BOWE V. CA Campos, Jr., J.

March 19, 1993 Petition for review on certiorari RATIO DECIDENDI: The absence of formal deed of conveyance strongly indicates that the parties did not intend immediate transfer of title, b t only a transfer after f ll payment of the price. QUICK FACTS: !arcia and "rbolario #represented by $owe% entered into a contract of lease for five years in relation to the former&s apartment. !arca agreed to sell to them the property. "fter the receipt of several downpayments, it was agreed that the balance will be paid after !arcia ret rned to the Philippines. !arcia decided not to sell the property and demanded that the petitioners vacate the apartment b t petitioners claim that they wo ld not vacate the premises since they already own the property thro gh a perfected contract of sale. FACTS: Teodoro !arcia&s wife ' ( !arcia, as owner and lessor of an apartment b ilding entered into a contract of lease with 'a ra "rbolario #now deceased, s bstit ted by her son 'awrence $owe%, for a period of ) years. * ring the efficacy of the contract of lease in 19+,, Teodoro !arcia and his son, -erafin !arcia, verbally agreed to sell the disp ted ho se and lot to the spo ses Cirilo and 'a ra "rbolario for a consideration of P,,.,....... The first of the downpayments was for P,,/...... - cceeding payments were also made in installment and private respondents admittedly received the total amo nt of P//,...... and it was agreed that the balance will be paid by the petitioners to private respondent pon the latter&s #Teodoro !arcia% ret rn to the Philippines when he co ld e0ec te the deed of absol te sale. "fter the petitioners& last payment, private respondent wrote them a letter informing them that the deal is off and after the e0piration of the lease contract, private respondent&s son -erafin went to petitioners and offered an acco nting of the amo nts of money they have paid b t the petitioners ref sed, claiming that they already own the property. Teodoro !arcia, represented by his son, -erafin filed a complaint against 'a ra "rbolario, 1oined by her h sband Cirilo #Carlos% "rbolario. The lower co rt r led in favor of the !arcias. The Co rt of "ppeals affirmed the decision of the 2TC. 3ence this appeal. Petitioners contend that the contract of lease between them and private respondent was already s pplanted and4or abandoned in 19+, when their contract of sale, altho gh admittedly verbal, was perfected and partially performed. Conse5 ently, their relationship as lessor and lessee was terminated effectively and ipso facto pon s ch perfection of their contract of sale. To bolster their contention, petitioners introd ced several receipts as evidence of their payment in installments. Private respondent, on the other hand, co nters that the contract was not one 6of sale6 b t a mere 6contract to sell6, or at most, a conditional contract of sale. ISSUES: 1. 789 the contract of lease has been s pplanted and4or abandoned ,. 789 the s it was for nlawf l detainer

DECISION: Petition DENIED. Court ruled in f !or of t"e #etitioner$. %E&D: " contract of sale is perfected by mere consent. :t is not eno gh to state, however, that the contract of sale, being consens al, became effective between petitioners and private respondent as of 19+,. - ch fact is beyond disp te. 7hat is cr cial at this point is to ascertain those nderta;ings which the parties have consented in order to determine the nat re of their agreement. 1. The verbal agreement between petitioners and private respondent was only a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. " caref l e0amination of the receipts, presented by the petitioners shows that the amo nts contained therein are either 6downpayments6, 6ded ctible from apartment sale6 or 6an advanced payment of ncons mmated sale6. Those are the only terms contained in the said e0hibits. 9othing more. There was no immediate transfer of title to petitioners to spea; of as wo ld have happened if there had been a sale at the o tset. Clearly the absence of formal deed of conveyance strongly indicates that the parties did not intend immediate transfer of title, b t only a transfer after f ll payment of the price. ,. Considering that there was an implied renewal of lease, there is no nlawf l detainer to spea; of. "n implied new lease or tacita recond ccion will set in if it is shown that< #a% the term of the original contract of lease has e0pired= #b% the lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate= and #c% the lessee contin ed en1oying the thing leased for fifteen days with the ac5 iescence of the lessor. This ac5 iescence may be inferred from this fail re to serve a notice to 5 it. 9o tal;s have been held between the lessor and the lessees concerning the renewal of the lease. $y the inaction of the lessor, there can be no inference that he intends to discontin e it. 9ot only was there an absence of notice to vacate b t there were also no comm nications that transpired between the parties regarding the lease. The earliest comm nication was definitely way beyond the 1)>day stat tory period re5 ired by law.