1.

ANTHONY ORDUA, DENNIS ORDUA, and ANTONITA ORDUA VS. EDUARDO J.

FUENTEBELLA, MARCOS S. CID, BENJAMIN F. CID, BERNARD G. BANTA, and
ARMANDO GABRIEL, JR.,
FACTS:
this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court BY Anthony Ordua, Dennis
Ordua and Antonita Ordua seeking to set aside the Decisionof the Court of Appeals (CA)
which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) , IN a suit for annulment of title
and reconveyance AGAINTS THE FATHERS RESPONDENT WHICH INVOLVES THE
residential lot with an area of 74 square meters.PETIONER THROUGH VERBAL
AGREEMENT TO PAY THE LOT IN INSTALLMENT AND RESPONDENTS FATHER
AFTER DEATH ,THE RESPONDENTS KEPT ACCEPTING THE
PAYMENT.HOWEVER,RESPONDENT SOLD THE SAME LOT TO BERNARD BANTA
DESPITE ACCEPTING PAYMENTS FROM PETIONER.BANTA SOLD THE SAME LOT
TO CID AFTERWARDS.HENCE,THIS PETITION.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT IS UNENFORCEABLE
RULIING:
NO, THE CONTRACT IS NOT UNENFORCEABLE UNDER ARTICLE 1403 (STATUTE
OF FRAUDS )APPLY ONLY TO EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND CANNOT APPLY TO
PARTIALLY EXECUTED CONTRACTS. AND under Art. 1544 of the Civil Code prescribing
rules on preference in case of double sales of immovable property. (1) knowledge by the first
buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyers rights except when the second buyer first
register in good faith the second sale; and (2) knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first
sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since such knowledge taints his registration
with bad faith.

2.
FLOR MARTINEZ, represented by MACARIO MARTINEZ, authorized representative and
Attorney-in-Fact VS. ERNESTO G. GARCIA and EDILBERTO M. BRUA,
FACTS:
BRUA MORTGAGED THE LOT TO GARCIA AND THERE AFTER PILIPINAS BANK
OBTAIN THE LOT AFTER IT WAS MORTAGAGED AGAIN BY THE FORMER. FLOR
MARTINEZ OBTAINED A LOT FROM PILIPINAS BANK AFTER IT WAS SOLD IN AN
AUCTION FORBEING THE ONLY ONE TO BID IN THE AUCTION AND FAILURE OF
BRUA TO PAY .GARCIA FILED TO QUIET TITLE BUT THE RTC RULED INFAVOR OF
MARTINEZ.GARCIA THEN,FILED FOR ADVERSE CLAIM.THE COURT RULED
INFAVOR OF GARCIA WHICH SAYS THAT that while one who buys a property from the
registered owner need not have to look behind the title, he is nevertheless bound by the liens and
encumbrances annotated thereon; and, thus, one who buys without checking the vendor's title
takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure and it has remained uncanceled up to this
time; that such adverse claim was registered prior to the inscription of the Certificate of Sale in
favor of petitioner.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS DOUBLE SALE IN THE CASE AT BAR.

RULING:
YES, the sale of the subject property by respondent Brua to respondent Garcia was by reason of
respondent Brua's prior loan from respondent Garcia, which was secured by a mortgage on the
subject property; and this mortgage was registered and already existing on the title of the subject
property when the Notice of Levy on Execution and Certificate of Sale in favor of petitioner
were inscribed thereon. Thus, petitioner's claim over the subject property must yield to the earlier
encumbrance registered by respondent Garcia.
3.
Heirs of Spouses REMEDIOS R. SANDEJAS and ELIODORO P. SANDEJAS SR. --
ROBERTO R. SANDEJAS, ANTONIO R. SANDEJAS, CRISTINA SANDEJAS
MORELAND, BENJAMIN R. SANDEJAS, REMEDIOS R. SANDEJAS; and heirs of SIXTO
S. SANDEJAS II, RAMON R. SANDEJAS, TERESITA R. SANDEJAS, and ELIODORO R.
SANDEJAS JR., all represented by ROBERTO R. SANDEJAS, petitioners, vs. ALEX A. LINA
FACTS:
SPOUSES SANDEJAS PROMISED TO SELL PARCELS OF LAND TO ALEX LINA.WITH THIS,AN
EARNEST MONEY WAS GIVEN BY LINA WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY SANDEJAS AND UPON
FULL PAYMENT,THE DEED OF SALE SHALL BE EXECUTED AND FAILURE OF SUCH WITH
OUT THE PARTIES FAULT,THE SELLER WILL HAVE TO RETURN THE EARNEST MONEY
TOGETHER WITH THE INTEREST AS PART OF THE CONDITION.IN THE EVENT,THE
CONVEYANCE OF DEED OF SALE DID NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THE RECORD WAS
DESTROYED WHEN A FIRE OCCURRED AND THE SPOUSES DIED LEAVING THEIR
CHILDREN,HEREIN PETITIONER TO SUBSTITUTE IN BEHALF OF THEIR PARENTS.A
CASE WAS FILED BY LINA ASKING FOR THE COURT TO COMPEL THE HEIR OF
SANDEJAS TO MAKE THE DEED OF SALE IN FAVOR OF HER WHICH THE RTC
GRANTS.HOWEVER,THIS WAS REVERES BY THE CA,UPON APPEAL, RENDERING
THE DECISIONTHAT THE CONTRACT WAS MERELY A CONTRACT TO SELL AND
NOT A CONTRACT OF SALE.SANDEJAS SR. ACTED IN BAD FAITH AND THUS WAS
BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THCONTRACT.HENCE THIS PETITION.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO BY PARTIES IS A
CONTRACT OF SALE
RULING:
YES,THE CONTRACT WAS A CONDITIONAL SALE. When a contract is subject to a
suspensive condition, its birth or effectivity can take place only if and when the condition
happens or is fulfilled. [11] Thus, the intestate courts grant of the Motion for Approval of the
sale filed by respondent resulted in petitioners obligation to execute the Deed of Sale of the
disputed lots in his favor. The condition having been satisfied, the contract was perfected.
Henceforth, the parties were bound to fulfill what they had expressly agreed
upon.HOWEVER,THE SHARE OF SANDEJAS SR.IN THE ESTATE SHOULD BE
CONVEYED ONLY.
4.
VIRGILIO R. ROMERO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ENRIQUETA CHUA VDA. DE ONGSIONG,
respondents

FACTS:
A CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO BY PARTIES TO SELL A PARCEL OF LAND WITH
A CONDITION THAT THE SQUATERS OCCUPYING THE LOT SHOULD BE REMOVED
AND FAILURE OF SUCH,THE VENDOR SHOULD RETURN THE 50,000 PESOS
DOWNPAYMENT TO THE VENDEE.RESPONDENT FAILED TO REMOVED THE
SQUATERS ON THE STIPULATED 60 DAY PERIOD AND SEEK TO RETURN THE
MONEY.PETIONER REFUSED TO GET THE MONEY BUT THE RESPONDENT SEEK TO
RESCIND THE CONTRACT ON THE GROUND THAT SHE FAILED ON THE
CONDITION AND THAT SHE SEEK TO RETAIN THE PROPERTY.A CASE WAS FILED
BY RESPONDENT FOR REFUSAL OF PETITIONER TO ACCEPT THE MONEY BUT THE
COURT DISMISSED THE COMPLAIN AND ORDER THE RESPONDENT TO CAUSE THE
EJECTMENT OF THE SQUATERS.UPON APPEAL ON CA,IT RULED IN FAVOR OF HER
RENDERING THE CONTRACT TO BE A RESOLUTORY CONTRACT.HENCE THIS
PETITION.
ISSUE:WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT WAS A CONDITIONAL SALE
RULING:
YES, In contracts of sale particularly, Article 1545 of the Civil Code, aforementioned, allows the
obligee to choose between proceeding with the agreement or waiving the performance of the
condition. It is this provision which is the pertinent rule in the case at bench. Here, evidently,
petitioner has waived the performance of the condition imposed on private respondent to free the
property from squatters. The right of resolution of a party to an obligation under Article 1191 of
the Civil Code is predicated on a breach of faith by the other party that violates the reciprocity
between them.

It is private respondent who has failed in her obligation under the contract.

5.
THE HEIRS OF PEDRO ESCANLAR, FRANCISCO HOLGADO and the SPOUSES DR.
EDWIN A. JAYME and ELISA TAN-JAYME, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, GENEROSA MARTINEZ, CARMEN CARI-AN, RODOLFO CARI-AN, NELLY
CHUA CARI-AN, for herself and as guardian ad litem of her minor son, LEONELL C. CARI-
AN, FREDISMINDA CARI-AN, the SPOUSES PAQUITO CHUA and NEY SARROSA-
CHUA and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, respondents.
FACTS:
PRIVATE RESPONDENT EXECUTED A DEED OF SALE TO VENDEES .VENDEES FAIL
TO PAY FULLY BUT THE HEIRS RECEIVE 12 INSTALLMENTS FROM
PETIONERS.PETIONERS WAS LIKEWISE LESSEES AND CONTINUED TO POSSESS
THE DISPUTED LOTS.RESPONDENTS DECIDED TO SELL THE LOT TO CHUAS AND
INSTITUTED FOR CANCELLATION OF SALE AGAINTS PETITIONERS FOR FAILURE
TO PAY THE PURCHASED BALANCE.PETIONER ARGUED THAT THEY havE been paid,
AND RESPONDENTS had no right to resell the subject lots.PETIONERS,THEN SOLD THE
LOTS TO EDWIN JAIME.A CIVIL CASE WAS FILED CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF THE
LAND, THE RTC RENDERED THE DECISION DECLARING THE CONTRACTS
ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT TO BE NULL AND VOID
AND LATER AFFIRMED BY CA. HENCE,THIS PETITION.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT WAS A VALID CONTRACT OF SALE
RULING:
YES, under Article 1592. Consequently, the buyers could lawfully make payments even after
the deadline, as in fact they paid several installments to the sellers which the latter accepted.
Thus, upon the expiration of the period to pay, the sellers made no move to rescind but continued
accepting late payments, an act which cannot but be construed as a waiver of the right to rescind.
When the sellers, instead of availing of their right to rescind, accepted and received delayed
payments of installments beyond the period stipulated, and the buyers were in arrears, the sellers
in effect waived and are now estopped from exercising said right to rescind.,THERE IS NO
GROUND TO RESCIND THE CONTRACT OF SALE BECAUSE OF NON-PAYMENT.
Having been paid, RESPONDENTS had no right to resell the subject lots.

6.
LEODEGARIO AZARRAGA, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIA GAY, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
PLAINTIFF SOLD A PARCEL OF LAND TO DEFENDANT IN INSTALLMENT
BASIS.DEFENDANT FAILED TO PAY THE REMAINING AGREED AMOUNT WHICH
PROMPTED THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE A CIVIL CASE.THE LOWER COURT RENDER
THE DECISION ORDERING THE DEFENDANT TO PAY THE REMAINING SUM WITH
8% INTEREST.HENCE THIS PETITION.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT FRAUD WAS EMPLOYED IN THE CONTRACT OF SALE

RULING:
UNDER ARTICLE 1471, Whether or not the object of the sale be one realty for a lump sum, or two
or more for a single price also a lump sum, and, consequently not at the rate of a specified price for each
unit of measuring or number, the vendor shall be bound to deliver everything that is included within the
boundaries stated, although it may exceed the area or number expressed in the contract; in case he
cannot deliver it, the purchaser shall have the right either to reduce the price proportionately to what is
lacking of the area or number, or to rescind the contract at his option. One who contracts for the
purchase of real estate in reliance on the representations and statements of the vendor as to its
character and value, but after he has visited and examined it for himself, and has had the means and
opportunity of verifying such statements, cannot avoid the contract on the ground that they were false
or exaggerated.

7.
SCHMID & OBERLY, INC., petitioner,
vs.
RJL MARTINEZ FISHING CORPORATION, respondent

FACTS:
PETITIONER BOUGHT 12 GENERATORS AND PAID THE PURCHASED PRICE,TO
NAGATO CORP. THROUGH SCHMID HEREIN,RESPONDENT.HOWEVER,THE
GENERATORS WERE DEFECTIVE.PETITONER FILED A CASE SEEKING FOR THE
RESCISSION OF THE CONTRACT AND ASKING TO REFUND THE PURCHASED PRICE
AND DAMAGES.RESPONDENT ARGUED THAT THEY WERE ONLY AND INDENTOR AND
SHOULD NOPT BE HELD LIABLE.THE LOWER COURT RENDERED THE DECISION IN
FAVOR OF PETITIONER WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY CA.HENCE THIS PETTION.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT OF SALE WAS THROUGH AN AGENT
RULING:
YES, indentor is to some extent an agent of both the vendor and the vendee. As such
agent, therefore, he may expressly obligate himself to undertake the obligations of his
principal. REPRESENTATIVES OF RESPONDENT reveals that they merely constituted
an expression of opinion which cannot by any means be construed as a warranty
WHICH PROVIDES UNDER Art. 1546, Civil Code.

8.
JAIME D. ANG, Petitioner, versus - COURT OF APPEALS AND BRUNO SOLEDAD,
Respondents
FACTS:
PETITIONER WAS INTO A BUSINESS OF SELLING USED CAR.RESPONDENT SOLD
HIS CAR TO PETITIONER WHICH WAS LATER BOUGHT BY BUGASH AND A DEED
OF SALE WAS MADE.HOWEVER,THE CAR CANT BE REGISTERED IN BUGASH
NAME BECAUSE THE VEHICLE WAS SEIZED BY VIRTUE OF REPLEVIN BY THE
COURT OF CEBU.SO PETITONER HAD TO PAY THE MORTGAGED
PRICE.RESPONDENT REFUSE TO REIMBURSE PETIIONER DESPITE REPEATED
DEMANDS.PETITIONER THEN,FILED A ESTAFA CASE AGAINTS RESPONDENT.THE
COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.PETITIONER THEN
FILED A CIVIL CASE IT WAS LIKEWISE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF
PRESCRIPTION BUT RENDERED THE DECISION INFAVOR OF PETITONER BASED
ON JUSTICE AND EQUITY.RESPONDENT FILE A MOTION BUT WAQS DENIED,ON
APPEAL,IT RULED IN FAVOR OF HIM REVERSING THE DECISION OF RTC
RENDERING THE DECISION THAT PETITIONERS CAUSE HAD PRESCRIBED AND
THAT PETITIONER HAD NO CAUSE.HENCE,THIS PETITION.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THERES an express warranty IN THE CONTRACT

RULING:
NO, following Art. 1571,the action just the same had prescribed.PETITIONER SETTLED IT
ON HIS OWN ACCORD AND RESPONDENT DID NOT BENEFIT FROM PETITIONER
PAYING THE MORTGAGED PRICE , he not being the one who mortgaged the vehicle, hence,
did not benefit from the proceeds thereof.

9.
LEOPOLDO CAIZAREZ TIANA, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
JOSE M. S. TORREJON, defendant-appellant.

FACT: