Douglas Anama vs Court of Appeals and Philippine Savings Bank

Douglas Anama vs Court of Appeals and Philippine Savings Bank on January 22, 2012 00 January 29, 2004, Sales Case, 421 scra 338 Contract to Sell vs Contract of Sale In March 1973, Anama and PSBank entered into a Contract to Buy whereby Anama gets to buy back his parents land which was foreclosed by the Bank. It was agreed that the purchase price is P135k. As agreed, P5k would be due upon signing of the contract, another P5k would be due on April 12, 1973, and P20k would be due on April 30, 1973; theremaining P105k would be the amount of mortgage that would have to be executed by Anama with the bank plus interest. The bank reserves to either rescind the contract or let Anama pay the full amount in case he defaults in any of thepayments. Anama was able to pay the first 2 installments but then he failed to pay the P20k due on April 30, 1973. In July 1974, Anama’s dad wrote to the bank asking for an extension. In February 1975, Anama paid P17.5k to the bank. In May 1976, Anama promised the bank that he’ll pay P20k more on August 3, 1976. He never did, instead he made a paymentof P15.2k on November 26, 1976. On September 9, 1977, the Bank executed an Affidavit of Cancellation rescinding the contract. Anama was then advised to vacate the premises. In addition, the Bank forfeited the payments made by Anama, which were applied as rentals for the use of the property. Anama opposed the rescission of the Contract to Buy, he wrote to the bank’s GM alleging that he was led to believe that the Bank treated the deposits he made as payments on the Contract to Buy. On November 6, 1978, PSBank sold the property to spouses Tomas Co and Saturnina Baria, in whose favor TransferCertificate of Title No. 14239 was subsequently issued. ISSUE: Whether or not the Anama has ownership over the disputed property. HELD: No. The Supreme Court used two views in interpreting the contract. Regard the contract as it is – a Contract to Buy It was agreed that Anama is to pay installment payment amounts on certain dates. Under the Contract to Buy, Anama was supposed to pay the Bank the amount of P20,000.00 covering the third installment on or before April 30, 1973. Anama was not able to pay said amount on the date stipulated. However, he made payments in the amount of P17,500.00 on February 22, 1975 and P15,208.34 on November 25, 1976. On the face of the official receipts covering these amounts appear the words “penalties/interest charges.” Anama insists, though, that he made arrangements with the lawyers of the bank that these words were to be considered mere “typographical errors” and that the amounts reflected as paymentscovering the third installment.

As Anama failed to pay the third installment, PSBank was entitled to rescind the Contract to Buy. The contract provides the Bank two options in the event that Anama fails to pay any of the installments. It was just enforcing its options under the contract. The Contract as a Contract to Sell Viewed in another light, the Contract to Buy is actually a contract to sell whereby PSBank reserves ownership of the property and is not to pass until full payment. Such payments as a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach but simply an event that prevents the obligation of PSBank to convey title from acquiring binding force. Since ownership of the subject property was not to pass to Anama until full payment of the purchase price, his failure to pay onthe date stipulated, or in the extension granted, prevented the obligation for the Bank to pass title to the property to him from arising. It is clear that as of April 30, 1973 which was the deadline for the last installment, the balance of the principal stood at P125,000.00.

Chavez vs Public Estates Authority and AMARI Corporation on February 27, 2012 00 09 July 2002 Land Titles and Deeds – Lands of the Public Domain

The Public Estates Authority is the central implementing agency tasked to undertake reclamation projects nationwide. It took over the leasing and selling functions of the DENR insofar as reclaimed or about to be reclaimed foreshore lands are concerned. PEA sought the transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, of the ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands. PEA also sought to have 290.156 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay to AMARI. ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer is valid. HELD: No. To allow vast areas of reclaimed lands of the public domain to be transferred to PEA as private lands will sanction a gross violation of the constitutional ban on private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of thepublic domain. The Supreme Court affirmed that the 157.84 hectares of reclaimed lands comprising the Freedom Islands, now covered bycertificates of title in the name of PEA, are alienable lands of the public domain. The 592.15 hectares of submerged areas of Manila Bay remain inalienable natural resources of the public domain. Since the Amended JVA seeks to transfer to AMARI, a private corporation, ownership of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Islands, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 3, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits private corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the public domain. Furthermore, since the Amended JVA also seeks to transfer to AMARI ownership of 290.156 hectares of still submerged areas of Manila Bay, such transfer is void for being contrary to Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution which prohibits the alienation of natural resources other than agricultural lands of the public domain.