EDCA Publishing v. 184 SCRA 614

184 SCRA 614 FACTS: Professor Jose Cruz, identified himself as such placed an order by telephone with the EDCA for 406 books, payable on delivery. Corresponding invoice were prepared and delivered the books as ordered, for which Cruz issued a personal check covering the purchase price. Cruz sold 120 of the books to private respondent [...]

By |2020-02-21T03:47:50+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|Comments Off on EDCA Publishing v. 184 SCRA 614

Banzon v. Cruz

45 SCRA 475 FACTS: Maximo Sta. Maria obtained crop loans from the Philippine National Bank with Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. (Associated) acted as surety of Sta. Maria acting as surety for Antonio R. Banzon and Emilio Ma. Naval in turn acted as indemnitors of Associated. When Sta. Maria failed to pay his obligations [...]

By |2020-02-21T03:45:25+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Amigo v. Teves

96 Phil 252 FACTS: Macario Amigo and Anacleto Cagalitan executed in favor of their son, Marcelino Amigo, a power of attorney granting him the power "to lease, let, bargain, transfer, convey and sell, remise, release, mortgage and hypothecate, part or any of the properties . . . upon such terms and conditions, and under such [...]

By |2020-02-21T03:43:43+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Pasagui v. Villablana

68 SCRA 18 FACTS: Plaintiffs Calixto Pasagui and Fausta Mosar bought a property in Leyte from Estaquia and Catalina Bocar and that corresponding document of sale was executed, notarized and recorded in the Registry of Deeds. Before they could take possession of the property, defendant spouses Ester T. Villablanca and Zosimo Villablanca illegally and without [...]

By |2020-02-21T03:40:33+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Buot v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 119679, 18 May 2001, 357 SCRA 846 FACTS: Plaintiffs-spouses alleged that defendant Encarnacion Diaz Vda. de Reston, sold to them the eastern portion of her property as evidenced by a Memorandum of Agreement. The Memorandum of Agreement stated that the purchase price of P19,042.00 shall be paid as follows: (a) the amount of [...]

By |2020-02-20T09:10:09+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Abalos v. Macatangay, Jr.

G.R. No. 155043, 30 September 2004 FACTS: Armed with a Special Power of Attorney, purportedly issued by his wife, Arturo executed a Receipt and Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA), in favor of respondent, binding himself to sell the subject property and not to offer the same to any other party within 30 days from date. Arturo [...]

By |2020-02-20T09:04:15+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Ang Yu Asuncion v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 109125, 2 December 1994 FACTS: A complaint for Specific Performance was filed by plaintiffs against Bobby Cu Unjieng and Jose Tan. They were tenants or lessees of residential and commercial spaces owned by defendants in Binondo. Defendants informed the plaintiffs that they are offering to sell the premises and are giving them priority [...]

By |2020-02-20T09:02:35+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Sanchez v. Rigos

G.R. No. L-25494, 14 June 1972, 45 SCRA 368 FACTS: Sanchez (plaintiff-appellee) wishes to enforce the contract whereby the respondents transfer to the former land via an instrument entitled an Option to Purchase. Rigos (plaintiff-appellant) contends that the contract between the parties "is a unilateral promise to sell, and the same being unsupported by any [...]

By |2020-06-02T05:59:39+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Atkins, Kroll & Co. v. Cua Hian Tek

G.R. No. L-9871, 31 January 1958, 102 Phil 948 FACTS: Petitioner seeks to reverse the decision where it was ordered to pay damages to the respondent for its failure to deliver the sardines which it offered to the latter. It avers that there was no contract of sale but a mere option to buy which [...]

By |2020-02-20T08:58:43+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments

Swedish Match v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 128120, 20 October 2004 FACTS: Private respondent seeks to enforce a contract of sale between it and the petitioner when the latter allegedly accepted its bid to purchase the former’s shares. Petitioner counters that it did not accept the bid and merely advised the private respondent to conduct a pre-acquisition audit. The trial [...]

By |2020-02-20T08:54:25+00:00January 24th, 2020|Case Digests|0 Comments
Go to Top