982) b. Subject to a Resolutory Condition Art. 1465, 1608 Arsenal v. IAC, 143 SCRA 40 (1986) ii. Must be licit Arts. 1347, 1459, 1575 Martinez v. CA, 56 SCRA 647 (1974) iii. Must be Determinate or Determinable Art. 1460, 1349 Melliza v. City of Iloilo, 23 SCRA 477, April 30, 1968 Atillano v. Atillano, 28 SCRA 231 (1969) 2. Particular Kinds i. Generic Things Yu Tek & Co. v. Gonzales, 29 Phil 384 (1915) ii. Future Goods Art. 1461 & 1462 iii. Undivided Interest/ Share Arts. 1463-1464, 493 Yturalde vs. CA, 43 SCRA 313 (1972) Gaite v. Fonacier, 2 SCRA 831 (1961) iv. Things in Litigation Arts. 1381 (4), & 1385 (2); Rule 13, Section 14, Rules of Court Atkins Kroll & Co. v. Domingo, 46 Phil 360 (1924) Laroza v. Guia, GR o. L-45252, January 31, 1985 v. Things subject to Conditions (Arts. 1465, 1608) Arsenal v. IAC, 143 SCRA 40 (1986) 3. Rules on the object of a contract of sale- Arts. 1463-1465 4. Assignment of Credit and Other Incorporeal Rights- Arts. 1624-1635 Martinez v. Court of Appeals, 56 SCRA 647, April 29, 1974

Melliza v. City of Iloilo, 23 SCRA 477, April 30, 1968 D. Price/Consideration - Arts. 1469-1474; 1350, 1352-1353 1. Must be Real Art. 1471 a. Adequacy of price b. False consideration Ong v. Ong, 139 SCRA 133 (1985) Ladanga v CA, 131 SCRA 361 (1984) c. Must be in money or its equivalent Arts. 1458 & 1468 Republic v. Phil. Resources, 102 Phil 960 (1958) d. Must be certain or ascertainable at the time of perfection Velasco v CA. 51 SCRA 43 (1973) Toyota Shaw v. CA, 24 SCRA 320 (1995) e. Price certain in money- Arts. 1469, 1471-1474, 1308; RA 529, RA8183, PD72 2. Earnest Money- Art. 1482 a. Lesion - Arts. 1470, 1355 Cases: Villonco Realty Company v. Bormaheco, Inc., supra Spouses Doromal , Sr. and Salas v. Court of Appeals, 66 SCRA 575, September 5, 1975 Goldenrod v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 141, November 24, 1998 Edrada v. Ramos, 468 SCRA 597, August 31, 2005 Philippine Free Press, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 473 SCRA 639, October 24, 2005 Cruz v. Fernando, Sr., 477 SCRA 173, December 9, 2005 Morales Devt Co. v. Court of Appeals, 27 SCRA 484, March 28, 1969 Laperal v. Rogers, 13 SCRA 26, January 30, 1965 De Leon v. Salvador, 36 SCRA 566, December 28, 1970 Velasco v. Court of Appeals, 51 SCRA 439, June 29, 1973 III. Formation of Contract of Sale A. Preparatory Art. 1479 (cf. Art. 1324) 3. Offer Art. 1475 Villonco v. Bormaheco, 65 SCRA 352 (1975) a. Forms of Offer Arts. 1319, 1325, 1326 Zayco v. Serra, 44 Phil. 326 (1923) b. Forms of Acceptance Art. 1319 2. Vices of Consent Art. 1330, 1338, 1331 Asiain v. Jaloandoni, 45 Phil 296 (1923) 3. Option Contract Arts. 1479, 1324 De la Cavada v. Diaz, 37 Phil 962 (1918) Soriano v. Bautista, 6 SCRA 946 (1962) Nietes v. CA, 46 SCRA 654 (1972)

Cronica v. JM Tuason, GR NO. L-35272, August 26, 1977 Carceller v. CA, 302 SCRA 718 (1999) a. Meaning of Consideration Sanchez v. Rigos, 45 SCRA 368 (1972) Villamor v. CA, 202 SCRA 607 (1991) 4. Right of First Refusal Ang Yu Asuncion v. CA, 238 SCRA 602 (1994) Equatorial Realty Devt. v. Mayfair Theater, 264 SCRA 483 (1996) Paranaque Kings v. CA, 268 SCRA 727 (1997) Rosencor v. Inquing, 354 SCRA 119 (2001) Tanat Recreation v. Fausto, 455 SCRA 436 (2005) 5. Mutual Promise to Buy and Sell Art. 1479 IV. Perfection of the Contract Art. 1475, 1319, 1325, 1326, 1330, 1338, 1476, 1479 A. When perfected- Arts. 1475-1476, 1479(1) Coronel v. CA, GR. No. 103577, October 7, 1996 San Lorenzo Devt Corp. v. CA, GR No. 124242, January 21, 2005 Manila Metal Container Corp. v. PNB, 511 SCRA 444 (2006) DBP v. Medrano, GR No. 167004, February 7, 2011 Cruz v. Fernando, Sr., supra i. When deviation allowed Villonco v. Bormaheco, supra ii. Sale by Auction Arts. 1476, 1403 (d), 1326 iii. Earnest Money v. Option Money Art. 1482 Cifra v. CA, 198 SCRA 91 (1991) Laforteza v. Machuca, 333 SCRA 643 (2000) Limson v. CA, 357 SCRA 209 (2001) San Miguel Properties v. Huang, 336 SCRA 737 (2000) iv. Place of Perfection Art. 1391 B. Contract of Option- Arts. 1479, 1324 Sanchez v. Rigos, 145 SCRA 368, June 14, 1972 Equatorial Realty Devt, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc., 264 SCRA 483, November 21, 1996 C. Formalities of Contract of Sale - Arts. 1483, 1403, 1625, 1356-1358, 1874; Sec. 22 Act 1147 (Cattle Registration Act) i. General Rule: Form not important Arts. 1483, 1358 Dalion v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 872, February 28, 1990

Secuya v. Vda De Selma, 326 SCRA 244 (2000)

ii. Exception: When form is important 1. For Enforceability: Statute of Frauds Art. 1403 & 1405 Ortega v. Leoanrdo, 103 Phil 870 (1958) Paredes v. Espino, 22 SCRA 1000, March 13, 1968 Claudel v. CA, 199 SCRA 113 (1991) 2. For Validity a. Sale of Realty through an Agent Art. 1874 City-Lite Realty Corp. v. CA 325 SCRA (2000) b. Sale of Large Cattle Art. 1581, Section 529, Revised Administrative Code c. Electronic Commerce Act Sections 7, 8, 11 of RA 8792 Cases: Inigo v. Maloto, 21 SCRA 246, September 28, 1967 Cuyugan v. Santos, 34 Phil 100, March 3, 1916 Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy, 104 SCRA 668, May 27, 1981 Vda. De Jomoc v. Court of Appeals, 200 SCRA 74, August 2, 1991 Santos v. Manalili, 475 SCRA 679, November 22, 2005