SALES Case doctrine and Catchy Phrases

Puyat v. Arco Amusement

- GPSI, agent of Starr Piano gave the list price to Arco Amusement,
which Arco subsequently paid
- Issue: Whether or not contract was a contract of sale or contract of
agency
- Held: Contract of sale; Vendor Starr Piano not bound to reimburse Arco
the excess of Net price; Arco WILLINGLY paid the price quoted; Profit of
Vendor NOT a ground to reduce price/rescind a contract
Yuson v Vitan
- Yuson, a taxi driver, loaned 100,000 to Vitan, his lawyer
- Vitan executed post dated checks (to ensure payment of debt) but
which were subsequently dishonored
- Yuson tried to recover but only received partial payment so he filed
Admin. Case against Vitan
- Vitan execute deed of Ab. Sale to Yuson, so the latter could
sell/mortgage and apply the proceeds to debt
- Issue: W/N Vitans obligation to pay the debt was extinguished b/c he
sold his property to Yuson Dacion en Pago?
- NOOOO
Lo v KJS-Eco Framework
- P owes R; P couldnt pay so assigned his right of accounts receivable
from Q to R. When R tried to collect from Q, Q said P still owed debts to
Q so compensation took place. R recover from P.
- Issue: was there dacion en pago?
- Held: YES
Paragas v. Balacano
- Gregorio Balacano, 80 plus years old and in a hospital diagnosed with
cirrhosis, sold parcels of land to Spouses ParagasSigned a deed of
sale. Died 6 days later
- Issue: WON sale was VOID or merely VOIDABLE
- Held: Sale was VOID. No intent to sell parcels of land not merely
defective consent but NO CONSENT AT ALL. General rule is that senility
does not affect validity of consent unless shown that there was a
defect wherein contract would be voidable but in this case, Balacano
was at the near point of death, hospitalized, could not have possibly
intend on entering such contract.
- Side note: The notary public also had no authority to notarize so
contract FISHY
Rubias v. Batiller
- Held: Public policy/public interest dictate that sale of property in
litigation (pendent lite) to a participating attorney is VOID and cannot
be ratified or subject to a new agreement (HMMM)
Phil Trust v. Roldan

Roldan, after seeking approval by court, sold her wards property to

her brother-in-law (minor), who sold it back to her promptly thereafter
P replaced Roldan as guardian.
Should sale be ANNULLED? YES
Even court declaration cannot prevail over an express prohibition by
law. It was clear from the intentions that her sale to in-law was in order
to circumvent the prohibition
Held: Roldan could NOT pass title to bro-in-law

Rongavilla v. CA & De La Cruz

- Doctrine: Deed of Sale was void on TWO grounds: Lack of consent and
want of consideration
- Gross inadequacy and unconscionableness of consideration (2000 for
parcel of land) NULLIFIES contract
- De La Cruz sisters had NO intention to enter into a sale
- Deed of Sale was fictitious/simulated De La Cruz sisters NEVER
received the consideration
Mate v. Tan & CA