The Author
The author is a practicing lawyer, who began this law blog in 2011.
LAW PRACTICE
The author took the bar in 2015 and passed the same. She went into private practice and taught as a university professor. She entered the public attorneys office in 2017.
Education
The author is a graduate of Bachelor of Arts in Mass Communication and Bachelor of Laws (conferred with Juris Doctor). She is an alumna of Holy Name University.
Leisure
The author loves to write, travel, and write about her travels.
BLOG
Visit her blog: hitchhikersguidetothephilippines.blogspot.com
Showing posts with label Jaime Ong vs. Court of Appeals and Robles couple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jaime Ong vs. Court of Appeals and Robles couple. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 21, 2017
Case Digest: Ong vs. CA and Robles
G.R. no. 97347
Jaime Ong vs. Court of Appeals and Robles
couple
July 6, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Jaime Ong and respondents, Robles
couple executed an “Agreement of Purchase and Sale” with regard to 2 parcels of
land, on which a rice mill and a piggery were found and thus included. The terms and conditions of the contract
included an initial payment, payment for the loan of the sellers including
interest, and the balance to be satisfied in 4 equal quarterly installments.
As agreed, petitioner took possession of the
subject property and everything else thereon upon satisfaction of the initial
payment. However, petitioner failed to comply with the payment for the loan.
Plus, the checks that the petitioner issued to the couple as payment for the
balance were dishonored due to insufficient funds. To avoid foreclosure, the
respondent couple sold the ricemill with the knowledge and conformity of
petitioner.
Respondents sought for the rescission of the
properties due to the latter’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions
on the contract.
RTC ruled in favor of the Robles couple and
ordered the restitution of the properties. The couple were also ordered to
return an amount, as determined by the court, to Ong.
CA affirmed the decision in contemplation of
Article 1191 of The New Civil Code
Issue:
(1) whether the contract entered into by the parties may be validly
rescinded under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code as distinguished to Article
1383 of the same.
(2) whether the parties had
novated their original contract as to the time and manner of payment.
HELD:
The Contract entered into by
the parties was a “Contract to Sell” which means that the payment of the purchase price is a positive
suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious,
but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from
acquiring an obligatory force.
Respondents bound themselves to deliver a deed of absolute sale and clean title covering the
two parcels of land upon full payment by the buyer of the purchase price of
P2,000,000.00 subject to the fulfillment of the suspensive condition of full
payment of the purchase price by the petitioner. Petitioner, however, failed to
complete payment of the purchase price. The non-fulfillment of the condition of
full payment rendered the contract to sell ineffective and without force and
effect.
As to the issue on novation,
in order for novation to take place, the concurrence of the following
requisites is indispensable: (1) there must be a previous valid obligation; (2)
there must be an agreement of the parties concerned to a new contract; (3)
there must be the extinguishment of the old contract; and (4) there must be the
validity of the new contract. 25 The aforesaid requisites are not found
in the case at bench.
Sunday, March 20, 2016
CASE DIGEST: ONG VS. ROBLES
G.R. No. 97347
Jaime Ong vs. Court of Appeals and Robles couple
July 6, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Jaime Ong and respondents, Robles couple executed an “Agreement of Purchase and Sale” with regard to 2 parcels of land, on which a rice mill and a piggery were found and thus included. The terms and conditions of the contract included an initial payment, payment for the loan of the sellers including interest, and the balance to be satisfied in 4 equal quarterly installments.
As agreed, petitioner took possession of the subject property and everything else thereon upon satisfaction of the initial payment. However, petitioner failed to comply with the payment for the loan. Plus, the checks that the petitioner issued to the couple as payment for the balance were dishonored due to insufficient funds. To avoid foreclosure, the respondent couple sold the ricemill with the knowledge and conformity of petitioner.
Respondents sought for the rescission of the properties due to the latter’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions on the contract.
RTC ruled in favor of the Robles couple and ordered the restitution of the properties. The couple were also ordered to return an amount, as determined by the court, to Ong.
CA affirmed the decision in contemplation of Article 1191 of The New Civil Code
Issue:
(1) whether the contract entered into by the parties may be validly rescinded under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code as distinguished to Article 1383 of the same.
(2) whether the parties had novated their original contract as to the time and manner of payment.
HELD:
The Contract entered into by the parties was a “Contract to Sell” which means that the payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an obligatory force.
Respondents bound themselves to deliver a deed of absolute sale and clean title covering the two parcels of land upon full payment by the buyer of the purchase price of P2,000,000.00 subject to the fulfillment of the suspensive condition of full payment of the purchase price by the petitioner. Petitioner, however, failed to complete payment of the purchase price. The non-fulfillment of the condition of full payment rendered the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect.
As to the issue on novation, in order for novation to take place, the concurrence of the following requisites is indispensable: (1) there must be a previous valid obligation; (2) there must be an agreement of the parties concerned to a new contract; (3) there must be the extinguishment of the old contract; and (4) there must be the validity of the new contract. 25 The aforesaid requisites are not found in the case at bench.












