I.

Case 7: Askay v Cosalan

Title: ASKAY V FERNANDO A. COSALAN
GR. No: 21943
Promulgation Date: September 15, 1924
Overview: Askay seeks to rescind the sale of a mine to Cosalan

Facts:
● Askay is an illiterate Igorrote aged 70-80, who owned the mine titled “Pet Kel Mineral
claim” starting 1907.
● Fernando A. Cosalan is Askay’s nephew by marriage and is interested in the mining
enterprise along with his uncle.
● On November 23, 1914, Askay sold the mine to Cosalan for Php 107, a bill fold, one
sheet, one cow, and two carabaos.
● The sale was overseen by a Notary Public. The deed of sale was interpreted to Askay and
he signed the sale using his thumb
● In 1923, Askay asks the Court of First Instance to rescind the sale and to gain back the
mine plus damages

Issue:
● Whether or not the sale was valid?

Ruling:
● In this case, gross inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale as long as there is
no defect in consent or cause. There is no defect in consent just because Askay is
illiterate and is 80 years old because there was an interpreter present to help explain to
him. Both parties formed a judgement and agreed to this sale thus there is no sufficient
ground for the cancellation of this sale.

II. Case 8: Director of Lands vs Abarca

Title: DIRECTOR OF LANDS V TIMOTEO ABARCA
 GR. No: 38581
Promulgation Date: December 18, 1934
Overview: Lot No.700 of cadastral No. 1 of the Court of First Instance of
Davao is being claimed by Datu Bualan, along with other Bagobos on one side, and their former
attorneys Juan A Sarenas and Domingo Braganza on the other.

Facts:
● 14 years ago in a civil case for the land in question. Datu Bualan and his co-claimants
declared the owners of the land with Juan A. Sarenas and Domingo Braganza as their
attorneys.
● The attorneys took possession of the land after the Bagobos were unable to settle the fees
due to the former.
● The Bagobos filed a suit for the recovery of their land. It was granted, on the condition
that they pay their attorneys the sum of P6,000 as fees.
● The Bagobos paid the sum of P5,126.13 to Sarenas and Braganza, and P1,035.87 to the
municipal treasurer in the name of Sarenas and Braganza.
● Claiming that the sum paid to the municipal treasurer of Davao should not be credited,
the court issued a writ of execution, selling the property to Sarenas and Braganza for the
amount of P877.25

Issue:
● Is the sale valid?

Ruling:
● No because the court said the sale was not in accordance to the requirements of the law.
The amount was inadequate as to shock the conscience of the court, since the actual value
of the land at the time was P60,000. Hence the sale was deemed null and void.

III. Case 9: De Leon vs Salvador

Title: AURORA DE LEON VS. HON. SERAFIN SALVADOR
GR. No: 30871
Promulgation Date: December 28, 1970
 Facts:
● On November 8, 1966, the city sheriff levied on execution on two parcels of land each
registered in the names of Bernabe.
● The city sheriff sold the properties to de Leon as the highest bidder. He registered the
certificate of sale on February 14, 1967 with the Caloocan City register of deeds.
● On February 7, 1968, Bernabe filed a case to annul the execution sale and to order a new
auction sale on the grounds that the sale was anomalous and irregular
● The sheriff was ordered to allow Bernabe to redeem his two properties. He deposited the
redemption price and was issued a certificate of redemption.
● Bernabe claims that the price paid by de Leon for the two parcels of land was shocking to
the conscience.
● Bernabe’s motions were presented after the one-year period lapsed. Also, Bernabe did not
make a valid offer of redemption to safeguard his right before questioning the validity of
the execution sale.
● The parcels of land were under an existing mortgage, which affected the price it was sold
for during the execution sale.

Issue:
● Whether there were irregularities in the execution sale held on February 14, 1967.
● Whether the price paid by de Leon was grossly inadequate.

Ruling:
● There were no irregularities in the execution sale because the court ruled the sheriff’s
certificate of redemption as null and void.
● The price paid was not grossly inadequate because of the existing mortgage that affected
the price.

IV. Case 10: Cornejo vs Calupitan

Title: SILVERIO Q. CORNEJO, plaintiff-appellant v. MANUEL CALUPITAN, D.B
CASTANEDA and EUSTACIO BARRERA, defendants-appellees
GR. No: L-2342
Promulgation Date: October 27, 1950
 Overview: Appeal by Cornejo to compel Calupitan to convey his land in favor of
plaintiff-appellant.
Facts:
● On January 1945, Manuel Calupitan asked his brokers, Castaneda and Barrera to sell his
parcel of land located in Barrio Mayabobo, Candelaria, Tayabas, with a measurement of
110.9095 hectares.
● Silverio Cornejo, offered to purchase the piece of land offered by the brokers for a total
amount of 650,000 pesos with an earnest money of 70,000 pesos and, balance payable
within 15 days from January 4, 1975.
● On the same day that the offer was made, Calupitan accepted the offer by signing his
name at the foot of the offer with both parties agreeing that the currency to be used for
the transaction was in japanese military notes.
● Cornejo was only able to give 65,000 japanese military notes on the 6th of January 1945.
● Cornejo asked the brokers to deliver the 65,000 to Calupitan with terms that 585,000
balance was to be made on Jan 25, 1945.
● Upon receiving the note and money, Calupitan did not immediately affix his signature but
instead, issued a receipt for the 65,000 earnest money and specified his terms being, the
balance of 585,000 be paid in Philippine Currency on or before Jan 25,1945.
● Cornejo failed to pay the remaining balance by Jan. 22, 1945 and instead deposited the
amount to the Clerk of Court.
● The Trial court agreed that Cornejo repudiated the agreement originally of 70,000 earnest
money which was later on reduced to 65,000 as well as changing the balance payment
from January 19, 1945 to January 25, 1945.
Issue:
● Is the sale of the land valid?
Ruling:
● No because the court said that the fact that Cornejo changed the original agreement of
70,000 earnest money that was reduced to 65,000 rendered the sale as void. According to
the law, for a contract of sale to be valid, these must include the 3 essential elements of a
contract of sale mainly, consent, object and cause.
● The new proposition that Calupitan did not agree with, violated an essential element of a
contract which is the meeting of the minds. Since there was none in the new agreement
then, there is no perfection of the contract and thus, no valid sale. Therefore, Calupitan is
not obligated to give the land to Cornejo.

V. Case 11: National Bank vs Gonzales

Title: PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALES
GR. No: 21026
Promulgation Date: FEB 13, 1924
Overview: PNB filed a suit against Manuel Gonzales to foreclose the two
mortgages at 15,000. PNB seeks to set aside the sale of the property.
 Facts:
● On November 23, 1921, Philippine National Bank commenced a suit against Manuel
Ernesto Gonzales to foreclose a real mortgage made to secure a promissory note for
P15,000.
● On April 21, 1922, the bank filed a motion for default. On August 28, 1922, the court
rendered judgment in favor of the bank and against the defendant, requiring him within
three months from the date to pay the plaintiff the amount of the two mortgages in
question, together with the interest and costs, and that in default thereof, execution should
be issued for the sale of the property to satisfy the judgment.
● On January 11, 1923, an execution was issued for the sale of the real property described
in the mortgages. The total of the judgement in the first cause of action, including the
interest, was P17,313.59, and in the second mortgage, on the same date, it was P17,755.
● The property advertised for sale was evidenced by Torrens Certificate of Title and
described in Exhibits A, B and C. Exhibit A – 3,657,703 square meters; Exhibit B –
1,335,505, square meters and Exhibit C – 263,765 square meters.
● Exhibits B and C was sold to Saturnino Lopez, for P15,000, that being the highest bid,
and he being the highest bidder.
● The only evidence presented at the hearing on the motion as to the value of any land was
the certificate of the deputy municipal treasurer of Santo Tomas, Pangasinan, which
express that four pieces of land of the defendant Gonzales contained 162 hectares, 4 ares,
and 26 centares, and had a combined assessed valuation of P45,940.
● The bank was personally represented at the sale, and that it refused to bid more than
P15,000. The property was not sold until February 14, 1923.
Issue:
● Whether the sale of the land at P15,000 was valid?
Ruling:
● Since the bank was personally represented at the sale & there is no showing that, if the
property was resold, it would sell for a centavo more than the P15,000. the judgement of
the TC is reversed, and the sale will stand affirmed as of the date of the original
confirmation by the trial court, with costs in favor of the appellant.