Heirs of Mascunana v CA

[G.R. No. 158646. June 23, 2005]

HEIRS OF JESUS M. MASCUANA, !e"!e#en$e% &' JOSE MA. R.
MASCUANA, petitioners,
vs.
COUR( OF A))EA*S, A+UI*INO ,AR(E, -n% S)OUSES RO.O*FO
-n% CORA/ON *A0UMAS, respondents.
1. Gertrudis Wuthrich and her six other siblings were the co-owners of a parcel of land
identified as Lot No. 124 of the San Carlos Cit! Negros "ccidental Cadastre. "#er ti$e!
Gertrudis and two other co-owners sold each of their one-se#enth %1&'( shares! or a total
area of '41 s)uare $eters! to *esus +ascu,ana.
2. *esus +ascunana sold a portion of his 14--s)uare-$eter undi#ided share of the
propert to .iosdado Su$ilhig. +ascu,ana later sold an additional 1/--s)uare-$eter
portion to Su$ilhig. 0owe#er! the parties agreed to re#o1e the said deed of sale and! in
lieu thereof! executed a .eed of 2bsolute Sale. 3n the said deed! +ascu,ana! as #endor!
sold an undi#ided 4/4-s)uare-$eter portion of the propert for 54!/4-.--!
with 56!/4-.-- as down pa$ent.% balance of ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,000.00) shall be paid by he !ENDEE "no he !ENDO# as
soon as he abo$e%po&ions of 'o 1() shall ha$e been
s"&$eyed in he na*e of he !ENDEE and all pape&s pe&inen
and necessa&y o he iss"ance of a sepa&ae +e&i,cae of Tile
in he na*e of he !ENDEE shall ha$e been p&epa&ed. ( 2 sur#e
was conducted and the portion of the propert deeded to Su$ilhig was
identified in the said plan as Lot No. 124-7.
8/9
6. +eanwhile! +ascu,ana died intestate and was sur#i#ed b his heirs!
:#a +. :llisin! ;enee 0ewlett! Car$en <da. de "pe,a! +arilou . and
*ose +a. ;. +ascu,ana.
4. Su$ilhig executed a .eed of Sale of ;eal 5ropert
8'9
on a portion of Lot No. 124-7 with
an area of 4/4 s)uare $eters and the i$pro#e$ents thereon! in fa#or of Cora=on
Lau$as! the wife of *udge ;odolfo Lau$as! for the price of 511!---.--. >he spouses
Lau$as then had the propert subdi#ided into two lots? Lot No. 124-7-2 with an area of
'1 s)uare $eters under the na$e of *esus +ascu,ana! and Lot No. 124-7-1! with an
area of 4/4 s)uare $eters under their na$es.
@. the spouses Lau$as allowed 2)uilino 7arte to sta on a portion of the propert to ward
off s)uatters.
81-9
7arte and his 1in! ;osto$ 7arte! then had their houses constructed on
the propert.
/. Cora=on Lau$as wrote 5epito +ascu,ana! offering to pa the a$ount of 51!---.--!
the balance of the purchase price of the propert under the deed of absolute sale
executed b +ascu,ana and Su$ilhig on 2ugust 12! 14/1.
8129
0owe#er! the addressee
refused to recei#e the $ail $atter.
8169
'. Un-no.n o spo"ses lay"*as, 'o no.1()%/ .as iss"ed in he na*e of 0es"sa
1asc"nana.
A. the heirs of +ascu,ana filed a Co$plaint
81@9
for reco#er of possession of Lot No. 124-7
and da$ages with a writ of preli$inar inBunction! alleging that the owned the subBect
lot b #irtue of successional rights fro$ their deceased father. >he a#erred that 7arte
surreptitiousl entered the pre$ises! fenced the area and constructed a house thereon
without their consent.
4. 7arte ad$itted ha#ing occupied a portion of Lot No. 124-7! but clai$ed that he secured
the per$ission of ;odolfo Lau$as
1-. the spouses Lau$as filed a +otion for Lea#e to 3nter#ene alleging that the were the
true owners of the subBect propert
11. 0ence this petition for re#iew on certiorari of the .ecision
819
of the Court of 2ppeals %C2(
in C2 affir$ing the .ecision
829
;>C which ordered the dis$issal of the petitionersC
co$plaint for reco#er of possession and da$ages.
3SSD:? .hehe& o& no THE SA'E O2 'OT NO. 1()%/ 1ADE /3
0ESUS 1. 1AS+U4ANA 5N 2A!O# O2 D5OSDADO SU15'H56 A
+ONT#A+T TO SE'' O# +ONT#A+T O2 SA'E. (peiione&s a&e
conendin7 con&ac o sell)
HE'D8 con&ac of sale.
While it is true that *esus +ascu,ana executed the deed of absolute sale o#er the
propert on 2ugust 12! 14/1 in fa#or of .iosdado Su$ilhig for 54!/4-.--! and that it
was onl on *ul /! 14/2 that >C> No. 4/' was issued in his na$e as one of the co-
owners of Lot No. 124! .iosdado Su$ilhig and the respondents ne#ertheless ac)uired
ownership o#er the propert. >he deed of sale executed b *esus +ascu,ana in fa#or
of .iosdado Su$ilhig on 2ugust 12! 14/1 was a perfected contract of sale o#er the
propert. 3t is settled that a perfected contract of sale cannot be challenged on the
ground of the non-transfer of ownership of the propert sold at that ti$e of the
perfection of the contract! since it is consu$$ated upon deli#er of the propert to the
#endee. 3t is through tradition or deli#er that the buer ac)uires ownership of the
propert sold. 2s pro#ided in 2rticle 14@A of the New Ci#il Code! when the sale is $ade
through a public instru$ent! the execution thereof is e)ui#alent to the deli#er of the
thing which is the obBect of the contract! unless the contrar appears or can be inferred.
>he record of the sale with the ;egister of .eeds and the issuance of the certificate of
title in the na$e of the buer o#er the propert $erel bind third parties to the sale. 2s
between the seller and the buer! the transfer of ownership ta1es effect upon the
execution of a public instru$ent co#ering the real propert.
8619
Long before the
petitioners secured a >orrens title o#er the propert! the respondents had been in actual
possession of the propert and had designated 7arte as their o#erseer.
%article 14@A(3n this case! there was a $eeting of the $inds between the #endor and
the #endee! when the #endor undertoo1 to deli#er and transfer ownership o#er the
propert co#ered b the deed of absolute sale to the #endee for the price of 54!/4-.--
of which 56!/4-.-- was paid b the #endee to the #endor as down pa$ent. >he
#endor undertoo1 to ha#e the propert sold! sur#eed and segregated and a separate
title therefor issued in the na$e of the #endee! upon which the latter would be obliged to
pa the balance of 51!---.--. >here was no stipulation in the deed that the title to the
propert re$ained with the #endor! or that the right to unilaterall resol#e the contract
upon the buerCs failure to pa within a fixed period was gi#en to such #endor. 5atentl!
the contract executed b the parties is a deed of sale and not a contract to sell.
Applying these principles of DIGNOS vs CA to this case, it cannot be gainsaid that
the contract of sale between the parties is absolute, not conditional. here is no
reservation of ownership nor a stipulation providing for a unilateral rescission by
either party. In fact, the sale was consu!!ated upon the delivery of the lot to
respondent. hus, Art. "#$$ provides that the ownership of the thing sold shall be
transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof.
8669
>he condition in the deed that the balance of 51!---.-- shall be paid to
the #endor b the #endee as soon as the propert sold shall ha#e been
sur#eed in the na$e of the #endee and all papers pertinent and necessar to
the issuance of a separate certificate of title in the na$e of the #endee shall
ha#e been prepared is not a condition which pre#ented the efficac of the
contract of sale. 3t $erel pro#ides the $anner b which the total purchase
price of the propert is to be paid.
3n a contract to sell! ownership is retained b a seller and is not to be
transferred to the #endee until full pa$ent of the price. Such pa$ent is a
positi#e suspensi#e condition! the failure of which is not a breach of contract
but si$pl an e#ent that pre#ented the obligation fro$ ac)uiring binding force.
86@9
3t bears stressing that in a contract of sale! the non-pa$ent of the price is
a resolutor condition which extinguishes the transaction that! for a ti$e!
existed and discharges the obligation created under the transaction.
86/9
2 seller
cannot unilaterall and extraBudiciall rescind a contract of sale unless there is
an express stipulation authori=ing it. 3n such case! the #endor $a file an
action for specific perfor$ance or Budicial rescission.
86'9
2rticle 11/4 of the New Ci#il Code pro#ides that in reciprocal obligations!
neither part incurs in dela if the other does not co$pl or is not read to
co$pl in a proper $anner with what is incu$bent upon hi$E fro$ the
$o$ent one of the parties fulfills his obligation! dela b the other begins. 3n
this case! the #endor %*esus +ascu,ana( failed to co$pl with his obligation
of segregating Lot No. 124-7 and the issuance of a >orrens title o#er the
propert in fa#or of the #endee! or the latterCs successors-in-interest! the
respondents herein. Worse! petitioner *ose +ascu,ana was able to secure
title o#er the propert under the na$e of his deceased father.