FACTS: A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5 of the siblings gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez, who succeeded her father as a co-owner, for the sale of the land to father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner, herein petitioner, Filomena Javellana however didContinue reading “SPOUSES RAMON DOROMAL, SR., AND ROSARIO SALAS v C.A and FILOMENA JAVELLANA.”
Category Archives: Sales
ALMENDRADA VS NGO 471 SCRA 311
FACTS: Petitioner spouses Ricardo Almendrada and Rosario Doroja filed a complaint for legal redemption and damages against respondent spouses Wing On Ngo and Lily T. Ngo before the RTC of Biñan, Laguna. They alleged that: they are the registered owners of a lot situated along Mabini St., San Pedro, Laguna. The spouses Josefina and LysiasContinue reading “ALMENDRADA VS NGO 471 SCRA 311”
SENEN B. AGUILAR v. VIRGILIO B. AGUILAR
FACTS: The parties in this case are brothers, except Alejandro Sangalang, herein intervenor-respondent. Senen and Virgilio purchased a house and lot located in Parañaque City, Metro Manila for the benefit of their father, Maximiano Aguilar (now deceased). The brothers wanted their father to enjoy his retirement in a quiet neighbourhood. On February 23, 1970, theyContinue reading “SENEN B. AGUILAR v. VIRGILIO B. AGUILAR”
GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR v. RODOLFO A. MEDEL
FACTS: A large tract of land situated in the municipality of Bacolod, Negros Occidental, and covered by several certificates of title, formerly belonged as conjugal property to Guillermo Villasor and Basilisa Camento, man and wife. Guillermo Villasor died on September 21, 1914, leaving as universal heirs his widow and five children died intestate while aContinue reading “GUILLERMO P. VILLASOR v. RODOLFO A. MEDEL”
SANTIAGO ORTEGA v. ANDRES ORCINE
FACTS: Petitioner wants to redeem the land he sold to Orcine, which the latter then sold to Esplana. When it was sold to Esplana, it was a mere rice field but the latter had subdivided it into lots and is actually being occupied by a private school. Petitioner invokes Art. 1622. He conceded that theContinue reading “SANTIAGO ORTEGA v. ANDRES ORCINE”
LAUREANO MARQUEZ v. VICENTE VALENCIA, 77 Phil. 782
FACTS: On December 4, 1928, the spouses Laureano Marquez and Eugenia Capiral leased to defendant Vicente Valencia the herein mentioned fishpond for a period of ten years, expiring December 31, 1938. The stipulated yearly rental was P1, 000, payable every month of January. Valencia held the fishpond and paid the rents for the years 1929,Continue reading “LAUREANO MARQUEZ v. VICENTE VALENCIA, 77 Phil. 782”
Cruz vs. Filipinas Investment & Finance Corp., 23 SCRA 791
FACTS: Petitioner Ruperto Cruz purchased on installments one (1) unit of Isuzu Diesel bus from Far East Motors. Petitioner issued a promissory note as evidence of his indebtedness to Far East Motors. To secure such promissory note, chattel mortgage was instituted on the said vehicle. Since no down payment was made by Cruz, an additionalContinue reading “Cruz vs. Filipinas Investment & Finance Corp., 23 SCRA 791”
Cadungog vs. Yap, 469 SCRA 561
FACTS: VirgilioCadungog executed a deed of sale with the right to repurchase on August 17, 1979. Through thedocument, Cadungog sold to his cousin Franklin Ong six parcels of land. Based on the deed of sale, Cadungoghad the right to repurchase within 10 years from the mentioned date. Virgilio, however, failed to redeem the subject property.Continue reading “Cadungog vs. Yap, 469 SCRA 561”
Salonga vs. Concepcion, 470 SCRA 291, September 20, 2005
FACTS: The spouses NatalioSalonga and FelicidadSalonga were the owners of the 8 prime parcels of land located in Dagupan City. They had a commercial building with four floors which stood on their property located along A.B. Fernandez Avenue, Dagupan City. The spouses leased the building to traders and merchants, and lived in a house alongContinue reading “Salonga vs. Concepcion, 470 SCRA 291, September 20, 2005”
Go vs. Bacaron, 472 SCRA 339
FACTS:Eliodoro BACARON conveyed a 15.3955-hectare parcel of land infavor of Benny GO for P20,000.00. He however averred that prior to extending said loan to him, GO required him to execute a document purporting to be a Transfer of Rights but was told that the same would only be a formality as he could redeem theContinue reading “Go vs. Bacaron, 472 SCRA 339”