Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1. Parties:
Coronels – seller of inherited house and lot in QC; price – 1.240k
Ramona Alcaraz – buyer
2. Obligations:
50k –DP (balance 1.190)
Coronel to transfer names in TCT from their father’s name to theirs upon receipt of DP. After change of names
Coronel will execute deed of absolute sale to Alcaraz, who will then pay the balance immediately.
3. Events:
Concepcion, mother of Ramona Alcaraz paid DP of 50k --- Coronels effected the transfer of names --- But sold
the same property to Catalina Mabanag --- Hence, Coronel rescinded the contract with Ramona by depositing
to Ramona’s account the DP --- Concepcion et al filed a complaint for specific performance --- Catalina made an
adverse claim – Coronels issued Deed of Absolute Sale to catalina.
4. Trial Court ordered Coronels to issue DAS to Ramona. CA affirmed.
Issue:
1. Events: Petitioners mortaged real easte property to respondent bank as security for a 2k loan – Failure to
pay --- Foreclosure --- Bidding – Bank won – Redemption period of 2 yrs. – Petitioners failed to redeem, hence,
Final Deed of Sale issued.
2. TP: Pet claims they were granted by the bank an extension period which the bank denied. Writ of Possession
granted to bank. Opposed by Pet.
3. Courts: Trial Court ruled in favor of Pet. IAC reversed lower court and ruled in favor of the bank.
ISSUE:
HELD: Affirms IAC. Petition dismissed.
1. Offer was not made within redemption period. Otherwise, no need for request for extension of period.
2. As regards the assurance given by bank to pet that they can redeem the property as soon as they have the
money
- took place outside the redemption period hence, relates to a resale and not redemption.
- Assuming they can redeem/buy anytime (including outside the redemption period), Bank was not bound
because not approved by B of directors, and it was a promise unsupported by a consideration distinct from the
re-purchase.
Siy vs Ca
FACTS:
On November 2, 1960, UP and ALUMCO enteredinto a logging agreement whereby the latter was
grantedexclusive authority to cut, collect and remove timber from the Land Grant for a period starting from
the date ofagreement to December 31, 1965, extendible for a period of5 years by mutual agreement.
3. In the event that the payments called for are not sufficient to liquidate the foregoing indebtedness,the
balance outstanding after the said payments have been applied shall be paid by the debtor in full no later than
June 30, 1965.
5. In the event that the debtor fails to comply withany of its promises, the Debtor agrees withoutreservation
that Creditor shall have the right to consider the Logging Agreement rescinded, without the necessity of any
judicial suit…
ALUMCO continued its logging operations, but again incurred an unpaid account. On July 19,1965, UP informed
ALUMCO that it had, as of that date, considered rescinded and of no further legal effect the logging agreement,
and that UP had already taken steps to have another concessionaire take over the logging operation.
ALUMCO filed a petition to enjoin UP from conducting the bidding. The lower court ruled in favor of
ALUMCO,hence, this appeal.
ISSUE:
Can petitioner UP treat its contract with ALUMCO rescinded, and may disregard the same before any judicial
pronouncement to that effect?
RULING:
Yes. In the first place, UP and ALUMCO had expressly stipulated that upon default by the debtor, UP has the
right and the power to consider the Logging Agreement of December 2, 1960 as rescinded without the
necessity of any judicial suit. As to such special stipulation and in connection with Article 1191 of the Civil
Code, the Supreme Court, stated in Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co: “There is nothing in the law that
prohibits the parties from entering into agreement that violation of the terms of the contract would cause
cancellation thereof, even without court intervention. In other words, it is not always necessary for the injured
party to resort to court for rescission of the contract.”
Camus vs Price