A+ A A-

CONTRACT TO SELL

CONTRACT TO SELL

In Sps. Torrecampo v. Alindogan, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 156405, February 28, 2007, the parties entered into a “Contract to Buy and Sell” and that the balance shall be paid upon the issuance of the title. The question is whether, the contract is a contract of sale of contract to sell.

Held: It is a contract to sell.

             The SC had one again had the occasion to distinguish the two contracts and said that, in a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. Otherwise stated, in a contract of sale, the vendor loses ownership over the property and cannot recover it until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded; whereas, in a contract to sell, title is retained by the vendor until full payment of the price. In the latter contract, payment of the price is a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not a breach but an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming effective. (Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 118203, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 317).

             Indeed, the true agreement between the parties is a contract to sell. Not only did the parties denominate their contract as “Contract to Buy and Sell”, but also specified therein that the balance of the purchase price is to be paid upon the issuance of a certificate of title indicates that ownership of the subject property did not pass to the buyers.

             In Ursal v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 142411, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 52; Chua v. CA, 401 SCRA 54 (2003), it was held, thus:

             “Indeed, in contracts to sell the obligation of the seller to sell becomes demandable only upon the happening of the suspensive condition, that is, the full payment of the purchase price by the buyer. It is only upon the existence of the contract of sale that the seller becomes obligated to transfer the ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. Prior to the existence of the contract of sale, the seller is not obligated to transfer the ownership to the buyer, even if there is a contract to sell between them.”


CONTRACT TO SELL

CONTRACT TO SELL

In Sps. Torrecampo v. Alindogan, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 156405, February 28, 2007, the parties entered into a “Contract to Buy and Sell” and that the balance shall be paid upon the issuance of the title. The question is whether, the contract is a contract of sale of contract to sell.

Held: It is a contract to sell.

             The SC had one again had the occasion to distinguish the two contracts and said that, in a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon the delivery of the thing sold; in a contract to sell, ownership is, by agreement, reserved in the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. Otherwise stated, in a contract of sale, the vendor loses ownership over the property and cannot recover it until and unless the contract is resolved or rescinded; whereas, in a contract to sell, title is retained by the vendor until full payment of the price. In the latter contract, payment of the price is a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not a breach but an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from becoming effective. (Salazar v. CA, G.R. No. 118203, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 317).

             Indeed, the true agreement between the parties is a contract to sell. Not only did the parties denominate their contract as “Contract to Buy and Sell”, but also specified therein that the balance of the purchase price is to be paid upon the issuance of a certificate of title indicates that ownership of the subject property did not pass to the buyers.

             In Ursal v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 142411, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 52; Chua v. CA, 401 SCRA 54 (2003), it was held, thus:

             “Indeed, in contracts to sell the obligation of the seller to sell becomes demandable only upon the happening of the suspensive condition, that is, the full payment of the purchase price by the buyer. It is only upon the existence of the contract of sale that the seller becomes obligated to transfer the ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. Prior to the existence of the contract of sale, the seller is not obligated to transfer the ownership to the buyer, even if there is a contract to sell between them.”


BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

SUGGESTED ANSWERS …

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...

Read more

Oral Defamation l S…

Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation   Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood   Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander   A. Factor...

Read more

Article I – THE NAT…

Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...

Read more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Republic Act 3591- …

Download full text here:

Read more

DIFFERENT MODES OF …

DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIPPRELIMINARY PROVISIONArt. 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by estate and intest...

Read more

LOPEZ V. OROSA AND …

LOPEZ V. OROSA AND PLAZA THEATRE103 SCRA 98FACTS:1. Lopez was engaged in business under the name Lopez-Castelo Sawmill.2. Orosa, who lived in the same province as Lopez, one dayapproached Lopez and invited the latter to make an investment inthe theat...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

Right to Strike

SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...

Read more

People vs. Tolentin…

G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...

Read more

Perfection Of A Con…

In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...

Read more


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook