ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45969   May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE<br /><br />067 Phil 739

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45969. May 4, 1939.]

    TAN TIAH (alias T. SUYA), Petitioner, v. Yu JOSE (alias JOSE Y. NAVARRO), Respondent.

    Pastor Salazar and Vamenta & Vamenta for Petitioner.

    Norberto Romualdez for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PURCHASE AND SALE; PROMISE TO BUY OR SELL; PRICE CERTAIN. — Article 1446 of the Civil Code provides that "By the contract of purchase and sale one of the contracting parties binds himself to deliver a determinate thing and the other to pay a certain price therefor in money or in something representing the same." According to article 1451, "a promise to sell or buy, when there is an agreement as to the thing and the price, entitles the contracting parties reciprocally to demand the fulfillment of the contract." And article 1447 of the same Code provides that in order that the price may be considered certain, it, shall be sufficient that it be 90 in relation to some certain thing, or that its determination be left to the judgment of some particular person, and should the latter be unable or unwilling to fix the price, the contract shall be inoperative. And according to article 1449 of the same Code, the designation of the price can never be left to the determination of one of the contracting parties.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID. — The price of the leased land not having been fixed and the lessor not having bound himself to sell it, the essential elements which give life to the contract are lacking. It follows that the lessee cannot compel the lessor to sell the leased land to him.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    This is an appeal by way of certiorari taken by Tan Tiah (alias T. Suya), wherein he prays, on the grounds alleged therein, for the review of the decision rendered ill the case by the Court of Appeals reversing that of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, for the reversal thereof, and for the affirmance of the decision of said Court of First Instance.

    As grounds for the allowance of the appeal, petitioner assigns the following alleged errors of law committed by said Court of Appeals in its decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The Court of Appeals erred in finding in its decision, subject of the present petition for certiorari, that the 5th paragraph of the contract of lease Exhibit A establishes rights for the petitioner and for the respondent, which are antagonistic and, therefore, unenforceable by action.

    "2. The Court of Appeals likewise erred in finding in its decision that the promise, if any, made by respondent to sell to petitioner the land in question is not enforceable by action for lack of a price.

    "3. The Court of Appeals also erred in finding in its decision that the 5th paragraph of the contract of lease entered into by petitioner and respondent does not state two promises to buy and to sell which are mutually demandable.

    "4. Lastly, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the herein petitioner has no cause of action against defendant-respondent."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On May 14, 1923 petitioner and respondent entered into a contract of lease in the fifth clause of which, pertinent to the question at issue, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "5th. That upon termination of the period of this contract, namely, ten years, the lessor shall have the option to buy the building or improvement which the lessee may have built upon the lots, reimbursing the latter ninety per cent (90%) of the original net cost of the construction; but should the lessor be unable or unwilling to buy said building or improvement, the income or rent derived therefrom shall be equally divided between said lessor and lessee, and the latter shall no longer have the obligation to pay the rent agreed upon for the lots in the second paragraph of this contract; provided, however, that the present contract, with the modification just mentioned, with respect to the income from the building and the rent from the lot, shall continue in force until the lessor buys the building or improvement or the lessee buys the land."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance of Leyte and reversed by the Court of Appeals, which absolved the defendant is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Wherefore, judgment is rendered sentencing defendant to buy the house of plaintiff or to sell to plaintiff the land on which the latter’s house is built. Each of the parties must submit the name of a person to be appointed commissioner for the assessment and appraisal of the land on which plaintiff’s house is built.

    "Defendant is sentenced to pay the costs of the suit."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The main question to be decided in this appeal is whether plaintiff, as lessee, has a right, by virtue of the aforecited fifth clause of the contract of lease, to compel defendant, as lessor, to sell to him the land on which he built his house in accordance with said contract.

    It will be seen that the lessor i8 given the preference of buying the building erected on the leased land at a price equivalent to 90 per cent of the original net cost of the construction upon the termination of the ten years fixed in the contract as the duration of the lease. As ten years have elapsed and the lessor has not exercised his right to buy the building, and has no intention to do so, may the lessee compel the lessor to sell to him the leased land? The lessee is not given the option to buy the land. The grant of said right may not be inferred from the conditional classe of paragraph 5 and from paragraph 4 of the contract since neither in the conditional clause aforecited nor in the fourth paragraph of the contract is the lessor bound to sell the questioned land to the lessee. Furthermore, in the said conditional clause the price which the lessee would have to pay should he decide to buy the land is not fixed. Article 1445 of the Civil Code provides that "By the contract of purchase and sale one of the contracting parties binds himself to deliver a determinate thing and the other to pay a certain price therefor in money or in something representing the same." According to article 1451, "a promise to sell or buy, when there is an agreement as to the thing and the price, entitles the contracting parties reciprocally to demand the fulfillment of the contract." And article 1447 of the same Code provides that in order that the price may be considered certain, it shall be sufficient that it be so in relation to some certain thing, or that its determination be left to the judgment of some particular person, and should the latter be unable or unwilling to fix the price, the contract shall be inoperative. And according to article 1449 of the same Code, the designation of the price can never be left to the determination of one of the contracting parties.

    As we have said, a price certain which the lessee should pay the lessor for the land in case he should desire to buy it has not been fixed; neither has anything which may have a definite value or which may serve as a basis for the fixing of the price been designated. Also, no determinate person has been named to fix the price.

    The price of the leased land not having been fixed and the lessor not having bound himself to sell it, the essential elements which give life to the contract are lacking. It follows that the lessee cannot compel the lessor to sell the leased land to him.

    Having arrived at this conclusion, we do not find sufficient grounds for reversing the decision appealed from, which is hereby affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

    Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45969   May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE<br /><br />067 Phil 739


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED