Scribd
Upload
266 views1 page

Contract to Sell Dispute: Chua vs. CA

- Tomas Chua and Valdes-Choy agreed to the sale of Valdes-Choy's property for PHP 1.5 million payable in cash. Chua paid PHP 100,000 initially. - When Chua refused to pay the balance claiming the title was not transferred, Valdes-Choy tore up the deeds of sale. Chua filed a case for specific performance that was dismissed. - The issue is whether Valdes-Choy can rescind the contract without observing the provisions of Article 1384. - The court ruled that the agreement was a contract to sell where ownership was retained by Valdes-Choy until full payment. Article 1384 does not apply to contracts

Uploaded by

Kay Aviles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
266 views1 page

Contract to Sell Dispute: Chua vs. CA

- Tomas Chua and Valdes-Choy agreed to the sale of Valdes-Choy's property for PHP 1.5 million payable in cash. Chua paid PHP 100,000 initially. - When Chua refused to pay the balance claiming the title was not transferred, Valdes-Choy tore up the deeds of sale. Chua filed a case for specific performance that was dismissed. - The issue is whether Valdes-Choy can rescind the contract without observing the provisions of Article 1384. - The court ruled that the agreement was a contract to sell where ownership was retained by Valdes-Choy until full payment. Article 1384 does not apply to contracts

Uploaded by

Kay Aviles
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

tomas k.

Chua vs ca
Facts: Valdes-Choy advertised for sale her paraphernal house and lot ("Property")
with an area of !" s#uare meters located at $o. %& 'ampin(co )treet corner
*idal(o )treet+ )an ,oren-o Villa(e+ .akati City. 'he Property is covered /y
'ransfer Certi0cate of 'itle $o. !12344 ("'C'") issued /y the 5e(ister of 6eeds of
.akati City in the name of Valdes-Choy. Chua responded to the advertisement.
7fter several meetin(s+ Chua and Valdes-Choy a(reed on a purchase price of
P!&+"&&+&&&.&& paya/le in cash. 8n 9& :une !3"3+ Valdes-Choy received from
Chua a check for P!&&+&&&.&&. 'he receipt ("5eceipt") evidencin( the
transaction+ si(ned /y Valdes-Choy as seller+ and Chua as /uyer.
8n ;uly !9+ !3"3+ chua secured from p/c a mana(er<s check for %"&k+ /ut which
was (iven a stop payment order with a reason that the same was lost or
misplaced. 8n that afternoon+ chua and valde--choy met to e=ecute the
necessary dcoments and arran(e the payment. 'wo deeds of a/solute sale were
si(ned for the house and lot and for the furnishin(s+ 0=tures and mova/le
properties. on the second meetin(+ chua handed to valde--choy the p/com<s
man(er<s check so valde- choy could pay the capital (ains ta=. 'hey went to
deposit the p/com<s mana(ers< check and valde- choy /ou(ht a mana(er<s
check for the same amount and which was (iven to chua for the payment of
capital (ains ta=. Chua showed the mana(er<s check amountin( to !&m to valdes
choy /ut refused to (ive it /ecause the tct was not yet transferred in his name.
7n(ry+ valde- choy tore up the deeds of sale claimin( that what chua re#uired
was not part of their a(reement. Chua 0led a speci0c performance a(ainst
valde- choy and the same was dismissed. Chua re0lled his action+ and which was
decided in his favour. 'he ca reversed the decision+ hence this appeal
>ssue: whether valde- choy may rescind the contract without o/servin( the
provisions of !432
5ulin(: yes.
'he receipts showed that the true a(reement /etween the parties was a
contract to sell. 8wnership over the property was retained /y valde- choy and
was not to pass to chua until ful payment of the purchase price.
>n this case+ valde- choy retained possession of the certi0cate of title and
all other docuemtns relative to the sale. ?hen chua refused to pay valdes choy
the /alance of hte purchase price+ valdes choy refused to turn over to chua these
documents. these are additional proof that the a(reement did not transfer to
chua either /y actual or constructive delivery ownership of the property.
?hile !432 permits the /uyer to pay+ even after the e=piration of the
period+ as lon( as no demand for rescission of the contract has /een made upon
him either ;udicially or /y notarial act+ it is not applica/le to a contract to sell
where the seller reserves the ownership until full payment of the price.

You might also like