Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DELA CRUZ
1. Coronel v. CA
Facts:
FACTS:
Luisa Gomez, predecessor-in-interest of herein
petitioner Vicente Gomez, was awarded Lot 4, Block 1,
subject to the provisions of Resolution No. 3-78 of the
URBAN and building, subdivision and zoning rules and
regulations.
On 18 January 1980, Luisa Gomez finally paid in full
the P3,556.00 purchase price of the lot. In 1982, Luisa,
together with her spouse Daniel, left again for the United
States of America where she died on 09 January 1983.
On 23 November 1984 there was an investigation
concerning the awarded lots because of violations to the
conditions agreed upon by the awardee-lessee.
Violation: The place was found actually occupied by Mrs.
Erlinda Perez and her family together with Mr. Mignony
Lorghas and family, who are paying monthly rentals of
P210.00 each to Vicente Gomez, brother of awardee.
3. Romero v. CA
Facts:
Facts:
David Raymundo (private respondent) is the absolute
and registered owner of a parcel of land, located at 1918
Kamias St., Dasmarias Village Makati, together with the
house and other improvements, which was under lease. It
was negotiated by Davids father with plaintiffs Avelina and
Mariano Velarde (petitioners). ADeed of Sale with
Facts:
Felixberto Oruma sold his inherited land to Cosme
Pido, which land is rented by petitioner Teodoro Acap. When
Cosme died intestate, his heirs executed a Declaration of
6. Quijada v. CA
Facts:
On April 5, 1956, Trinidad Quijada and her sisters
executed a deed of conditional donation in favor of the
Municipality of Talacogon, the condition being that the land
shall be used exclusively for the construction of a provincial
high school. Trinidad remained in possession of the land. On
July 29, 1962, Trinidad sold the land to respondent
Regalado Mondejar. In 1980, the heirs of Trinidad, herein
petitioners, filed a complaint for forcible entry against the
7. Fule v. CA
Facts:
Held:
A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is
a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of
the contract and upon the price. Being consensual, a
contract of sale has the force of law between the contracting
parties and they are expected to abide in good faith by their
respective contractual commitments. It is evident from the
facts of the case that there was a meeting of the minds
between petitioner and Dr. Cruz. As such, they are bound by
the contract unless there are reasons or circumstances that
warrant its nullification.
Contracts that are voidable or annullable, even
though there may have been no damage to the contracting
9. Gaite v. Fonacier
Facts:
FACTS:
1. Plaintiff firm for many years past has been and is now engaged
in business of buying and selling at wholesale hemp.
2. It was customary for it to sell hemp in bales and that in all sales
of hemp by the plaintiff firm no mention is made of baling; but with
the tacit understanding, unless otherwise expressly agreed, that
the hemp will be delivered in bales.
3. A charge is then made against the buyers for said baling.
4. Elias Cromwell, the Collector of the Internal Revenue then
made a tax assessment upon the sums received from the sale of
baled hemp.
5. Plaintiff paid under protest contending that the tax assessed by
the defendant upon the aggregate of charges made against said
purchasers of hemp by the plaintiff is illegal upon the ground that
the said charge does not constitute a part of the selling price of
the hemp, but is a charge made for the services of baling the
hemp.
ISSUE: Is there a contract of sale?
HELD:
Facts:
Engineering Equipment and Supply Co., an engineering
and machinery firm, is engaged in the design and installation of
Facts:
Celestino Co & Company is a general copartnership registered under the trade name Oriental
Sash Factory. From 1946 to 1951, it paid taxes
equivalent to 7% on the gross receipts under Sec. 186 of
the NIRC, which is a tax on the original sales of articles by
manufacturer, producer or importer. However, in 1952 it
began to claim only 3% tax under Sec. 191, which is a tax
on sales of services. Petitioner claims that it does not
manufacture ready-made doors, sash and windows for the
public, but only upon special orders from the customers,
hence, it is not engaged in manufacturing, but only in
sales of services.
Issue: Whether the petitioner company is engaged in
manufacturing, or is merely a special service provider
Held:
Celestino Co & Company habitually makes sash,
windows and doors, as it has represented in its stationery
and advertisements to the public. That it "manufactures"
the same is practically admitted by appellant itself. The
fact that windows and doors are made by it only when
customers place their orders, does not alter the nature of
the establishment, for it is obvious that it only accepted
such orders as called for the employment of such
material-moulding, frames, panels-as it ordinarily
manufactured or was in a position habitually to
manufacture.
Any builder or homeowner, with sufficient money,
may order windows or doors of the kind manufactured by
this appellant. Therefore it is not true that it serves
special customers only or confines its services to them
alone. And anyone who sees, and likes, the doors ordered
Advertisement as manufacturer/contractor
2)
Ready-made materials
Facts: