Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 7

Republic of the Philippines


G.R. No. 119777 October 23, 1997
DR. ED$IN A. %A&ME !" ELISA TAN'%A&ME, petitioners,
RODOLFO CARI'AN, NELL& CHUA CARI'AN, )or #er*e+) !" * ,-r".! ad
litem o) #er /.!or *o!, LEONELL C. CARI'AN, FREDISMINDA CARI'AN, t#e
G.R. No. 121291 October 23, 1997
FEL&, SONIA, LIL&, D&ESE4EL !" NOEMI ++ *-r!/e" ESCANLAR, petitioners,
RODOLFO CARI'AN, NELL& CHUA CARI'AN, )or #er*e+) !" * ,-r".! ad
litem o) #er /.!or *o!, LEONELL C. CARI'AN, !" SP. PA0UITO CHUA !" NE&
OCCIDENTAL, respondents.

efore us are consolidated petitions for revie! of the decision of the "ourt of #ppeals
in "#$%.R. "V No. &''() !hich affir*ed the trial court+s pronounce*ent that the deed
of sale of ri,hts, interests and participation in favor of petitioners is null and void.
The case arose fro* the follo!in, facts-
Spouses %uiller*o No*bre and Victoriana "ari$an died !ithout issue in .'/0 and
.'&1, respectivel2. No*bre+s heirs include his nephe!s and ,randnephe!s. Victoriana
"ari$an !as succeeded b2 her late brother+s son, %re,orio "ari$an. The latter !as
declared as Victoriana+s heir in the estate proceedin,s for No*bre and his !ife 3Special
Proceedin, No. ($(/('4.
#fter %re,orio died in .'(., his !ife, %enerosa Martine5,
and children, Rodolfo, "ar*en, 6eonardo and 7redis*inda, all surna*ed "ari$an, !ere
also ad8ud,ed as heirs b2 representation to Victoriana+s estate.
6eonardo "ari$an
passed a!a2, leavin, his !ido!, Nell2 "hua vda. de "ari$an and *inor son 6eonell, as
his heirs.
T!o parcels of land, deno*inated as 6ot No. .9.9 and .9.( of the :aban;alan
"adastre !ith an area of /',&)< s=uare *eters and 09<,'01 s=uare *eters,
respectivel2, for*ed part of the estate of No*bre and "ari$an.
On Septe*ber .), .'(1, %re,orio "ari$an+s heirs, herein collectivel2 referred to as
private respondents "ari$an, e>ecuted the Deed of Sale of Ri,hts, Interests and
Participation !orded as follo!s-
NO?, TH@R@7OR@, for and in consideration of the su* of T?O HANDR@D
S@V@NTB$7IV@ THOAS#ND 3P/(),<<<.<<4 Pesos, Philippine "urrenc2, to be
paid b2 the V@ND@@S to the V@NDORS, e>cept the share of the *inor child
of 6eonardo "ari$an, !hich should be deposited !ith the Municipal Treasurer
of Hi*a*a2lan, Province of Ne,ros Occidental, b2 the order of the "ourt of
7irst Instance of Ne,ros Occidental, ranch VI, Hi*a*a2lan, b2 those
presents, do hereb2 SELL, CEDE, TRANSFER and CONVEY by way of
Vendo"# a# to the one$half %&'() *o"t+on *"o$+nd+,+#o of Lot# No#. &-&- and
&-&. %F+#h*ond), of the /aban0alan Cada#t"e, *e"ta+n+n1 to the one$half %&'()
*o"t+on *"o$+nd+,+#o of late V+2to"+ana Ca"+$an unto and in favor of the Vendees,
their heirs, successors and assi,nsC
>>> >>> >>>
That this "ontract of Sale of ri,hts, interests and participations #hall be2o3e
effe2t+,e only 4*on the a**"o,al by the ono"able Co4"t of F+"#t In#tan2e of
Ne1"o# O22+dental, B"an2h VI$ +3a3ayla. 3@*phasis supplied.4
Pedro @scanlar and 7rancisco Hol,ado, the vendees, !ere concurrentl2 the lessees of
the lots referred to above.
The2 stipulated that the balance of the purchase price
3P//),<<<.<<4 shall be paid on or before Ma2 .'(' in a Deed of #,ree*ent e>ecuted
b2 the parties on the sa*e da2-
?H@R@#S, at the ti*e of the si,nin, of the "ontract, V@ND@@S has 3#+24
onl2 7I7TB THOAS#ND 3P)<,<<<.<<4 Pesos available thereof, and !as not
able to secure the entire a*ountC
?H@R@#S, the Vendors and one of the Vendees b2 the na*e of Pedro
@scanlar are relatives, and absolute faith and trust e>ist bet!een the*,
!herein durin, econo*ic crisis, has not failed to ,ive *onetar2 succor to the
?H@R@#S, Vendors herein understood the present scarcit2 of securin,
available each 3#+24 in the a*ount stated in the contractC
NO? TH@R@7OR@, for and in consideration of the su* of 7I7TB
THOAS#ND 3P)<,<<<.<<4 Pesos, Philippine "urrenc2, the balan2e of T5O
UNDRED T5ENTY FIVE TOUSAND %!(6,777.77) !e#o# to be *a+d by
the Vendee# on o" befo"e 8ay, &9.9, the Vendors herein, b2 these Presents,
do hereb2 "ON7IRM and #77IRM the Deed of Sale of the Ri,hts, Interests
and Participation dated Septe*ber .), .'(1, over 6ots Nos. .9.9 and .9.(
3fishpond4 of the :aban;alan "adastre in favor of the V@ND@@S, their heirs
and assi,ns.
That pendin, the co*plete pa2*ent thereof, Vendees shall not assi,n, sell,
lease, nor *ort,a,e the li,hts, interests and participation thereofC
That in the event the Vendees fail andDor o*it to pa2 the balance of said
purchase price on Ma2 &., .'(' and the cancellation of said "ontract of Sale
is *ade thereb2, the su* of 7I7TB THOAS#ND 3P)<,<<<.<<4 Pesos shall be
dee*ed as da*a,es thereof to Vendors. 3@*phasis supplied4.
Petitioners !ere unable to pa2 the "ari$an heirs+ individual shares, a*ountin, to
P)),<<<.<< each, b2 the due date. Ho!ever, said heirs received at least ./
install*ents fro* petitioners after Ma2 .'('.
Rodolfo "ari$an !as full2 paid b2 Eune
/., .'('. %enerosa Martine5, "ar*en "ari$an and 7redis*inda "ari$an !ere li;e!ise
full2 co*pensated for their individual shares, per receipts ,iven in evidence.
*inor 6eonell+s share !as deposited !ith the Re,ional Trial "ourt on Septe*ber (,
ein, for*er lessees, petitioners continued in possession of 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.(.
Interestin,l2, the2 continued to pa2 rent based on their lease contract. On Septe*ber
.<, .'1., petitioners *oved to intervene in the probate proceedin,s of No*bre and
"ari$an as the bu2ers of private respondent "ari$an+s share in 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.(.
Petitioners+ *otion for approval of the Septe*ber .), .'(1 sale before the sa*e court,
filed on Nove*ber .<, .'1., !as opposed b2 private respondents "ari$an on Eanuar2
), .'1/.
On Septe*ber .9, .'1/, the probate court approved a *otion filed b2 the heirs of "ari$
an and No*bre to sell their respective shares in the estate. On Septe*ber /., .'1/,
private respondents "ari$an, in addition to so*e heirs of %uiller*o No*bre,
sold their
shares in ei,ht parcels of land includin, 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.( to the spouses Ne2
Sarrosa "hua and Pa=uito "hua for P.,1)<,<<<.<<. One !ee; later, the vendor$heirs,
includin, private respondents "ari$an, filed a *otion for approval of sale of hereditar2
ri,hts, +.e. the sale *ade on Septe*ber /., .'1/ to the "huas.
Private respondents "ari$an instituted this case for cancellation of sale a,ainst
petitioners 3@scanlar and Hol,ado4 on Nove*ber &, .'1/.
The2 co*plained of
petitioners+ failure to pa2 the balance of the purchase price b2 Ma2 &., .'(' and
alle,ed that the2 onl2 received a total of P.&/,))..<< in cash and ,oods. Petitioners
replied that the "ari$ans, havin, been paid, had no ri,ht to resell the sub8ect lotsC that
the "huas !ere purchasers in bad faithC and that the court approval of the sale to the
"huas !as sub8ect to their e>istin, clai* over said properties.
On #pril /<, .'1&, petitioners also sold their ri,hts and interests in the sub8ect parcels
of land 36ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.(4 to @d!in Ea2*e for P(&),<<<.<<
and turned over
possession of both lots to the latter. The Ea2*es in turn, !ere included in the civil case
as fourth$part2 defendants.
On Dece*ber &, .'10, the probate court approved the Septe*ber /., .'1/ sale
F!ithout pre8udice to !hatever ri,hts, clai*s and interests over an2 of those properties
of the estate !hich cannot be properl2 and le,all2 ventilated and resolved b2 the court
in the sa*e intestate proceedin,s.F
The certificates of title over the ei,ht lots sold b2
the heirs of No*bre and "ari$an !ere later issued in the na*e of respondents Ne2
Sarrosa "hua and Pa=uito "hua.
The trial court allo!ed a third$part2 co*plaint a,ainst the third$part2 defendants
Pa=uito and Ne2 "hua on Eanuar2 (, .'19 !here @scanlar and Hol,ado alle,ed that
the "ari$ans conspired !ith the "huas !hen the2 e>ecuted the second sale on
Septe*ber /., .'1/ and that the latter sale is ille,al and of no effect. Respondents
"hua countered that the2 did not ;no! of the earlier sale of one$half portion of the
sub8ect lots to @scanlar and Hol,ado. oth parties clai*ed da*a,es.
On #pril /1, .'11, the trial court approved the "huas+ *otion to file a fourth$part2
co*plaint a,ainst the spouses Ea2*e. Respondents "hua alle,ed that the Ea2*es
refused to vacate said lots despite repeated de*andsC and that b2 reason of the ille,al
occupation of 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.( b2 the Ea2*es, the2 suffered *ateriall2 fro*
uncollected rentals.
Mean!hile, the Re,ional Trial "ourt of Hi*a*a2lan !hich too; co,ni5ance of Special
Proceedin, No. ($(/(' 3Intestate @state of %uiller*o No*bre and Victoriana "ari$an4
had rendered its decision on October &<,
The probate court concluded that since all the properties of the estate !ere
disposed of or sold b2 the declared heirs of both spouses, the case is considered
ter*inated and the intestate estate of %uiller*o No*bre and Victoriana "ari$an is
closed. The court held-
#s re,ards the various incidents of this case, the "ourt finds no co,ent reason
to resolve the* since the ver2 ob8ect of the various incidents in this case is no
lon,er * e>istence, that is to sa2, the properties of the estate of %uiller*o
No*bre and Victoriana "ari$an had lon, been disposed of b2 the ri,htful heirs
of %uiller*o No*bre and Victoriana "ari$an. In th+# "e#*e2t, the"e +# no need
to "e#ol,e the 8ot+on fo" S4b"o1at+on of 8o,ant# !ed"o E#2anla" and
F"an2+#2o ol1ado to be #4b"o1ated to the "+1ht# of the he+"# of V+2to"+ana
Ca"+$an #+n2e all the *"o*e"t+e# of the e#tate had been t"an#fe""ed and t+tled to
+n the na3e of #*o4#e# Ney S.Ch4a and D". !a:4+to Ch4a. S+n2e the nat4"e
of the *"o2eed+n1# +n th+# 2a#e +# #433a"y, th+# Co4"t, be+n1 a !"obate Co4"t,
ha# no ;4"+#d+2t+on to *a## 4*on the ,al+d+ty o" +n,al+d+ty of the #ale of "+1ht# of
the de2la"ed he+"# of G4+lle"3o No3b"e and V+2to"+ana Ca"+$an to th+"d
!a"t+e#. Th+# +##4e 34#t be "a+#ed +n anothe" a2t+on whe"e +t 2an be *"o*e"ly
,ent+lated and "e#ol,ed. . . . Havin, deter*ined, after e>hausted 3#+24 and
len,th2 hearin,s, the ri,htful heirs of %uiller*o No*bre and Victoriana "ari$
an, the "ourt found out that the second issue has beco*e *oot and acade*ic
considerin, that there are no *ore properties left to be partitioned a*on, the
declared heirs as that had lon, a,o been disposed of b2 the declared
heirs . . . . 3@*phasis supplied4.
The se*inal case at bar !as resolved b2 the trial court on Dece*ber .1, .''. in favor
of cancellation of the Septe*ber .), .'(1 sale. Said transaction !as nullified because
it !as not approved b2 the probate court as re=uired b2 the contested deed of sale of
ri,hts, interests and participation and because the "ari$ans !ere not full2 paid.
"onse=uentl2, the Deed of Sale e>ecuted b2 the heirs of No*bre and "ari$an in favor
of Pa=uito and Ne2 "hua, !hich !as approved b2 the probate court, !as upheld. The
dispositive portion of the lo!er court+s decision reads-
?H@R@7OR@, pre*ises considered, 8ud,*ent is hereb2 rendered as follo!s-
.4 Declarin, the follo!in, contracts null and void and of no effect-
a4 The Deed of Sale, dated Sept. .), .'(1, e>ecuted b2 the
plaintiffs in favor of the defendants Pedro @scanlar and
7rancisco Hol,ado 3@>h. F#,F Plaintiffs4
b4 The Deed of #,ree*ent, dated Sept. .), .'(1, e>ecuted
b2 the plaintiffs in favor of the defendants, Pedro @scanlar
and 7rancisco Hol,ado 3@>h. F#,F Plaintiffs4
c4 The Deed of Sale, dated #pril /<, .'1&, e>ecuted b2 the
defendants in favor of the fourth$part2 defendants, Dr. @d!in
Ea2*e and @lisa Tan Ea2*e
d4 The sale of leasehold ri,hts e>ecuted b2 the defendants
in favor of the fourth$part2 defendants
/4 Declarin, the a*ount of 7ift2 Thousand Pesos 3P)<,<<<.<<4 paid b2 the
defendants to the plaintiffs in connection !ith the Sept. .), .'(1 deed of sale,
as forfeited in favor of the plaintiffs, but orderin, the plaintiffs to return to the
defendants !hatever a*ounts the2 have received fro* the latter after Ma2 &,
.'(' and the a*ount of Thirt2 7ive Thousand T!o Hundred @i,hteen G
()D.<< 3P&),/.1.()4
deposited !ith the Treasurer of Hi*a*a2lan, Ne,ros
Occidental, for the *inor 6eonell ". "ari$an H
&4 Declarin, the deed of sale, dated Septe*ber /&, .'1/, e>ecuted b2 6asaro
No*bre, Victorio Madala,, Do*in,o "a*pillanos, Sofronio "a*pillanos,
%enerosa Vda. de Martine5, "ar*en "ari$an, Rodolfo "ari$an, Nell2 "hua
Vda. de "ari$an, for herself and as ,uardian ad lite* of the *inor 6eonell ".
"ari$an, and 7redis*inda "ari$an in favor of the third$part2 defendants and
fourth$part2 plaintiffs, spouses Dr. Pa=uito "hua and Ne2 Sarrosa "hua 3@>h.
F/F$"hua4 as le,al, valid and enforceable provided that the properties covered
b2 the said deed of sale are sub8ect of the burdens of the estate, if the sa*e
have not been paid 2et.
04 Orderin, the defendants 7rancisco Hol,ado and Pedro @scanlar and the
fourth$part2 defendants, spouses Dr. @d!in Ea2*e and @lisa Tan Ea2*e, to
pa2 8ointl2 and severall2 the a*ount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
3P.<<,<<<.<< as *oral da*a,es and the further su* of Thirt2 Thousand
Pesos 3P&<,<<<.<<4 as attorne2+s fees to the third$part2 defendant spouses,
Dr. Pa=uito "hua and Ne2 Sarrosa$"hua.
)4 Orderin, the fourth$part2 defendant spouses, Dr. @d!in Ea2*e and @lisa
Tan Ea2*e, to pa2 to the third$part2 defendants and fourth$part2 plaintiffs,
spouses Dr. Pa=uito "hua and Ne2 Sarrosa$"hua, the su* of One Hundred
7ift2 Seven Thousand Pesos 3P.)(,<<<.<<4 as rentals for the riceland and
Three Million T!o Hundred Thousand Pesos 3P&,/<<,<<<.<<4 as rentals for
the fishpond fro* October, .'1) to Eul2 /0, .'1' plus the rentals fro* the
latter date until the propert2 shall have been delivered to the spouses Dr.
Pa=uito "hua and Ne2 Sarrosa$"huaC
94 Orderin, the defendants and the fourth$part2 defendants to i**ediatel2
vacate 6ots Nos. .9.9 and .9.(, :aban;alan "adastreC
(4 Orderin, the defendants and the fourth$part2 defendants to pa2 costs.
Petitioners raised the case to the "ourt of #ppeals.
Respondent court affir*ed the
decision of the trial court on 7ebruar2 .(, .'') and held that the =uestioned deed of
sale of ri,hts, interests and participation is a contract to sell because it shall beco*e
effective onl2 upon approval b2 the probate court and upon full pa2*ent of the
purchase price.
Petitioners+ *otion for reconsideration !as denied b2 respondent court on #pril &,
Hence, these petitions.
.. ?e disa,ree !ith the "ourt of #ppeals+ conclusion that the Septe*ber .), .'(1
Deed of Sale of Ri,hts, Interests and Participation is a contract to sell and not one of
The distinction bet!een contracts of sale and contracts to sell !ith reserved title has
been reco,ni5ed b2 this "ourt in repeated decisions, accordin, to Eustice E..6. Re2es
in L4<on B"o0e"a1e Co. In2. ,. 8a"+t+3e B4+ld+n1 Co., In2.,
upholdin, the po!er of
pro*isors under contracts to sell in case of failure of the other part2 to co*plete
pa2*ent, to e>tra8udiciall2 ter*inate the operation of the contract, refuse the
conve2ance, and retain the su*s of install*ents alread2 received !here such ri,hts
are e>pressl2 provided for.
In contracts to sell, o!nership is retained b2 the seller and is not to pass until the full
pa2*ent of the price. Such pa2*ent is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of
!hich is not a breach of contract but si*pl2 an event that prevented the obli,ation of
the vendor to conve2 title fro* ac=uirin, bindin, force.
To illustrate, althou,h a deed
of conditional sale is deno*inated as such, absent a proviso that title to the propert2
sold is reserved in the vendor until full pa2*ent of the purchase price nor a stipulation
,ivin, the vendor the ri,ht to unilaterall2 rescind the contract the *o*ent the vendee
fails to pa2 !ithin a fi>ed period, b2 its nature, it shall be declared a deed of absolute
The Septe*ber .), .'(1 sale of ri,hts, interests and participation as to .D/ portion *"o
+nd+,+#o of the t!o sub8ect lots is a contract of sale for the follo!in, reasons- 7irst,
private respondents as sellers did not reserve unto the*selves the o!nership of the
propert2 until full pa2*ent of the unpaid balance of P//),<<<.<<. Second, there is no
stipulation ,ivin, the sellers the ri,ht to unilaterall2 rescind the contract the *o*ent the
bu2er fails to pa2 !ithin the fi>ed period.
Prior to the sale, petitioners !ere in
possession of the sub8ect propert2 as lessees. Apon sale to the* of the ri,hts, interests
and participation as to the .D/ portion *"o +nd+,+#o, the2 re*ained in possession, not in
concept of lessees an2*ore but as o!ners no! throu,h s2*bolic deliver2 ;no!n
as t"ad+t+o b"e,+ 3an4.
Ander #rticle .0(( of the "ivil "ode, the o!nership of the
thin, sold is ac=uired b2 the vendee upon actual or constructive deliver2 thereof.
In a contract of sale, the non$pa2*ent of the price is a resolutor2 condition !hich
e>tin,uishes the transaction that, for a ti*e, e>isted and dischar,es the obli,ations
created thereunder. The re*ed2 of an unpaid seller in a contract of sale is to see;
either specific perfor*ance or rescission.
/. Ne>t to be discussed is the stipulation in the disputed Septe*ber .), .'(1 Deed of
Sale of Ri,hts, Interests and Participation !hich reads- F3t4his "ontract of Sale of ri,hts,
interests and participations shall beco*e effective onl2 upon the approval b2 the
Honorable "ourt of 7irst Instance of Ne,ros Occidental, ranch VI$Hi*a*a2lan.F
Notabl2, the trial court and the "ourt of #ppeals both held that the deed of sale is null
and void for not havin, been approved b2 the probate court.
There has arisen here a confusion in the concepts of validit2 and the efficac2 of a
contract. Ander #rt. .&.1 of the "ivil "ode, the essential re=uisites of a contract are-
consent of the contractin, partiesC ob8ect certain !hich is the sub8ect *atter of the
contract and cause of the obli,ation !hich is established. #bsent one of the above, no
contract can arise. "onversel2, !here all are present, the result is a valid contract.
Ho!ever, so*e parties introduce various ;inds of restrictions or *odalities, the lac; of
!hich !ill not, ho!ever, affect the validit2 of the contract.
In the instant case, the Deed of Sale, co*pl2in, as it does !ith the essential re=uisites,
is a valid one. Ho!ever, it did not bear the sta*p of approval of the court. This
not!ithstandin,, the contract+s validit2 !as not affected for in the !ords of the
stipulation, F . . . this "ontract of Sale of ri,hts, interests and participations #hall
be2o3e effe2t+,eonl2 upon the approval b2 the Honorable "ourt . . .F In other !ords,
onl2 the effe2t+,+ty and not the ,al+d+ty of the contract is affected.
Then, too, petitioners are correct in sa2in, that the need for approval b2 the probate
court e>ists onl2 !here specific properties of the estate are sold and not !hen onl2
ideal and indivisible shares of an heir are disposed of.
In the case of D+llena ,. Co4"t of A**eal#,
the "ourt declared that it is !ithin the
8urisdiction of the probate court to approve the sale of properties of a deceased person
b2 his prospective heirs before final ad8udication.
It is settled that court approval is
necessar2 for the validit2 of an2 disposition of the decedent+s estate. Ho!ever,
reference to 8udicial approval cannot adversel2 affect the substantive ri,hts of the heirs
to dispose of their ideal share in the co$heirship andDor co$o!nership a*on, the
It *ust be recalled that durin, the period of indivision of a decedent+s estate,
each heir, bein, a co$o!ner, has full o!nership of his part and *a2 therefore alienate
ut the effect of the alienation !ith respect to the co$o!ners shall be li*ited to the
portion !hich *a2 be allotted to hi* in the division upon the ter*ination of the
7ro* the fore,oin,, it is clear that hereditar2 ri,hts in an estate can be validl2 sold
!ithout need of court approval and that !hen private respondents "ari$an sold their
ri,hts, interests and participation in 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.(, the2 could le,all2 sell the
sa*e !ithout the approval of the probate court.
#s a ,eneral rule, the pertinent contractual stipulation 3re=uirin, court approval4 should
be considered as the la! bet!een the parties. Ho!ever, the presence of t!o factors
*ilitate a,ainst this conclusion. 7irst, the evident intention of the parties appears to be
contrar2 to the *andator2 character of said stipulation.
?hoever crafted the
docu*ent of conve2ance, *ust have been of the belief that the controversial stipulation
!as a le,al re=uire*ent for the validit2 of the sale. ut the conte*poraneous and
subse=uent acts of the parties reveal that the ori,inal ob8ective of the parties !as to
,ive effect to the deed of sale even !ithout court approval.
Receipt and acceptance
of the nu*erous install*ents on the balance of the purchase price b2 the "ari$ans and
leavin, petitioners in possession of 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.( reveal their intention to
effect the *utual trans*ission of ri,hts and obli,ations. It !as onl2 after private
respondents "ari$an sold their shares in the sub8ect lots a,ain to the spouses "hua, in
Septe*ber .'1/, that these sa*e heirs filed the case at bar for the cancellation of the
Septe*ber .'(1 conve2ance. ?orth considerin, too is the fact that althou,h the period
to pa2 the balance of the purchase price e>pired in Ma2 .'(', the heirs continued to
accept pa2*ents until late .'(' and did not see; 8udicial relief until late .'1/ or three
2ears later.
Second, !e hold that the re=uisite approval !as virtuall2 rendered i*possible b2 the
"ari$ans because the2 opposed the *otion for approval of the sale filed b2
and sued the latter for the cancellation of that sale. The probate court
3e4 ?hile it is true that @scanlar and Hol,ado filed a si*ilar *otion for the
approval of Deed of Sale e>ecuted b2 so*e of the heirs in their favor
concernin, the one$half 3.D/4 portions of 6ots .9.9 and .9.( as earl2 as
Nove*ber .<, .'1., 2et the "ourt could not have favorabl2 acted upon it,
because there e>ists a pendin, case for the rescission of that contract,
instituted b2 the vendors therein a,ainst Pedro @scanlar and 7rancisco
Hol,ado and filed before another branch of this "ourt. Antil no!, this case,
!hich attac;s the ver2 source of !hatever ri,hts or interests Hol,ado and
@scanlar *a2 have ac=uired over one$half 3.D/4 portions of 6ots Nos. .9.9
and .9.(, is pendin, resolution b2 another court. Other!ise, if this "ourt
*eddles on these issues raised in that ordinar2 civil action see;in, for the
rescission of an e>istin, contract, then, the act of this "ourt !ould be totall2
ineffective, as the sa*e !ould be in e>cess of its 8urisdiction.
Havin, provided the obstacle and the 8ustification for the stipulated approval not to be
,ranted, private respondents "ari$an should not be allo!ed to cancel their first
transaction !ith petitioners because of lac; of approval b2 the probate court, !hich lac;
is of their o!n *a;in,.
&. ?ith respect to rescission of a sale of real propert2, #rticle .)'/ of the "ivil "ode
In the sale of i**ovable propert2, even thou,h it *a2 have been stipulated
that upon failure to pa2 the price at the ti*e a,reed upon the rescission of the
contract shall of ri,ht ta;e place, the ,endee 3ay *ay, e,en afte" the
e=*+"at+on of the *e"+od, a# lon1 a# no de3and fo" "e#2+##+on of the 2ont"a2t
ha# been 3ade 4*on h+3 e+the" ;4d+2+ally o" by a nota"+al a2t. #fter the
de*and, the court *a2 not ,rant hi* a ne! ter*. 3@*phasis added4
In the instant case, the sellers ,ave the bu2ers until Ma2 .'(' to pa2 the balance of the
purchase price. #fter the latter failed to pa2 install*ents due, the for*er *ade no
8udicial de*and for rescission of the contract nor did the2 e>ecute an2 notarial act
de*andin, the sa*e, as re=uired under #rticle .)'/. "onse=uentl2, the bu2ers could
la!full2 *a;e pa2*ents even after the Ma2 .'(' deadline, as in fact the2 paid several
install*ents to the sellers !hich the latter accepted. Thus, upon the e>piration of the
period to pa2, the sellers *ade no *ove to rescind but continued acceptin, late
pa2*ents, an act !hich cannot but be construed as a !aiver of the ri,ht to rescind.
?hen the sellers, instead of availin, of their ri,ht to rescind, accepted and received
dela2ed pa2*ents of install*ents be2ond the period stipulated, and the bu2ers !ere in
arrears, the sellers in effect !aived and are no! estopped fro* e>ercisin, said ri,ht to
0. The *atter of full pa2*ent is another issue ta;en up b2 petitioners. #n e>haustive
revie! of the records of this case i*pels us to arrive at a conclusion at variance !ith
that of both the trial and the appellate courts.
The sole !itness in the cancellation of sale case !as private respondent herein
7redis*inda "ari$an usta*ante. She initiall2 testified that after several install*ents,
she si,ned a receipt for the full pa2*ent of her share in Dece*ber .'(' but denied
havin, actuall2 received the P),<<<.<< intended to co*plete her share. She clai*s that
@scanlar and Hol,ado *ade her si,n the receipt late in the afternoon and pro*ised to
,ive the *one2 to her the follo!in, *ornin, !hen the ban;s opened. She also clai*ed
that !hile her brother Rodolfo
"ari$an+s share had alread2 been full2 paid, her *other %enerosa Martine5 onl2
received P/1,&&0.<< and her sister$in$la! Nell2 "hua vda. de "ari$an received onl2
P..,&&0.<<. 7redis*inda also su**ed up all the install*ents and ca*e up !ith the
total of P.&/,))..<< fro* the lon, list on a sheet of a calendar !hich !as transferred
fro* a s*all bro!n noteboo;. She later ad*itted that her list *a2 not have been
co*plete for she ,ave the receipts for install*ents to petitioners @scanlar and Hol,ado.
She thus clai*ed that the2 !ere defrauded because petitioners are !ealth2 and private
respondents are poor.
Ho!ever, despite all her clai*s, 7redis*inda+s testi*on2 fails to convince this "ourt
that the2 !ere not full2 co*pensated b2 petitioners. 7redis*inda ad*its that her
*other and her sister si,ned their individual receipts of full pa2*ent on their o!n and
not in her presence.
The receipts presented in evidence sho! that %enerosa
Martine5 !as paid P0),9/).<<C "ar*en "ari$an , P0),9/).<<C Rodolfo "ari$an ,
P0(,)<<.<< on Eune /., .'('C Nell2 "hua vda. de "ari$an, P..,&&0.<< and the su* of
P&0,/.1.<< !as consi,ned in court for the *inor 6eonell "ari$an.
7redis*inda insists
that she si,ned a receipt for full pa2*ent !ithout receivin, the *one2 therefor and
ad*its that she did not ob8ect to the co*putation. ?e find it incredible that a *ature
!o*an li;e 7redis*inda "ari$an, !ould si,n a receipt for *one2 she did not receive.
7urther*ore, her clai*s re,ardin, the actual a*ount of the install*ents paid to her and
her ;in are =uite va,ue and unsupported b2 co*petent evidence. She even ad*its that
all the receipts !ere ta;en b2 petitioner @scanlar.
?orth notin, too is the absence of
supportin, testi*on2 fro* her co$heirs and siblin,s "ar*en "ari$an, Rodolfo "ari$an
and Nell2 "hua vda. de "ari$an.
The trial court reasoned out that petitioners, in continuin, to pa2 the rent for the parcels
of land the2 alle,edl2 bou,ht, ad*it not havin, full2 paid the "ari$ans. Petitioners+
response, that the2 paid rent until .'19 in co*pliance !ith their lease contract, onl2
proves that the2 respected this contract and did not ta;e undue advanta,e of the heirs
of No*bre and "ari$an !ho benefited fro* the lease. Moreover, it is to be stressed that
petitioners purchased the hereditar2 shares solel2 of the "ari$ans and not the entire lot.
The fore,oin, discussion ineluctabl2 leads us to conclude that the
"ari$ans !ere indeed paid the balance of the purchase price, despite havin, accepted
install*ents therefor belatedl2. There is thus no ,round to rescind the contract of sale
because of non$pa2*ent.
). Recapitulatin,, !e have held that the Septe*ber .), .'(1 deed of sale of ri,hts,
interests and participations is valid and that the sellers$private respondents "ari$an
!ere full2 paid the contract price. Ho!ever, it *ust be e*phasi5ed that !hat !as sold
onl2 the "ari$an+s hereditar2 shares in 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.( bein, held *"o
+nd+,+#o b2 the* and is thus a valid conve2ance onl2 of said ideal shares. Specific or
desi,nated portions of land !ere not involved.
"onse=uentl2, the subse=uent sale of 1 parcels of land, includin, 6ot Nos. .9.9 and
.9.(, to the spouses "hua is valid e>cept to the e>tent of !hat !as sold to petitioners
in the Septe*ber .), .'(1 conve2ance. It *ust be noted ho!ever, that the probate
court in Special Proceedin, No. ($(/(' desisted fro* a!ardin, the individual shares of
each heir because all the properties belon,in, to the estate had alread2 been
Thus it is not certain ho! *uch private respondents "ari$an !ere entitled to !ith
respect to the t!o lots, or if the2 !ere even ,oin, to be a!arded shares in said lots.
The proceedin,s surroundin, the estate of No*bre and "ari$an havin, attained finalit2
for nearl2 a decade no!, the sa*e cannot be re$opened. The protracted proceedin,s
!hich have undoubtedl2 left the propert2 under a cloud and the parties involved in a
state of uncertaint2 co*pels us to resolve it definitivel2.
The decision of the probate court declares private respondents "ari$an as the sole
heirs b2 representation of Victoriana "ari$an !ho !as indisputabl2 entitled to half of the
There bein, no e>act apportion*ent of the shares of each heir and no
co*petent proof that the heirs received une=ual shares in the disposition of the estate,
it can be assu*ed that the heirs of Victoriana "ari$an collectivel2 are entitled to half of
each propert2 in the estate. More particularl2, private respondents "ari$an are entitled
to half of 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.(, +.e. .0,9() s=uare *eters of 6ot No. .9.9 and
/&<,0(0 s=uare *eters of 6ot No. .9.(. "onse=uentl2, petitioners, as their successors$
in$interest, o!n said half of the sub8ect lots and ou,ht to deliver the possession of the
other half, as !ell as pa2 rents thereon, to the private respondents Ne2 Sarrosa "hua
and Pa=uito "hua but onl2 if the for*er 3petitioners4 re*ained in possession thereof.
The rate of rental pa2*ents to be *ade !ere ,iven in evidence b2 Ne2 Sarrosa "hua
in her unrebutted testi*on2 on Eul2 /0, .'1'- 7or the fishpond 36ot No. .9.(4 H 7ro*
.'1/ up to .'19, rental pa2*ent of P&,<<<.<< per hectareC fro* .'19$.'1' 3and
succeedin, 2ears4, rental pa2*ent of P.<,<<<.<< per hectare. 7or the riceland 36ot No.
.9.94 H .) cavans per hectare per 2earC fro* .'1/ to .'19, P./).<< per cavanC .'1($
.'11, P.().<< per cavanC and .'1' and succeedin, 2ears, P/<<.<< per cavan.
?H@R@7OR@, the petitions are hereb2 %R#NT@D. The decision of the "ourt of
#ppeals under revie! is hereb2 R@V@RS@D #ND S@T #SID@. The case is
R@M#ND@D to the Re,ional Trial "ourt of Ne,ros Occidental, ranch 9. for petitioners
and private respondents "ari$an or their successors$in$interest to deter*ine e>actl2
!hich .D/ portion of 6ot Nos. .9.9 and .9.( !ill be o!ned b2 each part2, at the option
of petitioners. The trial court is DIR@"T@D to order the issuance of the correspondin,
certificates of title in the na*e of the respective parties and to resolve the *atter of
rental pa2*ents of the land not delivered to the "hua spouses sub8ect to the rates
specified above !ith le,al interest fro* date of de*and.
8elo, F"an2+#2o and !an1an+ban, >>?, 2on24"?
Na",a#a, C?>?, +# on lea,e?