SALES CASE DOCTRINES DOUBLE SALES CARBONELL V.

CA Good faith of the first buyer does not cease even when he learns of the sale of the same property bought to the second buyer. DAGUPAN TRADING v. MACAM The unregistered sale and conveyance of title and ownership to the first buyer could not have been cancelled and rendered null and void upon subsequent issuance of the torrens title over the land. Thus, if the land is sold again thereafter, the seller would already have no right to transfer it since he does not own the land anymore. DAVID v. BANDIN The defense of having purchased property in good faith may be availed of only where registered land is involved and te buyer relied in good faith on the title of the owner. CARAM v LAURETA - If the agents of the second buyer knew of the first sale, then the principal is deemed to also have known of the first sale. Also, where there were circumstances that should have put the (second buyer on guard and he fails to ascertain such circumstances, he cannot be deemed to be in good faith. !ne who buys without checking the vendor"s title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure. CRUZ v CABANA # A purchaser who has knowledge of fact which would put him upon inquiry and investigation as to possible defects of the title of the vendor and fail to make such inquiry cannot claim that he is in good faith. $nowledge of a prior transfer of a registered property by a subsequent purchaser makes him a purchaser in bad faith. %uch knowledge by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is the first to register the sale. VALDEZ v CA In a case of double sale, as between the registration of an adverse claim and a deed of e&ecution which was e&ecuted before the registration of such adverse claim, but registered thereafter, the first registration in good faith is still preferred. NUGUID v CA In a case of double sale, although the second sale was madeby the heirs of the seller, such heirs are deemed the 'udicial continuation of the personality of the decedent. %o essentially, the sale was made by the same person. Also, as provided by the mirror doctrine, if a certificate of title was clean and free from liens and encumberances and there was nothing on its face, any vice or infirmity in the title of the registered owners (seller , then the buyer need not go beyond what is on the face of the instrument. RADIOWEALTH v PALILEO In a case of double sale of unregistered land, the registration of instruments affecting such unregistered land is (without pre'udice to a third person with a better right." This would mean that mere registration of the sale in one"s favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to someone else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. TANEDO v CA In a case of double sale where the first sale was recorded in good faith, although the second buyer was in possession of the property and the first buyer never took possession of it, the former still has a better right over the property.

OCCENA v ESPONILLA A buyer of real property in the possession of persons other than the seller must be wary and should investigate the rights of those in possession. )ithout such inquiry, the buyer can hardly be regarded as one in good faith.

WARRANTY MOLES v IAC Generally, the sale of secondhand goods is not under implied warranty. *ut under certain circumstances, there may be an implied warranty of fitness for the ordinary purpose of the article sold. Also, a certification that a thing sold (secondhand or not is in A+, condition is an e&press warranty, as compared to mere dealer"s talk. !rdinarily, what does not appear on the face of the written instrument is dealer"s talk, but what is written on it cannot be considered as such. SUNNY LO v KJS A dacion en pago partakes the nature of a sale where the creditor is really buying the property of the debtor which is charged against the latter"s debt. An assignemnt of credit is actually a sale of property of the the seller. Thus, he is bound by certain warranties. -e is responsible for the e&istence and legality of the credit at the time the of the sale. *y warranting the e&istence of credit, the seller should be deemed to have insured the performance thereof in case it is found to be ine&istent. -e should be liable to pay the amount of the indebtedness.

PACTO DE RETRO/EQUITABLE MORTGAGES RAMOS v CA To create the presumpition enunciated in ,./0, the e&istence of one circumstance is enough. DE LEON v SALVADOR If there is a right to redeem, inadequacy of the purchase price should not be material because the debtor can reacquire his property for the same price. Generally, a transaction may be invalidated on the ground of gross inadequacy of the price for reasons of equity. %uch does not follow when the owner is given a right to redeem upon the theory that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the owner to effect redemption. FLORES v SO A pacto de retro sale is one which os sub'ect to a resolutory condition. %o those e&ecuted before the effectivity of the new 1ivil 1ode are governed by the old one because the new one provides that former laws shall regulate acts and contracts with a condition which were entered into before its effectivity. ALONZO v IAC )hile the law requires a written notice to begin the redemption period in case of legal redemption, there are circumstances which provide an e&ception. %ince a long period has lapsed (,2 years in this case , it is presumed that the buyer knew of the sale. -e can be charged with laches, although such requires that he have actual knowledge of the fact (of sale . If the circumstances were such as should have induced inquiry and the means of knowing were

readily available, but the party neglects to do so, he is chargable with laches as if he had known the facts. LAO v CA In determining the nature of the contract, one should look at the intent of the parties, not the nomenclature used to describe it. CAPULONG v CA A sale wherein the seller is given the (option to repurchase" in a separate instrument is still a sale with a right to repurchase. In a pacto de retro sale, the buyer becomes the owner of the property after the sale and merely consolidates his ownership after the lapse of the redemption period. )hile in an equitable mortgage, the mortgagee does not become the owner of the property. SOLID HOMES v CA Although ,.,. of the1ivil 1ode states that the redeemer should only pay the purchase price, contract e&penses, and necessary and useful e&penses, such provision is not restrictive. 1onstrued with ,./,, it should include other stipulations that have been agreed upon by the parties as long as the same is not unlawful. PRIMARY STRUCTURES v VALENCIA In legal redemption, the requirement of notice is mandatory to start the running of the 3/+day prescriptive period to e&ercise such right. A deed of sale is not considered notice to prospective redeemers who were not parties to such deed. LANUZA v DE LEON A provision in the deed of sale of a pacto de retro sale that the property would automatically transfer to the buyer in case the seller fails to repurchase the property after the lapse of the period is a pactum commissorium contrary to law. ETCUBAN v CA - ,.03 does not prescribe any particular form of notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner, so long as he is informed in writing of the sale and the particulars thereof.

LEASE GUZMAN BOCALING !"# C$. v BONNEVIE 4ease of property of an estate under an administrator does not need authority from the probate court because there is no alienation of property of the estate. The same is also true of the lease does not e&ceed one year. YEK SENG CO. v CA 5ere lease of the premises (by virtue of a verbal contract for a number of years, by itself, does not warrant an e&tension of the lease. The lessee should take steps to protect himself from abrupt termination. It is understood that if the rent is paid month by month, the contract is monthly. 1onsequently, the contract e&pires at the end of such month, unless, prior thereto, the e&tension of such term was sought by appropriate action. The lessor could terminate the lease after a month if no e&tension was granted. CLUTARIO v CA The acceptance by the lessor of the payment by the lessee of rentals in arrears does not constitute a waiver of the default in payment of the latter as a valid cause of e'ectment. 6roof of any ground to e'ect a lesse is enough.

YAP v CRUZ Although a lease is month to month which may be terminated at the end of each month, a notice or demand to vacate is necessary to evict the lessee. The lease does not e&pire automatically and such notice is required. LEGAR MANAGEMENT !"# REALTY CORPORATION v CA According to ,.78 of the 1ivil 1ode, lease agreements with no specific period, but in which rentals are paid monthly, are considered to be on a month to month basis. They are for a definite period and e&pire after the last day of any given 3/+day period, upon proper demand and notice by the lessor to the lesse to vacate.