Scribd
Upload
173 views1 page

Aquiles Riosa Vs Tabaco La Suerte Corporation G.R. No. 203786 October 23, 2013

Aquiles Riosa claimed ownership of a commercial lot and took out loans from Sia Ko Pio totaling $50,000. When Aquiles signed documents for the loans, one purported to be a deed of sale transferring the property to Tabaco La Suerte Corporation. However, the court found there was no valid contract of sale. There was no evidence La Suerte authorized the purchase or that Aquiles intended to sell the property. The elements of a sale, including consent and agreement on price, were not present. The court ruled in favor of Aquiles and nullified the purported deed of sale.

Uploaded by

Ge-An Moiseah Salud
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
173 views1 page

Aquiles Riosa Vs Tabaco La Suerte Corporation G.R. No. 203786 October 23, 2013

Aquiles Riosa claimed ownership of a commercial lot and took out loans from Sia Ko Pio totaling $50,000. When Aquiles signed documents for the loans, one purported to be a deed of sale transferring the property to Tabaco La Suerte Corporation. However, the court found there was no valid contract of sale. There was no evidence La Suerte authorized the purchase or that Aquiles intended to sell the property. The elements of a sale, including consent and agreement on price, were not present. The court ruled in favor of Aquiles and nullified the purported deed of sale.

Uploaded by

Ge-An Moiseah Salud
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Aquiles Riosa vs Tabaco La Suerte Corporation

G.R. No. 203786


October 23, 2013

Facts:

Aquiles Riosa alleged that he was the owner and in actual possession of a commercial lot that he
acquired through a deed of cession and quitclaim executed by his parents; that subsequently, on three
(3) occasions, he obtained loans from Sia Ko Pio in the total amount of ₱50,000.00; that Sia Ko Pio
presented to him a document purportedly a receipt for the ₱50,000.00 loan with an undertaking to pay
the total amount of ₱52,000.00 including the ₱2,000.00 attorney’s fees, and without reading the
document, he affixed his signature thereon; and that to his surprise, he received a letter from La Suerte
informing him that the subject lot was already registered in its name.

Aquiles claimed that he was made to sign the document which he thought was a receipt and
undertaking to pay the loan, only to find out later that it was a document of sale. He thus prayed for
the nullification of the deed of sale with La Suerte.

Issue:

Whether there was a perfected and valid contract of sale for the subject property between Aquiles and
La Suerte, through Sia Ko Pio.

Ruling:

No, there was no perfected contract of sale. The elements of a contract of sale are: a] consent or
meeting of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; b] determinate
subject matter; and c] price certain in money or its equivalent. In this case, there was no clear and
convincing evidence that Aquiles definitely sold the subject property to La Suerte, nor was there
evidence that La Suerte authorized Sia Ko Pio to negotiate and conclude a purchase of the property.
It was a series of transactions between Aquiles, as borrower, and Sia Po Ko, as lender. It was not a
sale between Aquiles, as vendor, and La Suerte, as vendee. There was no agreement between the
parties. As the first element was wanting, Aquiles correctly argued that there was no contract of sale.
Under Article 1475 of the Civil Code, the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting
of minds on the thing which is the object of the contract and on the price.

It has also been held that the existence of a signed document which appears to be a contract of sale
does not preclude a finding that the contract is invalid when the evidence shows that there was no
meeting of the minds between the seller and buyer. More importantly, La Suerte did not earlier ask
him to transfer the possession thereof to the company. These circumstances support Aquiles’
testimony that he did not sell the property.

You might also like