8/13/2019 d-Sales3

1/40

Silliman notes (2002)

SALES

Tips

If you can use legal terms, use them, law has its own set of language;

Dont debate on the facts

Present your answer in chronological manner

Every fact has its purpose, use them in your answers.

Before you answer !"#E " $E%&"' ()&'I%E***

+ead the uestion very carefully

Practice your penmanship -i.e., rephrasing )P "nswers to the Bar

Pray for final denouement

Preliminaries(EQ: - Estolloso Question SU Civil Law Professor)

(AQ: - Albano Question Reviewer and Authorit in Civil Law)

(JQ: -!urado Question Author and Authorit in Civil Law)

"hat is a #ontra#t of sale$ %ive its essential re&uisites$ "hat are its #hara#teristi#s$

"/ By the contract of sale, one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer theownership of and to deliver a determine thing and the other to pay therefor a price certain in

money or its euivalent -"rticle 0123 &he essential reuisites are 0 consent, 4 ob5ect and 6

cause.

&he characteristics of a contract of sale are/ 0 consensual 4 bilateral and reciprocal 6

principal 1 onerous 2 commutative and 7 nominate.

Per "lbano, the contract of sales is an interplay of "rticle 0603 and "rticle 0123. &o bind is to giveconsent; the delivery of determinate thing is the ob5ect of the contract and the consideration is the cause.

EQ: 's deliver ne#essar to erfe#t sales #ontra#t$ Paent of ri#e ne#essar of

transferrin* ownershi$

"/ "rticle 0123 for reuisites of sales contract. Delivery %(. Price 8es.Per "lbano, payment does not ma9e the contract of sale perfected. &ransfer of ownership is by delivery.

AQ: "hat is the effe#t if there is a *ross inade&ua# of the ri#e$

"/ It does not necessary mean that the contract is void, but the parties may have intended adifferent contract i.e., mere euitable mortgage. But note that the gross inadeuacy of price may

indicate that there is a vitiation of consent hence annulment of contract may be availed of.

But note in case ofP+, vs Aa#ol where it was ruled that :it is better for the propertyto be sold at a lesser price so that the redemptioner will have an easy time redeeming it.

!Q: Serra is the owner of ar#el of land .e entered into a /Contra#t of Lease with otion

to bu0 with RC,C for 12 ears Under the #ontra#t RC,C is *iven the otion to bu the land

at P134 er s& within 34 ears fro e5e#ution of the #ontra#t ,U6 with the #ondition that

0

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

2/40

if it fails to e5er#ise the otion7 the buildin* and iroveents that RC,C ere#ted on the land

shall *o the Serra without ri*ht of reiburseent

RC,C e5er#ised its otion under the #ontra#t ,ut Serra refused and #ontended that

he is not bound b the #ontra#t be#ause of *ross inade&ua# of ri#e and that the otion to

bu was not suorted with an #onsideration

"as the otion to bu suorted b a #onsideration distin#t fro the ri#e$"/ 8es* B> since it entails transferring the improvements on the property to?erra, should +>B> fail to e=ercise its option within the period stipulated.

&he two cases ofSerra and 8da 9e Quirino is confirmed in the re#ent #ase of San

" that there was a perfected contract of sale because of the alleged givingof an earnest money. &he said amount, however was not given as an earnest money under "rticle 0134 but

presented merely as a deposit of what would eventually become an earnest money if a contract of sale be made by

them. It was used merely as a guarantee that the seller would not bac9 out. In fact, it was described as an earnest

deposit.

&he non@perfection of a contract of sale is bolstered by the fact that the petitioner merely given an option topurchase within 6A days. ?uch contract is separate and distinct from the contract of sale which the parties may enter

into. ?ince the parties failed to agree on the terms of payment, there is no contract of sale that may be enforced.

AQ: 's failure to a*ree on the ters of the aent a bar to the erfe#tion of the sale$

"/ 8es, inSan

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

3/40

AQ: 's a suit available to #oel another art for se#ifi# erforan#e without #olin*

with the Statute of @rauds$

"/ %o. ?uch a suit can be a sub5ect to a motion to dismiss on the ground of unenforceability

of contract.

EQ: 's the ri*ht of first refusal7 a #ontra#t of sale or erel an otion to bu$

"/ In Litonua vs L B R Cor ( said that it is rescissible, reiterating %u?an7 ,o#alin* and Co vs ,onnevie7

14F SCRAwhere it emphasied therein that it was not voidable. It said/:)nder "rticle 063A to 0634-6, a contract otherwise valid may nonetheless be subseuently rescinded by reason of

in5ury to third persons, li9e creditors. &he status of creditors could be validly accorded the Bonnevies for they had substantial

interests that were pre5udiced by the sale of the sub5ect property to the petitioner without recogniing their right of first priorityunder the >ontract of 'ease.

+escission is a remedy granted by law to the contracting parties and even third persons, to secure reparation for

damages caused to them by a contract, even if this could be valid, by the celebration of said contract. It is a relief allowed for oneof the contracting parties and even third persons from all in5ury and damage the contract may cause, or to protect some

incompatible and preferential right created by the contract. +escission implies a contract which, even if initially valid, produces alesion or pecuniary damage to someone that 5ustifies its validation for reasons of euity.

In rescinding the contract, the purpose is to uphold and enforce the right of first refusal of

the other party. It cannot be sold then at the current price. It should be sold a price similar to

that price at the time it was sold in violation of the right of first refusal, for to do otherwise

would afford the other party undue advantage in the intervening years when it precisely violatedand ignored the right of first refusal of the other party.

+ote: )nder "rticle 06F if you were not a party to a contract, you cannot annul it.

&he action by the lessee is to +E?>I%D because when the lessor offered the property to a thirdparty at an E"?IE+ term, there is violation of the right of first refusal clause and thereby

elevating the lessee to a level of a creditor.

In the case ofE&uitorial Realt, ?> ruled that, we have to elevate the lessee to a creditorstatus because of the substantial violation of this right. In rescissible contracts, when there is

fraud to creditors, the creditor is entitled to rescind.

AQ: Should the ri#e be ne#essaril indi#ated in the do#uent$

"/

%ote/ &hat under "rticle 0621 there is a presumption of consideration in the delivery of

a valuable thingGIn the case of =n* vs =n* the sale of the property for P0.AA and :other

consideration is a valid sale. &he other consideration is a matter of evidence. But inA*uinaldovs A#alarthe payment of P.2A every day was nullified because it involved a lawyer who too9

advantage of his s9ills as against an illiterate.

AQ: "hen is there erfe#tion of #ontra#t$

"/

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

4/40

AQ: Can erfe#tion of #ontra#t be roven b other eans$

"/ 8es, by evidence aliunde. In the case of @irst Phil 'ntHl ,anI (forerl Produ#ers

,anI)the series of communications over the phone by the parties are evidence of the perfectedcontract.

>ase of condition for validity vs. condition for performance

AQ: Suose the vendee iosed in the a*reeent /to ee#t the tenant first before full

aent will be ade on the balan#e0 'f the vendor #annot ee#t the tenant7 #an the vendor

#oel the vendee to a for the balan#e$ Can the vendor render the #ontra#t as void be#ause

he was not able to ee#t the tenant$

"/ &his is only a condition for performance and not a condition for the validity of the

contract. &he vendor cannot render the contract void because he was not able to e5ect the tenant,neither can he compel the vendee to pay the balance. -Li vs Court of Aeals)

AQ: 's the aroval of the robate #ourt a #ondition for validit or a #ondition for

erforan#e in the #ontra#t of sale 'n other words7 is the aroval of the #ourt ne#essar inorder for the sale to be valid$

"/ It is only a condition for performance. It is only upon the delivery of the share to thebuyer that the courts approval is reuired it having complete control over the distribution of said

estate. -San#he? vs Court of Aeals)

EQ: Can there be sale of *eneri# thin*s$

"/ &here can be, per de 'eon, but it is not a contract of sale, before delivery, but a contract

to sell, it becomes, after delivery, a contract of sale.

EQ: .ow about the for7 is the written do#uent an essential re&uisite needed for

erfe#tion$

"/ %o, but for enforceability, yes.&ransfer of ownership is not a necessary factor or hindrance to the perfection of the

contract of sale. or failure to transfer by one party, it is a reciprocal contract %(& sale under

"rticle 0161.&he remedy as to non@performance of the sales contract is breach of warranties i.e., of

hidden defects, evictionG

EQ: 9ifferentiate sale fro lease of servi#es

"/ Illustration/ Emery wanting to build a hotel, contracted Engineering Euipment Inc.

&he contract contained the installation of a centralied airconditioning system from >ondura as

well as its installation in the hotel building. &he test of whether it is a sale or lease of services iswhether it has been specially ordered by the customer and whether the parts needed to install or

ma9e it are ordinarily within the inventory of Engineering Euipment, Inc. -p. 123 of "lbano

(see Constantino vs Colle#tor of ,'R)

EQ: 9ifferentiate #ontra#t of sale fro a*en# to sell

"/ Per "lbano, in a contract of sale, there is transfer of ownership thru delivery, the buyer is

obligated to pay and that the seller warrants the sale.

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

5/40

the ob5ect sub5ect to agency, there is no transfer of ownership. &he agent is not bound to pay but

to remit whatever he collects out of the sale and finally, it is not the agent that warrants but the

principal.

EQ: ,edroo store #ontra#ted with Sheraton ,ed and a*reed to the #ondition that onl

Sheraton ,ed #an be sold F4 das after deliver ,edroo Store should a Sheraton ine5#han*e for 14J dis#ount 's the #ontra#t one of sale or a*en#$ 's the 14J dis#ount a

#oission$

"/ &his is one of sale. %ormally, the agent will only remit what he has sold, here there is noualification. -see Puyat case where the commission was not really one, but was an additional

incentive.

EQ: 9istin*uish #ontra#t of sale fro barter

"/ Gthe law says that in barter, the law on sales will apply. or instance, $ichael decided

to sell the car to 'ily.

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

6/40

sale. If the article is to be manufactured especially for the customer and upon his special order,

and not for the general mar9et, contract is for a piece of wor9.

EQ: 9istin*uish udi#ial sale fro voluntar sale

"/ In 5udicial sale, inadeuacy of price is not material because it will be easier to redeem. In

voluntary sale, inadeuacy is a badge of fraud. ?ee "rticle 01F0 on simulated contract.

EQ: 9istin*uish erforan#e in sales #ontra#t fro erfe#tion of sales #ontra#t

"/ In sales, distinction must be made between performance and perfection. &he payment ofthe price and delivery of the thing is only performance not perfection.-in absolute sale unless

provided otherwise.

EQ: Saa*uita Pi#tures owned an unfinished buildin* 't leased said buildin* 6he

lease #ontra#t rovides that uon terination of the lease7 all iroveents ertain to lessor

Lessee ur#hased for iroveents on #redit Lessee subse&uentl failed to a K of the

delivered iroveents 6hereafter7 lessee also failed to a rents7 leadin* to the

e5tin*uishentsterination of the lease "ho owns the iroveent$ "ho would have abetter ri*ht$

"/ &he delivery of the improvements perfected the contract and nonpayment of the lessee ofthe price did not affect the ownership of the lessee to the improvements, thus, by virtue of the

agreement, lessor ?ampaguita Pictures shall become the owner of the improvements. ?ince no

stipulation as to the transfer of the ownership, the delivery thereof concludes the saleGthetransfer of ownership is perfected. -*A+ p 200)

,otes: >ompare "rticle 22 with "rticle 02A2 on buying of stolen things.

?ee the case of!ardine 9avies vs CA

EQ: Coare reservation as to the ri#e fro reservation as to ownershi to se#ure

aent (see Arti#le 3;)

"/

%ote. :merely to secure performance the ownership is transferredG this phrase

usually connotes the ownership is retained only for purposes of security.

EQ: 9istin*uish #ontra#t to sell fro #ontra#t of sale

"/ &he contract to sell is preparatoryGafter the fulfillment, the parties will still have to enter

into a contract of sale. &here is no double sale in contract to sell. %ote that the distinction isvery crucial in "rticle 024.

Per Hurado in contract of sale title passes to the vendee upon delivery of thing sold whereas in contract

to sell, by agreement ownership is reserved in the vendor and is not to pass until full payment of the price. In the

first, nonpayment is a negative resolutory condition, in the second, full payment is a positive suspensive condition.In the first, vendor has lost and cannot recover ownership until contract is rescinded, in the second the vendor can

e5ect the vendee for failure to comply with the suspensive condition, vendor here is enforcing not rescinding the

contract.

Per "lbano, a contract to sell is not even a conditional sale, nor is it an installment sale, it is a mere promiseto sell such that upon payment of last installment, the owner shall deliver and e=ecute the deed of sale. If there is a

breach of contract to sell, it cannot give rise to rescission, because you cannot rescind what does not e=ist. Its effect

is to prevent the e=ecution of the deed of absolute sale. &here is no rescission in a contract to sell because the

vendee is only a prospective vendeeCbuyer.

7

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

7/40

AQ: 's there transfer of ownershi desite deliver in a #ontra#t to sell$

"/ %o, because of the condition imposed that ownership shall not transfer despite delivery.

AQ: A and , entered into a #ontra#t of sale of real roert7 24J down and 24J thereafter

'f , #annot a A the 24J balan#e is res#ission available$ "ho #an avail of su#h reed$"/ Case of Souses Co vs CA boththe vendor and the vendee can e=ercise the power of

rescission. In this case, the lawyer of the vendor repeatedly sent letter of demand for the 2A.

ruled that the

mere sending of the letter demanding the 2A balance is not rescission. +escission may be

made by 3) e5ress reservation in the #ontra#t itself or 1) b suin* in #ourt for res#ission &he

refusal of " to accept Bs payment is also material breach of the contract since, " did not sue incourt to rescind the contract. &hus, if there is rescission, there is restitution under "rticle 0632.

AQ: 'f ou have aid the last installent toda7 does the vendee be#oe the owner toda$

"/ %o. It only obligates vendor to e=ecute the document of sale. %ot payment but delivery,is the rule.

AQ: "hat if the vendor issued the do#uent of sale to another (sold to another) who

bou*ht the roert in *ood faith and for value desite the #ontra#t to sell7 what a#tion7 if an

#an be filed a*ainst the vendor7 the third art$

"/ "s against the third party, none. "s against the vendor, he can be sued for damages

under "rticle 0.

AQ: A oun* lawer bou*ht set of booIs fro Re5 ,ooIstore7 24J down Re5 ,ooIstore7

however7 reserved title until full aent 6wo das after7 the booIs were burned when the

house of the lawer was *utted b fire 's Re5 ,ooIstore still the owner be#ause it reserved

the title$

"/ ?> ruled inLawers Publishin* Co vs 6aborathat :if there is delivery there is transfer

of ownership. &he reservation as to the ownership of the boo9s is merely for security of the

payment. Per "rticle 02A1 on res perit domino, the lawyer shall bear the loss.

EQ: 9istin*uish #onditional sale and #ontra#t to sell in relation to Arti#le 32;; on double

sale

"/

AQ: 's it ne#essar that the seller be the owner of the thin* sold at the erfe#tion of the

#ontra#t$

"/ It is not necessary that the seller be the owner of the property sold at the time of

perfection provided that upon delivery the seller has become the owner thereof. +emember the

rule is that not payment but delivery.

AQ: Can ou sell a thin* sube#t to a resolutor #ondition$

"/ 8es, it is similar to a case contemplated in reserva troncal. &he reservista who are sub5ect

to the resolutory condition that the reservatarios surviving herChim will inherit the property can

F

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

8/40

sell the property. ?ub5ect of course to the condition in the reserva. &he reservatarios can rescind

the sale thereafter.

AQ: !oseh and ,enedi#t are two sons of 9a57 a wealth and handsoe but dirt old an

!oseh without the #onsent of his father7 sold one of townhouses "hen 9a5 died7 !oseh

inherited the townhouse he sold 's the sale valid$"/ 8es. &he property did not pass anymore to Hoseph but by operation of law shall accrue to

the buyer. -modification of the ver iortant #ase of Claudio delos Reos vs -----) "rticle

0161 and "rticle 012.

AQ: !oseh and ,enedi#t are two sons of 9a5 !oseh sold the house of his father 9a5

without the #onsent of the latter "hen 9a5 died7 he donated the roert to ,enedi#t ortis

#ausa "hat is the effe#t$ 's the sale valid$

"/ ?ee case of Claudio delos Rees

!Q: "hat is the effe#t of an otion to bu without #onsideration$ 's the absen#e of

#onsideration for the otion (in a lease #ontra#t with otion to bu with #ondition that failin*on the otion7 the iroveents will ertain to the lessor) aIes the otion ineffe#tual$

"/ Jenerally an option to buy without consideration is without effect. Per "rticle 01F, anaccepted unilateral promise to buy and sell a determinate thing for a price certain is binding upon

the promissor if the promise is supported by a consideration distinct from the price. But the

option to buy in a lease with option to buy, the consideration is even more onerous as the failureto e=ercise the option will mean the transfer of improvements introduced by the lessee to the

lessor.

EQ: Consider the re&uireent of /notarial and udi#ial deand0 in RA F221 (Subdivision

A#t) and Arti#le 321

"/ In +" 7224, sale of real estate by installment, there is a need for a notarial notice only.

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

9/40

EQ: 6ata and Adrian entered into a rivate do#uent7 and delivered a do#uent of title7 is

it a sboli#al deliver$

"/ It is said that it is uasi@traditio because it involves incorporeal rightsGso again intention

should be thereGthe delivery of title is uasi traditio. -"rticle 02A0 on incorporeal rights. %ote

that intent is necessary in delivery.

EQ: Under the Re#to Law7 Arti#le 3;;7 what are to be reebered$

"/ 0. It pertains to personal property i.e., lease of personal property with option tobuy, is merely a subterfuge of sale, the rentals as the installments of the price, but the facts of the

case must be loo9ed into. or instance, 2A downpayment, and 2A thereafter, this is not

covered by the +ecto 'aw. &he +ecto 'aw involves more than two installments including the

downpayment.

AQ: "hat are the ri*hts of an unaid seller$

"/ 0. 'ien4. ?toppage in transitu

6. +escission1. +esale

!Q: "hat are the reedies of an unaid seller$

"/ 0 a lien on the goods or right to retain them for the price while he is in possession of

them;

4 stoppage in transitu

0 a right of resale4 a right to rescind the sale.

AQ: .ow a the ri*ht of res#ission e5er#ised$

"/ Hudicially or e=tra5udicially

%ote in the case of Le*arda .eranos vs Court of Aeals it was ruled that if

rescission will result in unfairness then it cannot be enforced either 5udicially or e=tra5udicially,the remedy is for specific performance and damages. $oreover, failure to pay the last

installment is %(& anymore a $"&E+I"' breach.

If both committed breach of the contract, upon rescission, the court will temper the award

of damages pursuant to "rticle 004.

EQ: "hat three reedies that an unaid seller a #hoose in a #ontra#t of sale of ersonal

roert the ri#e is aable in installents$

"/ &here are alternatives as a general rule, only one remedy chosen can be availed of, but

ta9e note of the e=ception. &he alternative remedies are/

0. >ollect the debt4. oreclosure

6. >ancellation of sale

AQ: "hat is the reason wh the reedies are alternative$

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

10/40

"/ &he reason why the remedies are alternative is to prevent solutio indebiti.

%ote/ &he rule on alternative remedies depends on what stage the e=ercise thereof was

reached. If one remedy is %(& e=ercised in full because it was dismissed -e.g., the foreclosurecannot be made because the mortgagor hid the car then another alternative remedy can be

availed of.

%(&E also the three phases of "rticle 0131, per "lbano there is this >ivil 'aw phase,+emedial 'aw phase and >ommercial 'aw phase the effects on deficiency. )nder the

remedial law phase, instead of foreclosure, an action for replevin was instituted, thus the balance

can still be as9ed for. )nder the commercial law phase, under a contract of loanCmortgage, thereis no prohibition as to collection of deficiency.

EQ: =n se#ifi# #olle#tion7 #an the vendor *o after sa 68$ ($)

"/ 8es, because specific performance is chosenK

EQ: =n #an#ellation of sale7 #an the vendee re#over the downaent$

"/ 8es, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.

EQ: =n fore#losure7 does the vendor have to *o throu*h the ro#ess of fore#losure$

"/ &he vendor has to go thru foreclosure otherwise it becomes a pactum commissorium.

EQ: .ow about the #ost7 au#tion fees7 attornes fees and sheriff fees$

"/ &he ordinary e=penses are deducted from the price of the bidder, simply put, the vendorcannot recover. -see p. 1F7 of "lbano

(rdinarily in e=tra5udicial foreclosure, replevin is not available because, normally the

vendee returns the property. !ence, if the vendee caused the hiring of a lawyer to institute

replevin, damages should be awarded.

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

11/40

"rticle 010 par. 0@6 void but can be ratified

"rticle 010 par. 1@7 void absolutely

Case of ash on Delivery there is already a transfer of ownershipupon delivery and receipt of payment.

)nder "rticle 0211 it is the registration and not the transfer of public instrument thatmatters.

AQ: +orIis sold to Alberto +aales a Gaaha "onderbiIe otor##le aable b a letter

of *uarant fro 9,P Credit was e5tended to +aales and as se#urit for the aent of the

loan7 he shall e5e#ute a #hattel ort*a*e ,efore the deliver7 +orIis issued +aales sales

invoi#e and re*istered the biIe in +aalesH nae +orIis delivered to a #ertain !ulian

+aales7 an alle*ed a*ent of Alberto7 who the latter denied 6he otorbiIe et an a##ident

As +orIis #ould not deliver the unit7 +aales sued +orIis who interosed the defense that it

has alread delivered the biIe

"/ %or9is shall be liable. &he issuance of invoice is not euivalent to delivery. %or isregistration tantamount to delivery. %or is registration tantamount to delivery vesting ownership.

&he documents mentioned are 5ust preparatory in character in order that credit investigation by

DBP could start on the loan by "lberto %apales.

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

12/40

0.

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

13/40

!Q: "hat is eant b the ri*ht of stoa*e in transitu$ "hen is this ri*ht available and

how is the ri*ht e5er#ised$

"/ see. 3F6 Hurado

!Q: "hen is the ri*ht of resale available$ "hen is the ri*ht of res#ission available$

"/ pp. 3F1@3F2 Hurado%ote/ &he essential reuisites before resaleCrescission can be made, the unpaid seller

should have a right of lien or should have stopped the goods in transitu. -"rticle 0261

%ote/

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

14/40

"rticle 0261 is remedy of rescission while the goods are still in buyers hands.

EQ: 's la#I of aent a bar to the erfe#tion of the #ontra#t$

"/ %o. &he lac9 of payment is not a bar to the perfection of the contract EM>EP& when the

condition EMP+E??'8 reserving that ownership is reserved until full payment.

*A+ p 3Delivery to the carrier is presumed delivery to the buyer.

*A+ p 603

Favorite BAR question daw Article !"#$ on loss o% movable propert& in relation to Article ""'.

EQ: Can ou taIe ba#I what was unlawfull taIen fro ou$

"/ 8es, when what you lost was ta9en unlawfully from youGit can be ta9en bac9. But ta9enote that there are e=ceptions. ?ee E9CA Publishin* Co vs Santos (34) illustrating the

difficult uestion of :unlaw%ull& deprived.(

*A+ p 200

%ote that there is a fine line between estafa and perfected sale.$otor vehicle registration is %(& euivalent to 'and +egistration for purposes of

effecting ownership. or instance, +e= Boo9store which sold the boo9s but the vendees chec9bounced, there is no unlawful deprivation of the thing, 5ust the payment.

EQ: Sherr entrusted to 9ile a ewelr for sale7 but 9ile awned it to awnsho 's

Sherr derived of the thin*$

"/ 8es, ?herry is deprived of possession of the 5ewelry. "rticle 02A2 applies. &he

pawnshop cannot claim reimbursement.

EQ: "hat is a ubli# sale$

"/ It means there is publicationCnotice of sale under "rticle 22. If bought in a department

store, "rticle 22 will %(& apply, but "rticle 02A2 will apply. But note that %( reimbursementin "rticle 02A2. 6he #ase of Sun ,ros

EQ: "hat if bou*ht in a er#hant store7 is there reiburseent$

"/ 8es. -K

EQ: Renee was held-u b 9oin* taIin* fro her a silver ne#Ila#e 9oin* sold it to

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

15/40

*A+ p 601

EQ: 9oes Arti#le 32;; on double sale al to unre*istered land$

"/ %o. &his "rticle 0211 does not apply to unregistered land, the rule on unregistered land

is >"#E"& E$P&(+. In land titles, the rule is you can rely on the document. But the rule in

civil law is %(& the same, one is not protected by the mere title alone, if other facts that willincite suspicion i.e., a person occupying the landG then J((D "I&! will not be invo9ed.

EQ: Louie is the owner of the #ar7 he *ave the Ies to An*elo7 Louie sold it to An*elo ,ut

An*elo did not Iee the #ar et Louie later sold the #ar to Sauel7 the duli#ate Ie was

*iven "ho has ossession$

"/ It is "ngelo, because according to de 'eon, delivery may be ">&)"' or

?8$B('I>"'. &he rule in movablesis the first person who ta9es the movable in good faith.

EQ: "hat is the rule ertainin* to iovables$

"/ &he rule is who recorded it first in good faith, which include value. ?ome rules/ ?ale vs.

Donation ?ale prevailsGeven if the donation came first, much more when it comes laterGbutisnt this unfairK +egistration in good faith ta9es priority against prior title.

EQ: "hat is *ood faith$

"/ )pon failure to ma9e inuiry, when reasonable facts incited himG

EQ: "hat is eant b re#ordin*$ 9oes it ean ere filin*$

"/ $ere filing is not enough, entry is the 9ey factor.

%ote/ Even if your title is only in private document, annotate it as "D#E+?E >'"I$ it

will put subseuent registrants even holding public documents to be in bad faith.(n the first buyer the good faith is reuired only at the time of purchase. ?ubseuent

9nowledge is %(& essential.

(n the second buyer good faith at the time of purchase and at the time of registration.

Case of Carbonel vs CA (31)

?ubseuent 9nowledge by first buyer in good faith cannot defeat the right acuired by

him at the time of purchase. If no registration, the rule is who is I+?& I% >(%&+('. In theabsence of registration and possession the rule is ('DE?& &I&'E.

AQ: Renee sold to Ate

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

16/40

%ote/

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

17/40

EQ: "h not in#luded in Arti#le 32;$

"/ In "rticle 022, the remedies in "rticle 021 pertains to events where ownership has

passed.

EQ: "hat is re#ouent$

"/ (ne where he ta9es bac9 possession and sell the goods. (r one, where no delivery butretain the goods for sale.

%ote/ ?toppage in transitu applicable when placed in carrier. %ot applicable if

delivery is simultaneous.

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

18/40

"/ In warrant of fitness though implied, warrants that there is an e=press agreement that

the thing is for a specific purpose. In merchantability implied that :general purpose is

warranted.

EQ: %ive si5 warranties

"/ 0. description4. fitness

6. merchantability

1. eviction

,ote/ +ule on caveat emptor is %(& really applicable to ?"'E? but applicable to

5udicial sales, because the sheriff does not warrant the sale. In sales, it is >"#E"& LLLL

meaning seller beware. -as to sellers opinion, unless the seller is an agent

EQ: 's *ood faith or bad faith a defense in warranties$

"/ %o. It is not a defense.

EQ: Can there be a waiver of these warranties$"/ 8es, as long as it is done in good faith by the seller.

EQ: Eer is the owner of "ater Coan that owns urifiers Eer sold to Asereth

urifiers and in the #ontra#t it was stiulated that it #an Iill ba#teria ,ut Asereth noti#ed that

there were sedients in the water 9ates 9eliver !an 3M =n @eb 17 Asereth noti#ed the

sedients and on Au* 3 she brou*ht the a#tion "hat is the res#ritive eriod for brea#h of

warrant of hidden defe#ts$

"/ si= -7 months counted from the date of DE'I#E+8. &a9e note that if it is implied

warrantyGit prescribes in 7 months from the date of delivery. But if the warranty is e=press it isfour -1 years from DI?>(#E+8.

EQ: Coca Cola deli"ered so!tdrin%s on Jan /$ on 8eb 2$ disco"ery o! !ibro#s ob9ects not

pre"io#sly patent &ere seen n A# /$ !ilin o! the case aainst Coca Cola ;as the case

prescribed(%&+">&.

AQ: 'n ta#ita re#ondu##ion7 does it ean that the whole lease #ontra#t be renewed7 sa 24

ears$

"/ &he period cannot be renewed. It is dependent on the manner of payment, say 8E"+ &(8E"+, $(%&! &( $(%&!,

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

27/40

EQ: Contra#t of loan vs #ontra#t to loan

"/ >ontract of loan is a real contract>ontract to loan is a consensual contract.

EQ: 9istin*uish #oodatu fro lease"/

AQ: "hen is the defense of fortuitous event not roer$

"/ -"rticles 014, 00FA, 007 and 00F1

a incur in delay

b contravene the tenor of the obligation

c fraud in the performance of the obligationd general principle

EQ: Pados is an owner of a #attle ran#h Pados went to the ,ureau of A*ri#ulture to

borrow a bull 6he ,A asIed Pados to a a fi5ed aount for a eriod of one ear Afterone ear7 Pados did not deliver ba#I the bull "hen the +PA atta#Ied the ran#h all #ows

were Iilled (in#ludin* the bull) "as it a lease or a #oodatu$

"/ If the fee was for the use, then the agreement was a lease; but if the fee was minimal, for

processing, then it was a commodatum.

EQ: 's Pados liable for daa*es7 desite the fortuitous event$

"/ 8es, because he delayed the return of the bull.

EQ: Sherwin borrowed the eene of !ason for uroses of brin*in* his wife to the

hosital =n his wa hoe7 he a##eted assen*ers for a fee7 while on his wa7

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

28/40

"rticle 014 on fortuitous event general rule, the bailee is not liable.

&he bailee holds in trust for the bailor the property loaned, so that the prescription

will not lie, unless there is an e=press waiver.

AQ: "hat is re#ariu$

"/ )nder "rticle 01F where the possession of the lessee is merely tolerated by the lessor.

EQ: 9istin*uish #oodatu fro re#ariu

"/%ote/ "rticle 013 relation to "rticle F72.

EQ: 9istin*uish utuu fro barter

"/

EQ: 9istin*uish barter fro #oodatu

"/

%ote/ "rticle 023 e=ception as to the rule that interest shall not accrue if note=pressly written -par. 7

EQ: Louel borrowed fro %ra#e ,anI of Norea P344744444 Later7 LouelHs friend7 'odine

borrowed one fro the sae banI Louel led*ed shares for 'odineHs debt "hen debt of

Louel was due and deandable7 Louel offered aent but %ra#e ,anI did not a*ree as he

ust also a to*ether 'odineHs loan Louel did not #onsi*n the aount to the #ourt 's Louel

liable for interest$

"/ ?ince 'ouel, although not in delay, did not consign the money, he is still liable for the

interest on the use of the money, but not for damages due to delay.

ebruary 03, 4AA4

EQ: "hen does the 31J interest arise$

"/ ?ince this is a liuidated damage, then from the time of demand.

EQ: .ow about the FJ interest$

"/ "s a general rule, it commences to run from the time of 5udgment since it depends upon

the discretion of the 5udge. But from the time the 5udgment becomes final and e=ecutory, 04

commences to run. -?ee p. 703 "lbanoIn case of obligation arising from contract of sale, the interest is 7 not 04.

In interest for forbearance of money and debt loan, the rate of interest is 04.

But the first to loo9 for is the stipulated interest*

EQ: Queenie is a lawer who was asIed to aear a #ase in Cebu for 2 das Cash advan#e

of P 247444 was ade She left the law fir without li&uidatin* Can she be #har*ed for

estafa$

"/ p. 70FC700 "lbano. &his is not a case of estafa, because the amount given is not held in

trust, this is one of loan.

43

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

29/40

AQ: "hat is the nature of a #ash advan#e$

"/ It is a form of a loan. &herefore, the one ma9ing the cash advance cannot be charged of

estafa, because he is the owner thereof.

AQ: "hat is the effe#t of es#alation #lause$ 's it valid without a #orresondin* de-

es#alation #lause$"/ In the case of,an#o @iliino vs +avarro in order that the escalation clause to be valid,

it must have to be coupled with a de@escalation clause otherwise it will result to the hemorrhage

of the assets of the debtor.

EQ: ,eethoven *ave Raon P374447444 tellin* Raon to invest then return after 2 ears

's this a loan$

"/ 8es.

OOOAQ: "hat are the rulin*s of the SC in the #ases of Lib Lao vs =li# Sawills

(3)M

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

30/40

%ote/ In commodatum the bailee can use the thing, but in deposit, without e=press

permission, use is not allowed. Deposit is not covered by the statute of frauds.

In both deposit and commodatum, there is no acuisition of ownership. &hese contractsare essentially gratuitous, unless it is the business of the depositary.

EQ: 's it ne#essar that the deositar be the owner of the roert$"/ &he depositary need not be the owner of the property.

,ote/ If the ob5ect of deposit is lost due to fortuitous event, the depositary is not liable

for the loss e=cept in the cases provided for under "rticle 0F7. If there is delay, the depositaryis liable, because in order for a fortuitous event to e=empt another from the obligation, it must be

the only and pro=imate cause.

AQ: "hat is an irre*ular deosit$

"/ &he deposit in a ban9 is an irregular deposit. Because when the money is deposited to the

ban9, the money shall not only be 9ept, but it shall be usedClent. $oreover, unli9e in deposit, it

shall earn interest.

AQ: "hat is the relationshi between the hotel inn Ieeer and the *uest$

"/

AQ: "hen is there for#e aeure$ (F ties asIed in the ,ar)

"/ see the case of9e %u?an vs CAM "rticles 03, 4AA1, 0F21.

,otes/

&he placing of security guard in public conveyances is not a usual practice, thus

the hi5ac9ing of the F2A cartons of liberty mil9 is a force ma5eure that will e=empt the proprietor

of the truc9ing services from liability.&he liability of hand carried items of the passengers -which are not placed in the

conveyanceCcontainer is not a responsibility of the carrier.

EQ: "hat is voluntar deosit$

"/ It is made by the will of the depositors. &wo persons claiming ownership on a thing and

the property is placed in the custody of a third person.

EQ: "hat if the deositar sold the thin* deosited7 a the deositor re#over$

"/

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

31/40

Per estolloso, the controlling factor is :control. ?o the uestion, does the ban9 have

controlK

Cases of Sia vs Court of Aeals 2D3D and vs CA D4DD ( F14 Albano)

*A+ p 204

"rticle 0A and 0FF :intent of safe9eeping must be analyed in this premise ..as

primaryG use must only be incidental."rticle 033 vs. "rticle 031

AQ: "hat is the nature of the #ontra#t in safet deosit bo5es$

"/ It is a special form of deposit %(& a lease on safety deposit bo=es. (Ss

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

32/40

'n U7 there is no pactum commissorium because )y e=ecuted a deed of assignment,

after he failed to pay. &here was therefore, no automatic transfer or appropriation of the

propertyGif there was an act done by him.Per "lbano, under "rticle 4004, there shall be no automatic appropriation in a contract of

pledge unless the procedure under this article is followed.

Per Estolloso, under "rticle 4004, it is an e=ception to the pactum commissorium rule,provided that there has to be at least two auctions made.

,AR 14

EQ: Can future roert be led*e$

"/ %o. uture property cannot be pledged. But it should be ualified in a sense that if they

are placed on the land, they shall be allowed to be pledged.

,AR 1D2

,AR ;F;

,AR

,AR 3;3

,AR 2

EQ: Can there be a #onstru#tive led*e$

"/ 8es. &here can be a constructive pledge.

EQ: "hen is there a le*al led*e$

"/ "rticle 4040. If the pledge is by operation of law, e=cess may be delivered or returned .

,AR FF

,AR 224

,AR D4

,AR DF;

,AR 3DF

,AR 112

,AR 1D3

,AR DD1 ,

,AR 3;F

EQ: 9istin*uish led*e fro anti#hresis

"/ ,AR 1D;

AQ: "hat is the effe#t of sale of the roert on the ort*a*eled*ed$

"/ Even if sold for more or less, it e=tinguishes the debt. -Articles 20. and 2//6)

AQ: %ive the rules on re#over of defi#ien#

"/ 'f sold for ore there shall be total e=tinguishments, the creditor is not obligated to

deliver bac9 the e=cess, e=cept when e=pressly provided in the contract. )nder the provision itstates :unless otherwise providedG

'f sold for less the creditor is not entitled to deficiency, even if the contract provides to

the effect. &he law states that :notwithstanding stipulations to the contrary

64

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

33/40

,ote/ &he provisions of the law on pledges are applicable to the law on mortgages in so

far as they are not inconsistent with each other. &hus, in mortgage, the deficiency can be

recovered if the property sold is for less than the debt owed.

Juaranty and ?urety

EQ: "ho is a *uarantor$ Suret$

"/ Juarantor guarantees the solvency of the debtor, whereas the surety guarantees the debt

itself.

EQ: 's *uarant #overed under the statute of frauds$

"/ 8es, under "rticle 01A6.

Juaranty is an accessory contract, thus it can only stand with a principal obligation. Butit can secure voidable, natural obligations and unenforceable contracts. Juaranty and surety

cannot be applied retrospectively and prospectively. But please note of provision that guarantee

cover future debts*** = 32"lbano on continuing guarantee p 32 "rticle 4A21 vs. "rticle

4A77. )nder "rticle 4A22, guarantee is not presumed.

EQ: Suret will not be liable uon aturit of the debt 's this a valid rovision in the

#ontra#t$

"/ &his is an unreasonable stipulation.

EQ: 's suret #overed under Statute of @rauds$

"/ 8es, because it is a collateral underta9ing under "rticle 01A6.

%ote/ :not receiving something is not a defense.?olidary obligations must also be in writing e=presslyGbut not on the basis of statute

of frauds.

&he fact that the surety is sued separately does not preclude him from raising of defensesagainst the principal debt.

EQ: "hat are the siilarities and differen#es between suret and solidarit of obli*ations$

"/ "s to recovery and as to principal and accessory -difference

EQ: "hat is the benefit of e5#ussion$

H"/ &he benefit of e=cussion in favor of the guarantor refers to the right by which suchguarantor cannot be compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter has e=hausted all the property

of the principal debtor, and has resorted to all of the legal remedies against such debtor.

AQ: "hat are the e5#etions to the benefit of e5#ussion$

"/ "rticle 4A2

0 %ot agreed to be solidarily liable4 %ot wordings of guaranty but of suretyship

6

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

34/40

7

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

35/40

!owever, there can be %( chattel mortgage securing future debts, because of the a!!ida"it o!ood !aithwhich connotes that the chattel mortgage is e=ecuted for a particular loan.

EQ: 9oes the ower to ort*a*e in#lude the ower to sell$

"/ %o.

EQ: 9oes the se#ial ower to sell in#lude the ower to obtain a loan and ort*a*e the

roert$

"/ %o.

EQ: "hat if the aount owed has res#ribed7 but still the *uarantor se#ured it7 #an it be

enfor#ed$

"/ 8es, it can be enforced, because the guaranty can secure or stand up for naturalobligations.

&he lease of a sidewal9, which is government property is void, hence cannot be sub5ect to

suretyship.

&he surety can use the defense of the debtor i.e., minor, to the e=tent of his benefitsGbecause if the surety pays the creditor, he would be stepping into the shoes of the creditor..

-"rticle 4A21; "rticle 4A30

EQ: "hat if the debtor did not have Inowled*e or #onsent on the resen#e of the

*uarantor "hat is the ri*ht of the *uarantor$

"/ ?ubrogation is only with respect to unpaid amount benefiting the debtor -"rticle

0467C046F

EQ: Reed of *uarantor

"/ "rticle 4A77 which applies after payment; "rticle 4AF0 which applies before

payment and "rticle 4A23.

EQ: 's the a*reeent to e5tend the tie of aent release the *uarantor$

"/ 8es under "rticle 4AF.

EQ: .ow about when the #reditor did not deand$ 's the *uarantor released$

"/ %o. But he could as9 under "rticle 4AF0-1 to be released.

EQ: "hen a the *uarantor be also released$

"/

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

36/40

H"/ By the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do

something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.

-"rticle 0373

AQ: 'n what fors a a*en# e5ist$

"/ (ral, writing or implied. But under "rticle 03F1, the employment of an agent to sell areal property, it must be in a specific form, that is in writing. In,arreto vs 6uasonit was ruled

that it is not necessary that it be participated by a notary public. It is enough that it be in writing.

AQ: Can a se#ial ower of attorne to sell be #ontained in a letter #oin* fro abroad$

"/ 8es, in ,arreto vs 6uason, it was ruled that the e=ecution of the instrument before the

notary public is only for purposes of convenience and facility %(& for validity. )nder "rticle

0627, a contract is valid in whatever form without pre5udice to the ?tatute of rauds. But if thecontract is specifically reuired to be in a form for purposes of its #"'IDI&8 then the same

reuirement is "B?(')&E and $"%D"&(+8.

AQ: "hen is the a*ent be entitled to #oission$"/ In order that the agent be entitled to commission, he must be authoried by the principal

"rticle 03F2.

AQ: 9oes the #ontra#t of a*en# to sell in#lude the authorit to ort*a*e or vi#e-versa$

"/ %o. $oreover, the contract of agency to sell does not carry with it the authority to sell ininstallment. But the authority to sell in installment carries with it the authority to sell for cash.

AQ: "hat are the aor rovisions on #ontra#t of a*en# in the Civil Code$

"/ &hese are/

Article //. %o one may contract in the name of another without being authoried by

the latter, or unless he has by law or right to represent him.

" contract entered into in the name of another by one who has no authority or legalrepresentation, or who has acted beyond his powers, shall be unenforceable, unless it is ratified,

e=pressly or impliedly, by the person on whose behalf it has been e=ecuted, before it is revo9ed

by the other contracting party.

Article /0$ par / 7 &he following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are

ratified/

0. &hose entered into the name of another person by one who has been given no

authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;

Article // 7 &he agent must act within the scope of his authority. !e may do such acts

as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency.

Article /2 7 &he limits of the agents authority shall not be considered e=ceededshould it have been performed in a manner more advantageous to the principal than that

specified by him.

Article / If an agent acts in his own name, the principal has no right of actionagainst the persons with whom the agent has contracted; neither have such persons against the

principal.

67

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

37/40

In such case, the agent is the one directly bound in favor of the person with whom he has

contracted, as if the transaction were his own, e=cept when the contract involves things

belonging to the principal.&he provisions of this article shall be understood to be without pre5udiced to the actions

between the principal and agent.

'n +@A #asethe person contracted by %" to ship its rice acted for an undisclosedprincipal. %ow, %" refused to pay. &he ?> ruled that %" should pay because the person to

whom %" contracted used the vessel of the principal.

Article /1 7If the agent contracts in the name of the principal, e=ceeding the scope ofhis authority, and the principal does not ratify the contract, it shall be void if the party with

whom the agent contracted is aware of the limits of the powers granted by the principal. In this

case, however, the agent is liable if he undertoo9 to secure the principals ratification.

Article /1/0 7 &he principal must comply with all the obligations which the agent mayhave contracted within the scope of his authority.

"s for any obligation wherein the agent has e=ceeded his power, the principal is not

bound e=cept when he ratifies it e=pressly or tacitly.

Article /1// 7 Even when the agent has e=ceeded his authority, the principal is solidarilyliable with the agent if the former allowed the latter to act as though he has full powers.

AQ: "hat if the third erson Inew of the liits of the a*entHs authorit7 #an he #lai

daa*es fro the a*ent in #ase of brea#h$

"/ &he third person does not have the right to hold the agent for damages. But if the agentpromised to secure the principals approval or ratification, the agent shall be liable for any

damages to that third person pursuant to "rticle 033. -Cervantes vs CA)

Cases:

Cara vs Laureta since the agent was in bad %aith* then the principal is also inbad %aith. Thus in double sale* where the agent sold the propert& to A and the principal to sold it

to B* the one who registered who was the one dealt with b& agent has the better right.

6ravel "ide Se#ialist vs CA &he principal cannot point his fingers to theagent. "cts of the agent binds the principal.

AQ: "hen the a*en# was established throu*h a newsaer advertiseent7 how a it be

revoIed$ "hat is the effe#t of a ersonal revo#ation b the rin#ial on the transa#tions

entered into b the a*ent subse&uent thereto$ Shall it bind inno#ent third arties$

"/ 8es. (n innocent third parties, the transaction is effectual and binding on the principal

because the revocation was not in the form the way the agency was constituted.

AQ: "hat are the fors of e5tin*uishin* a*en#$

"/ ED Death

6F

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

38/40

,ote/ If the agency is a means of fulfilling an obligation, even if revocation is with legal

ground, the revocation prior to the fulfillment of the agency, does not end up the contract agency.

OOOAQ: "hat is an a*en# #ouled with an interest$

"/ ?ee 8alen?uela vs Court of Aeals )nder this contract, even if there is death, the

agency is %(& e=tinguished.See !urado 2

>ontract of Partnership

AQ: "hat is the #ontra#t of artnershi$

"/ By the contract of partnership, two or more persons bind themselves to contribute money,

property or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing profits among themselves.

&wo or more persons may also form a partnership for the e=ercise of a profession.

AQ: Suose it was onl #redit fro the start but there was a*reeent to divide rofits

aon* theselves7 is there a #ontra#t of artnershi$

"/ In Li vs Phil @ishin* %ear Cor7 it was ruled that there e=isted a contract ofpartnership, because the most important test is the intention to divide the profits.

%ote, however, that even if there is division of profits, it is only a presumption ofe=istence of partnership, B)& it can be rebutted. ?ay, payment of compensation based on the

profit derivedGi.e., 42 of the profits. (Article /.31.

OOOAQ: A has a business but he borrowed fro , A shall a , based on rofits 's

there a #ontra#t of artnershi$

"/ )nder "rticle 0F7, partnership is presumed to e=ist, but it does not mean that it cannot

be rebutted. &herefore, it was said to be a case of a loan.

AQ: "hat are the basi# #hara#teristi#s of a artnershi$

"/ see!urado ;3

AQ: Can ou e5#lude a #aitalist artner fro the division of rofits$

"/ %o under "rticle 0F.

AQ: 's it ossible for the industrial artner to en*a*e in another o##uationbusiness

undertaIin*$

"/ %o. !e can be removed and be made to account for profits and losses of the partnership.

AQ: .ow about the #aitalist artners$

"/ %o. if it will directly compete with the partnerships business.8es. If not.

AQ: 's the industrial artner liable for losses of the artnershi$

"/ %o. (nly the capital partners, as the capitalist partners can easily remove their interest

from the partnership while the industrial partner cannot.

!owever, the industrial partner can not raise the same against third parties, but he is

entitled to reimbursement from the capitalist partners.

63

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

39/40

OOOAQ: "hat is the rin#ile of dele#tus ersonae$

"/ )nder "rticle 03A1, it pertains to the right of choice of a partner as to who shall beadmitted as partners in the partnership.

AQ: "hat are the instan#es where the law rovides that liabilit shall be solidar in nature$"/ ?ee "rticles 31;7 311 and 31DCorrelate Art31D with Arti#le 33F in relation to Arti#le 314

&he general rule is that partners liability shall be 5oint, e=cept in the above mentionedprovisions whereby the liability shall be solidary.

AQ: "hat is artnershi b estoel$

"/ It e=ists where there is a misrepresentation by one to be a partner, where other partnersconcur to his acts even though he was not really a partner.

AQ: "hat is the test of artnershi$

"/ "rticle 0F7.

AQ: "hat is a artnershi at will in relation to the rin#ile of dele#tus ersonae$

"/ Partnership is based on trust. &hus, even if there is a written agreement providing for a

2A year contract of partnership e=istence, if on the 6A thyear, one partner withdraws, it shall cause

its dissolution at will.In =rte?a vs CA it was ruled that a law firm is a partnership at will, thus it can be

dissolved at will without pre5udice to the one causing the dissolution in bad faith be liable for

damages.

?ignificant +ulings in &orts and Damages

AQ: "hat are four thin*s to be roven when ou file an a#tion based on &uasi-deli#t$

"/ 0. %egligent act or omission

4. ?uch act causes damage to another

6. %o pre@e=isting contractual relation1.

,n the case o% Air @ran#e vs Caras#oso (!,L Rees) the case of booting out the

ilipino from his seat in the plane -from first class to tourist in favor of a >aucasian gave rise touasi@delict even if there was a contract of carriage as the act done was independent from the

contractual relationship. &here must be causal relationship between the damage sustained and

the negligence. 'n 9ula vs CA it was ruled that concurrence of supervision and omission onthe part of the security agency had e=ist ma9ing it liable for damages.

&a9e note of the doctrines of 9anu Abs&ue 'nuria7 Res 'sa Lo&uitor and Last

Clear Chan#e7 do#trine of ro5iate #ause

&here is a recent development on the doctrine of the last #lear #han#e. )nder this

doctrine, where the plaintiff is the source of the negligent act, yet the defendant had the better

chance of avoiding the accident, the plaintiff is entitled to damages.

6

8/13/2019 d-Sales3

40/40

Per ?>, traveling at A9m per hour in a highway is %(& abnormal

But seeNho vs Court of Aeals and 9arit vs CA