Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    LIU V. LOY (September 13, 2004) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Justine M.
    The court ruled in favor of Frank Liu, finding that his contract to purchase lots 5 and 6 from the estate of Teodoro Vaño was valid, despite the lots later being sold to the Loys without court approval. While Liu's contract was for sale and not immediate conveyance of ownership, it was still binding on the estate once payment was made. The sale to the Loys by the estate administrator was void under the Rules of Court since court approval is required to sell estate property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LIU V. LOY (September 13, 2004) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Justine M.
    31 views1 page
    The court ruled in favor of Frank Liu, finding that his contract to purchase lots 5 and 6 from the estate of Teodoro Vaño was valid, despite the lots later being sold to the Loys without court approval. While Liu's contract was for sale and not immediate conveyance of ownership, it was still binding on the estate once payment was made. The sale to the Loys by the estate administrator was void under the Rules of Court since court approval is required to sell estate property.

    Original Description:

    specpro

    Original Title

    Mallari - 9

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court ruled in favor of Frank Liu, finding that his contract to purchase lots 5 and 6 from the estate of Teodoro Vaño was valid, despite the lots later being sold to the Loys without court approval. While Liu's contract was for sale and not immediate conveyance of ownership, it was still binding on the estate once payment was made. The sale to the Loys by the estate administrator was void under the Rules of Court since court approval is required to sell estate property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views1 page

    LIU V. LOY (September 13, 2004) Facts

    Uploaded by

    Justine M.
    The court ruled in favor of Frank Liu, finding that his contract to purchase lots 5 and 6 from the estate of Teodoro Vaño was valid, despite the lots later being sold to the Loys without court approval. While Liu's contract was for sale and not immediate conveyance of ownership, it was still binding on the estate once payment was made. The sale to the Loys by the estate administrator was void under the Rules of Court since court approval is required to sell estate property.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    LIU V.

    LOY (September 13, 2004)


    FACTS:
     The Court previously held that Lot Nos. 5 and 6 belong to Frank Liu since the probate
    court approved his deeds of sale in accordance to Rule 89. The Loys oppose, and pray to
    declare the deeds void.
     The Loys insist that the transaction between Teodoro Vaño and Benito Liu, the
    predecessor-in-interest of Frank Liu, is a contract to sell. In contrast, the transactions
    between Vaño and the Loys were contracts of sale. The Loys contend that there was no
    transfer of ownership to Liu because it was only a promise to sell subject to the full
    payment of the consideration.
    o Frank Liu stopped payments on the lots because the titles were not yet
    transferred to Benito.
    o In the meantime, Frank and Teodoro lost contact and Teodoro sold the lots to
    the Loys.
    ISSUE: WON the sale of the lots to Benito Liu was valid.
    HELD: YES.
     A prior contract to sell made by the decedent during his lifetime prevails over a
    subsequent contract of sale made by the administrator without probate court approval.
    It is immaterial if the prior contract is a mere contract to sell and does not immediately
    convey ownership.
    o Frank Liu’s contract to sell became valid and effective upon its execution and
    bound the estate to convey the property upon full payment of the consideration.
     The Loys contend that Teodoro, as administrator and sole heir to the properties, can sell
    the lots to them since the rights of an heir are transmitted from the moment of death of
    the testator.
    o No. Well-settled is the rule that an administrator needs court approval to sell
    estate property, otherwise the sale is void. Court approval of the sale of estate
    property is clearly required under Rule 89 of the Rules of Court, which
    enumerates the instances when the court may allow the sale or encumbrance of
    estate property:
     The laws, Rules of Court, jurisprudence and regulations explicitly require court approval
    before any sale of estate property by an executor or administrator can take effect. The
    purpose of requiring court approval is to protect creditors. In this case, Frank Liu is a
    creditor, and he is the person the law seeks to protect.
     The Loys are not buyers and registrants in good faith considering that they bought from
    a seller who was not a registered owner. Teodoro Vaño signed both contracts of sale but
    the titles to the lots sold were in the name of "Estate of Jose Vaño."

    You might also like