Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    FACTS: The Spouses Jesus and Cristita Moneset: 7. Ursal Vs Ca 473 Scra 52

    Uploaded by

    Shannon Gayle
    The Monesets owned property that they entered into a contract to sell to Ursal. Ursal paid an initial down payment and some monthly installments, but then stopped paying when the Monesets failed to deliver the title. Without Ursal's knowledge, the Monesets took out a mortgage on the property with a bank. When the Monesets failed to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the property. Ursal sued the Monesets, their attorney, and the bank, arguing the mortgage was invalid. The courts found that the contract was only for sale of the property, not transfer of ownership, so the Monesets remained owners and their mortgage was valid. While the M

    Copyright:

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

    FACTS: The Spouses Jesus and Cristita Moneset: 7. Ursal Vs Ca 473 Scra 52

    Uploaded by

    Shannon Gayle
    52 views1 page
    The Monesets owned property that they entered into a contract to sell to Ursal. Ursal paid an initial down payment and some monthly installments, but then stopped paying when the Monesets failed to deliver the title. Without Ursal's knowledge, the Monesets took out a mortgage on the property with a bank. When the Monesets failed to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the property. Ursal sued the Monesets, their attorney, and the bank, arguing the mortgage was invalid. The courts found that the contract was only for sale of the property, not transfer of ownership, so the Monesets remained owners and their mortgage was valid. While the M

    Original Title

    (7) URSAL_VS_CA_473_SCRA_52_digest.docx

    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 Monesets owned property that they entered into a contract to sell to Ursal. Ursal paid an initial down payment and some monthly installments, but then stopped paying when the Monesets failed to deliver the title. Without Ursal's knowledge, the Monesets took out a mortgage on the property with a bank. When the Monesets failed to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the property. Ursal sued the Monesets, their attorney, and the bank, arguing the mortgage was invalid. The courts found that the contract was only for sale of the property, not transfer of ownership, so the Monesets remained owners and their mortgage was valid. While the M

    Copyright:

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

    FACTS: The Spouses Jesus and Cristita Moneset: 7. Ursal Vs Ca 473 Scra 52

    Uploaded by

    Shannon Gayle
    The Monesets owned property that they entered into a contract to sell to Ursal. Ursal paid an initial down payment and some monthly installments, but then stopped paying when the Monesets failed to deliver the title. Without Ursal's knowledge, the Monesets took out a mortgage on the property with a bank. When the Monesets failed to repay the loan, the bank foreclosed on the property. Ursal sued the Monesets, their attorney, and the bank, arguing the mortgage was invalid. The courts found that the contract was only for sale of the property, not transfer of ownership, so the Monesets remained owners and their mortgage was valid. While the M

    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

    7. URSAL VS CA 473 SCRA 52 Monesets are liable to pay damages pursuant to Art.

    1169
    of the Civil Code on reciprocal obligations.[47]
    FACTS: The spouses Jesus and Cristita Moneset  
    (Monesets) are the registered owners of a 333-square  
    meter land together with a house thereon The vendors breach of the contract,
    notwithstanding, ownership still remained with the
    they executed a Contract to Sell Lot & House in favor of Monesets and petitioner cannot justify her failure to
    petitioner Winifreda Ursal (Ursal), with the condition that complete the payment.
    Ursal is to pay P50k as down payment and will continue to  
    pay P3k monthly starting the next month until the balance  
    is paid off. Having no cause of action against the bank and not being
    an owner of the subject property, petitioner is not entitled
    After paying six monthly installments, petitioner stopped to redeem the subject property.
    paying due to the Monesets failure to deliver to her the  
    transfer certificate of title of the property as per their
    agreement; and because of the failure of the Monesets to
    turn over said title, petitioner failed to have the contract of
    sale annotated thereon.[5]
      
    Unknown to petitioner, Bundalo, as attorney-in-fact of the
    Monesets, executed a real estate mortgage over said
    property with Rural Bank of Larena

     For the failure of the Monesets to pay the loan, the Bank
    served a notice of extrajudicial foreclosure
     
    Ursal filed an action for declaration of non-effectivity of
    mortgage and damages against the Monesets, Bundalo and
    the Bank. She

    Regional Trial Court decision finding that Ursal is more


    credible than the Monesets and that the Monesets are
    liable for damages for fraud and breach of the contract to
    sell:

    CA affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the Contract to sell conferred


    ownership over the property to petitioner

    RULING: NO

    contract between petitioner and the Monesets being one of


    Contract to Sell Lot and House, petitioner, under the
    circumstances, never acquired ownership over the
    property and her rights were limited to demand for
    specific performance from the Monesets, which at this
    juncture however is no longer feasible as the property had
    already been sold to other persons.

    Since the contract in this case is a contract to sell,


    the ownership of the property remained with the
    Monesets even after petitioner has paid the down payment
    and took possession of the property. 
     
    Petitioner attributes her decision to stop paying
    installments to the failure of the Monesets to comply with
    their agreement to deliver the transfer certificate of title
    after the down payment of P50,000.00. On this point, the
    trial court was correct in holding that for such failure, the

    You might also like