Last
Last
•The sale cannot be considered illegal because S sold his fishing boat to B in good faith and without even
knowing the motive of B for buying it. Under art 1351 it distinguishes motive from cause of the contract.
Here, there is nothing illegal in the cause of selling the boat, therefor this shall still be considered a legal
contract of sale.
2. S sold to B a specific parcel of land for P500,000. B failed to pay. Has C the right to have the sale
declared void by the court on the ground of absence of cause for non-payment of the price?
•In this situation C is a third party which is an outsider of the contract. Since the cause will exist at the
time the contact is entered into, then on the case of C he no longer has the right to have the sale
declared void since there is no cause on his part because he was not there when the contract was
perfected. This is governed by art 1352.
3. X gave P10,000 to Y who signed a receipt stating: "This is to acknowledge payment by X in the amount
of P12,000." X later complains that he received nothing from Y for the P10,000. Is Y bound to return the
P10,000?
•No because the law presumes that there has been an existing obligation of X for him to give Y the sum
of money. Although X was not able to receive the receipt still it was assumed already that him giving
10,000 to Y has something to do with his obligation unless X will be able to proove that Y acted in Bad
faith as stated in art 1354.
4. S sold to B his car worth P250,000 for only P200,000. There is no question that the purchase price is
grossly inadequate. Has S the right to have the sale annulled?
•Except in cases specified by law an nadequacy of cause shall not invalidate the contract as stopulated
in Art 1355. However, if it has been prooved that the inadequacy of the amount is a result of fraud or
mistake. As parties of the contract one should be responsible enough to balance wether or not the
agreements and stipulation of prices stated is equitable is not unfair to eithet parties.
- o00 –