SALES

Online Exercises
1. No, the law says; that the husband and wife cannot sell property
during their marriage except when a separation of property was agreed
upon in the marriage settlements; or when there has been a judicial
separation of property. The sale of house and lot by H to C is void
since there was no separation of property nor judicial separation made
by the husband and wife. The law also prohibits donations made
between the husband and wife except moderate gifts and also applies
to common-law-wife. In the case at bar, H could not validly transfer to
C through the sale they made because it is void under the law.
2. No. The sale to Atty X is covered under the prohibitions enumerated
under Art 1491 of the Civil Code even at a public of judicial auction,
either in person or through the mediation of another. Atty Xs
purchased of the property under litigation from his client, Y, was void
and could produce no legal effect, by virtue of Article 1409 of the Civil
Code which provides that contracts expressly prohibited or declared
void by law are inexistent and void from the beginning and that these
contracts cannot be ratified. Neither can the right to set up the defense
of illegality be waived. In the case at bar, Ys sale to Atty X was void
and therefore could not validly transfer the land over the latter.
3. No. The sale to C is not valid because it was as if B herself purchased
the properties of his ward. He indirectly sold the properties to himself.
The same applies even though there was no actual malice or collusion
proven. Since the sale to B was null and void. One cannot sale what is
not his property. B tried to correct the problem by allowing ABC Co. to
re-purchased the properties for 15,000. However, the child would still
be at a losing end because it would not entitle him to the fruits of the
property during the time when he was not in possession thereof.
4. Yes. Mr C may still exercise the option to purchase the property. His
request for the extension allows him to generate funds to exercise the
option to buy the subject property. An option is a preparatory contract
in which one party grants to the other, for a fixed period and under
specified conditions, the power to decide, whether or not to enter into
a principal contract. It binds the party who has given the option, not to
enter into the principal contract with any other person during the
period designated, and, within that period, to enter into such contract
with the one to whom the option was granted, if latter should decide to
use the option. It is a separate agreement distinct from the contract
which the parties may enter into upon the consummation of the option.
Therefore, Mr C may still exercise the option to purchase the property.
5. No. The general rule is that, an option without consideration is void and
effect is the same as if there was no option. However, even though the
option was not supported by a consideration, the moment it was
accepted, a perfected contract of sale resulted, applying Art 1324 of
the New Civil Code which provides: 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. In this case, Amor has already agreed to confer Buenavista
the exclusive right to purchase the other half of the land which resulted
to acceptance on his part. Therefore, Buenavista may still exercise the
option granting that there was no consideration given.

6. Yes. The Contract to Sell was valid and binding. Owners of their
respective undivided shares in the subject properties, can dispose of
their shares even without the consent of all the co-owners. Art 493 of
the Civil Code provides that, Each co-owner shall have the full
ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto,
and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal
rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage,
with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which
may be allotted to him in the division upon termination of the coownership. Consequently, even without the consent of the two coowners, the Contract to Sell was valid and binding with respect to the
6/8 proportionate shares of the signatories.
Submitted by:
Leonard M Mamerga
Submitted to:
Atty Christine Parubrub-Yere