SALES

Article 1545. Where the obligation of either party

to a contract of sale is subject to any condition
which is not performed, such party may refuse to
proceed with the contract or he may waive
performance of the condition. If the other party
has promised that the condition should happen
or be performed, such first mentioned party may
also treat t.he non-performance of the condition
as a breach of warranty
SECTION 3
CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES
Where the ownership in the thing has not
passed, the buyer, may treat the fulfillment
by the seller of his obligation to deliver the
same as described and as warranted
expressly or by implication in the contract
of sale as a condition of the obligation of
the buyer to perform his promise to accept
and pay for the thing.
A.Conditions may be waived



B. Conditions may be considered
as warranties
PRESENCE OF CONDITIONS
AND WARRANTIES
Any affirmation of fact or any promise by the seller
relating to the thing is an express warranty if the natural
tendency of such affirmation or promise is to induce the
buyer the buyer to purchase the same, and if the buyer
purchases the thing relying thereon. No affirmation of
the value of the thing, nor any statement purporting to
be a statement of the sellers opinion only , shall be
construed as a Warranty, unless the seller made such
affirmation or statement as an expert and it was relied by
the buyer.




ARTICLE. 1546
A good test:
A. If the buyer is ignorant, there is warranty.
B. If the buyer is expected to have an opinion
AND the seller has no special opinion, there is no
warranty. (Spencer Heater Co. v. Abbot, 91 N.J.L-
594, 104 Atl.91).
WHEN IS THERE A WARRANTY?
It is any affirmation of fact, or any promise by
the seller relating to the thing if the natural
tendency of such affirmation or promise is to
induce the buyer to purchase the same, and if the
buyer purchases the thing relying thereon.
EXPRESS WARRANTY
Simplex commendatio non-obligat
Principle of caveat emptor
EFFECT OF DEALERS TALK
Rule when there is no deliberate Lie
Gochangco v. Dean, 47 Phil. 687
In a contract of sale, unless a contrary intention
appears, there is:
1. An implied warranty on the part of the seller
that he has a right to sell the thing at the time
when the ownership is to pass, and that the buyer
shall from that time have and enjoy the legal and
peaceful possession of the things;
ARTICLE 1547
2. An implied warranty that the thing shall be free
from any hidden faults and defects, or any charge or
encumbrance not declared or known to the buyer.
This article shall not, however, be held to render
liable a sheriff, auctioneer, mortgagee, pledgee or other
person professing to sell by virtue of authority in fact
or law, for the sale of a thing in which a third person has
a legal or equitable interest.
A. This article is fundamentally important.

B. A buyer at a tax sale is supposed to take all the
chances because there is no warranty on the part of the
State (Govt v. Adriano, 41 Phil. 1121) and a sheriff does
not guarantee title to the property he sells. (Mun. of
Albay v. Benito, et al., 43 Phil.576).
IMPLIED WARRANTIES AGAINST
EVICTION AND AGAINST
HIDDEN DEFECT
C. 10 years prescription

Republic of the Phils. V. Hon.
Umali
GR 80687, April 10, 1989
WARRANTY IN
CASE OF
EVICTION
SUBSECTION 1
Eviction shall take place whenever by a
final judgment based on a right prior to
the sale or an act imputable to the
vendor, the vendee is deprived of the
whole or of a part of the thing
purchased.


ARTICLE 1548
The vendor shall answer for the eviction
even though nothing has been said in the
contract on the subject .

The contracting parties, however, may
increase, diminish, or suppress this legal
obligation of the vendor.
A. It is a natural element in the contract of sale;
hence, the vendor answers for eviction even if
the contract be silent on this point.

B. The buyer and the seller are, of course,
allowed to add to, subtract from, or even
suppress this legal obligation on the part of the
seller.
WARRANTY IN CASE
OF EVICTION
C. Although it is true that the government is
not liable for the eviction of the purchaser
at a tax sale, still the owner of the property
sold under execution at the instance of the
judgment creditor is liable for eviction,
unless otherwise decreed in the judgment.
D. The buyer is allowed to enforce the warranty
against the seller or against the sellers of his own
immediate seller.

E. Even if the buyer does not appeal from a
judgment ordering his eviction and the judgment
subsequently becomes final, the seller is still liable
for eviction.
F. Even if it was the buyer who
instituted the suit against the third
person, still the seller would be liable, if
the buyer is defeated. What is important
is that the buyer was defeated.
Generally, all rights acquired prior to the
sale by others can be imputed to the seller.
But imputability or fault is really important:
hence, seller is still liable even if the act be
made after the sale.

SELLERS FAULT
Example:
B bought land from S. B did not register. C
then bought same land from S. C registers. B
is defeated. Can B hold S liable for the
eviction although Cs right came after the sale
to him?


Answer:
Yes, because although it came
after the sale yet it was attributable to
Ss own fault and bad faith. (Manresa).
1. his own acts;
2. those of his predecessors-in-
interest.(Manresa).

He is not responsible for dispossession due to:
1. Acts imputable to the buyer himself;
2. Fortuitous events.

RESPONSIBILITY OF
SELLER
A. There is a final judgment;
B. The purchaser has been deprived in whole or in part
of the thing sold;
C. The deprivation was by virtue of a right prior to the
sale (or one imputable to the seller) effected by the
seller;
D. The vendor has been previously notified of the
complaint for eviction at the instance of the
purchaser.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
FOR EVICTION
In general, it is only the buyer in good faith who
may sue for the breach of warranty against
eviction. If he knew of possible dangers, chances
are that he assumed the risk of eviction. (Aspiras
V. Galuan, [C.A.] 53 O.G. 8854).

PLAINTIFF IN SUIT
In a proper case, the suit for the breach can be
directed only against the immediate seller, not
sellers of the seller unless such sellers had
promised to warrant in favor of later buyers
(TS, Dec. 26, 1896) or unless the immediate
seller has expressly assigned to the buyer his
own right to sue his own seller. (De la Riva v.
Escobar, 51 Phil. 243).

DEFENDANT IN SUIT
UP NEXT..

ARTICLE 1549..