Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129103. September 3, 1999]


CLAUDIO DELOS REYES a! LYDIA DELOS REYES, petitioners, vs. "#E
#ON. COUR" O$ A%%EALS a! DALUYONG GA&RIEL, '(b't)t(te!
b* +)' +e)r', ame,*- .ARIA LUISA G. ES"E&AN, .ARIA RI"A G.
&AR"OLO.E / RENA"O GA&RIEL, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GON0AGA1REYES, J.-
In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners seek to set aside the Decision
[1]
of the
Court of Appeals
[2]
in CA!"R" CV No" #$%&& reversin' the consolidated Decision
[3]
of the
Re'ional Trial Court, (ranch I, Ta'u), Davao del Norte in Civil Case Nos" *#*$ and *#*+"
This petition was ori'inall, filed with the Court on -une .$, .%%+" In a Resolution /of the
Third Division0 dated Octo1er .#, .%%+,
[4]
the petition was denied for failure to show that the
respondent Court of Appeals co))itted an, reversi1le error" However, the )otion for
reconsideration filed 1, petitioners on Nove)1er .2, .%%+ was 'ranted 1, the Court in its
Resolution dated Dece)1er 3#, .%%+
[5]
and the petition was reinstated"
The antecedents are4
." 5rivate respondent Dalu,on' !a1riel, /who died on Septe)1er .2 .%%& and was su1stituted
herein 1, his children R6NATO !A(RI67, 8ARIA 79ISA (" 6ST6(AN and 8ARIA
RITA !" (ARTO7O860 was the re'istered owner under Transfer Certificate of Title No" T
.+%#* of the Re'istr, of Deeds of Ta'u), Davao del Norte of a &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of
land situated in (arrio 8a'u'po, Ta'u), Davao del Norte,
[6]
havin' ac:uired the sa)e 1,
hereditar, succession so)eti)e in .%+2 as one of the children and heirs of the late 8a;i)o
!a1riel"
*" (ecause Dalu,on' !a1riel to'ether with his fa)il, was then residin' in 8andalu,on',
8etro 8anila, his sister 8aria Rita !a1riel de Re, acted as ad)inistratri; of the said parcel
of land and took char'e of collectin' the rentals for those portions which have
1een 76AS6D to certain tenants<lessees" One of these lessees is 7=DIA D6 7OS R6=6S
who 1, virtue of a Contract of 76AS6 e;ecuted on -une *., .%>& 1, and 1etween 8aria
Rita !" de Re, as lessor and 7,dia de los Re,es as lessee, leased a portion of One Hundred
Sevent, Si; /.+$0 s:uare )eters for a ter) of one ,ear 1e'innin' -une .&, .%>& renewa1le
upon a'ree)ent of the parties at the rental rate of Two Hundred /5*33"330 pesos, per )onth"
[7]
#" So)eti)e in .%>& Dalu,on' !a1riel sent his son Renato !a1riel to Ta'u) reportedl, with
instructions to take over fro) 8aria Rita !" de Re, as ad)inistrator of the said parcel of
land" 9pon a'ree)ent of the parties, the -une *., .%>& Contract of 7ease coverin' the one
hundred sevent,si; s:uare )eter portion of land was novated and replaced 1, a Contract of
7ease e;ecuted on Septe)1er *$, .%>& 1, and 1etween R6NATO !A(RI67 as
7essor and 7,dia de los Re,es as 7essee"
[8]
The ter) of the lease was chan'ed to si;
/$0 ,ears fro) and after -une .&, .%>& or up to -une .&, .%%.? receipt of the pa,)ent
in advance of the total rental a)ount of @ourteen Thousand @our Hundred
/5.2,233"330 5esos was acknowled'ed 1, 7essor Renato !a1riel"
2" So)eti)e in Nove)1er .%>+, durin' the effectivit, of the lease contract, 7,dia de los Re,es
ver1all, a'reed to 1u, two hundred fift, /*&30 s:uare )eters /includin' the .+$ s:uare
)eters leased 1, her0, and thereafter an additional fift, /&30 s:uare )eters or a total of three
hundred /#330 s:uare )eters of Dalu,on' !a1rielAs re'istered propert,, at three hundred
pesos /5#33"330 per s:uare )eter or for a total a)ount of5%3,333"33" Receipt of the
pa,)ent of the purchase price )ade in several install)ents 1, 7,dia de los Re,es was
acknowled'ed 1, Renato !a1riel as evidenced 1, official receipts issued and si'ned 1, hi)
dated Nove)1er *&, .%>+, Nove)1er *$,.%>+, -anuar, >, .%>>, @e1ruar, .3, .%>>,
@e1ruar, .&, .%>> and @e1ruar, *%, .%>> all 1earin' the 76TT6R H6AD B!a1riel
(uildin'"C No deed of sale was e;ecuted coverin' the transaction" 5urchaser 7,dia de los
Re,es however proceeded with the construction of a twostore, co))ercial 1uildin' on the
said #33 s:uare )eter lot after o1tainin' a 1uildin' per)it fro) the 6n'ineerAs Office in
Ta'u)"
&" Actin' on the infor)ation 'iven 1, his dau'hter 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an upon the
latterAs return fro) a trip to Ta'u) that spouses Claudio and 7,dia de los Re,es were
constructin' a twostore, 1uildin' on a portion of his land, Dalu,on' !a1riel, throu'h his
law,er, sent a letter on Au'ust #3, .%>% to the De los Re,es couple de)andin' that the,
cease and desist fro) continuin' with their construction and to i))ediatel, vacate the
pre)ises, assertin' that the construction was unauthoriDed and that their occupanc, of the
su1Eect portion was not covered 1, an, 76AS6 A!R6686NT "
$" On Septe)1er *3, .%>%, spouses Claudio and 7,dia de los Re,es throu'h counsel sent their
letter repl, e;plainin' that the De los Re,eses are the innocent part, who entered into
the 76AS6 A!R6686NT and su1se:uent sale of su1Eect portion of land in 'ood faith and
upon the assurance )ade 1, the for)er ad)inistratri;, 8aria Rita !" Re,, her nephew Ton,
Re,, 8rs" @e S" !a1riel and 8r" Dalu,on' !a1riel hi)self that Renato !a1riel is the new
ad)inistrator authoriDed to enter into such a'ree)ents involvin' the su1Eect propert,"
+" Dissatisfied with the e;planation, Dalu,on' !a1riel co))enced an action on Nove)1er .2,
.%>% a'ainst spouses Claudio and 7,dia de los Re,es for the recover, of the su1Eect portion
of land 1efore the Re'ional Trial Court, (ranch ., Ta'u), Davao del Norte docketed as Civil
Case No" *#*$" In his co)plaint Dalu,on' )aintained that his son Renato was never 'iven
the authorit, to 76AS6 nor to sell an, portion of his land as his instruction to hi)
/Renato0 was )erel, to collect rentals"
>" Spouses Claudio and 7,dia delos Re,es countered that the sale to the) of the su1Eect portion
of land 1, Renato !a1riel was with the consent and knowled'e of Dalu,on', his wife @e and
their other children, and filed 1efore the sa)e trial court a co)plaint for specific
perfor)ance, docketed as Civil Case No" *#*% a'ainst Dalu,on' and his children, na)el,
Renato !a1riel, 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !a1riel (artolo)e pra,in' that
the defendants therein 1e ordered to e;ecute the necessar, deed of conve,ance and other
pertinent docu)ents for the transfer of the #33 s:uare )eter portion the, previousl, 1ou'ht
fro) Renato"
%" Civil Case Nos" *#*$ and *#*+ were heard Eointl, and on Septe)1er .3, .%%. the trial court
rendered a consolidated decision, the dispositive portion
[9]
of which reads4
BFH6R6@OR6C pre)ises considered, Dalu,on' !a1riel, Renato !a1riel,
8aria 7uisa 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e are here1, ordered to
e;ecute a Deed of Conve,ance and other necessar, docu)ents in favor of
Claudio delos Re,es and 7,dia delos Re,es over an area of #33 s:uare )eters
fro) TCT No" T.+%#* co)prisin' of &,3.3 s:uare )eters located at Ta'u),
Davao which portion is presentl, occupied 1, Delos Re,es couple"
SO ORD6R6DC
.3" On appeal 1, the !a1riels, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision
of the Re'ional Trial Court and rendered a new one BORD6RIN! appellee spouses Claudio
and 7,dia delos Re,es to i))ediatel, vacate the #33 s:uare )eter portion of that land
covered 1, TCT No" T.+%#* which the, presentl, occup, and to turn over possession
thereof to the appellants" ; ; ; ;C
[10]
Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners ca)e to this Court 1,
wa, of petition for review, alle'in' that4
Ba" The Court of Appeals 'ravel, a1used its discretion in overlookin' facts e;tant in the record?
1" The Court of Appeals erred in not findin' the docu)ent of sale and receipts /e;hi1its for the
herein 5etitioners0, as valid and enforcea1le?
c" The Court of Appeals erred in its apprehension and appreciation of the undisputed facts for
the 5etitioners?
d" The Court of Appeals erred in )akin' speculative conclusions on the facts of the case?
e" The Court of Appeals erred in reversin' the Decision of the Re'ional Trial Court 1ased on
credi1le, relevant and )aterial evidence adduced 1, the 5etitioners in the lower court"C
[11]
5etitioners aver that respondent Court of Appeals 'ravel, a1used its discretion when it
totall, disre'arded the oral and docu)entar, evidence adduced 1, appellees, and in 'ivin'
credence to the oral testi)onies of appellants, which are replete with inconsistencies and
contradictions" 5etitioners cite specificall, 6;hi1its B.C to B.%C consistin' of a contract
of 76AS6 involvin' the su1Eect propert, and certain official receipts with the 76TT6RH6AD
B!a1riel (uildin'C showin' pa,)ents received /1, Renato !a1riel0 for the lease and<or sale of
portions of su1Eect real propert, of Dalu,on' !a1riel e"'" sale 1, install)ent of portion /+33
s:uare )eters0 of land to spouses Ru1en Carriedo and A1dula Sanducan /6;hs" .#, .2, .& G .$0
and lease /6;hs" ##((((, &, $ G +0 and sale /6;hs" >, %, .3, .. G .*0 of land )ade 1, Renato
!a1riel to petitionersspouses" In other words, respondent Court of Appeals B'ravel, a1used its
discretionC in the )isapprehension and )isappreciation of the facts of the case and in 'oin'
1e,ond the issues involved contrar, to the ad)issions of 1oth the appellants and appellees" And
since the appellate courtAs findin's of facts contradict that of the trial court a thorou'h review
thereof 1, the Supre)e Court is necessar,"
In their Co))ent, private respondents restated their ar'u)ents to support the appellate
courtAs conclusion that the alle'ed sale )ade 1, Renato !a1riel to the petitioners in .%>+
without authorit, fro) Dalu,on' !a1riel is not valid and therefore unenforcea1le"
5etitioners su1)itted their Repl, to the Co))ent contendin' that the assailed decision of
the Court of Appeals is Bpatentl, fallaciousC in that while petitionersA pa,)ent to Renato !a1riel
of the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 as purchase price of the three hundred /#330 s:uare )eter portion of
su1Eect land was neither denied nor controverted, the appellate courtAs decision failed to order
private respondent Renato !a1riel to refund or rei)1urse petitioners the said a)ount to'ether
with the value of the i)prove)ents and the twostore, co))ercial 1uildin' which petitioners
constructed thereon in violation of Articles *.2*, *.2# and *.&2 of the Civil Code and the ti)e
honored principle of su1stantial Eustice and e:uit,"
5etitioners alle'e further that even if Renato !a1riel was not /,et0 the owner of the su1Eect
portion of land when he sold the sa)e to petitioners, after the death of his parents Dalu,on' and
@e !a1riel, he, as heir, inherited and succeeded to the ownership of said portion of land 1,
operation of law there1, renderin' valid and effective the sale he e;ecuted in favor of
petitioners" 5etitioners also )aintain that on the 1asis of the facts proven and ad)itted durin'
the trial, Dalu,on' !a1riel appears to have not onl, authoriDed his son Renato !a1riel to sell the
su1Eect portion of land 1ut also ratified the transaction 1, his conte)poraneous conduct and
actuations shown durin' his lifeti)e"
In their respective )e)orandu) su1)itted 1, petitioners and private respondents,
su1stantiall, the sa)e ar'u)ents<contentions were raised" 5etitioners )aintain that the sale is
valid or validated pursuant to Articles .2## and .2#2 of the Civil Code and identified the le'al
issues involved as follows4
B." Fhether or not the sale 1, respondent Renato !a1riel of the land re'istered in the na)e of
his deceased father Dalu,on' !a1riel, durin' the lifeti)e of the latter, in favor of the herein
petitioners, 1, operation of law, auto)aticall, vests title on the latter under the principle of
estoppel as provided for in Arts" .2## and .2#2 of the New Civil Code?
*" Fhether or not the sale 1, Renato !a1riel of the land re'istered in the na)e of his deceased
father durin' the lifeti)e of the latter, to the herein petitioners is null and void"C
[12]
On the other hand, private respondents contend that the petition has no le'al or factual
1asis" It is ar'ued that petitioners chan'ed their theor, of the case in that while in the re'ional
trial court, petitioners clai) that the su1Eect propert, was sold to the) 1, the late Dalu,on'
!a1riel throu'h his son Renato !a1riel, in the instant petition, the, clai) that it was Renato
!a1riel who sold the propert, to the) and that althou'h at that ti)e, Renato was not ,et the
owner of the propert,, he is nonetheless o1li'ated to honor the sale and to conve, the propert, to
the petitioners 1ecause after the death of Dalu,on' !a1riel, Renato 1eca)e the owner of the
su1Eect propert, 1, wa, of hereditar, succession" Accordin' to private respondents, liti'ants are
1arred fro) chan'in' their theor,, )ore especiall, so in the appeal, and that the onl, issue to 1e
resolved in the instant petition is whether or not Renato !a1riel can 1e co)pelled to conve, the
su1Eect propert, to petitioners" 5rivate respondents )aintain that Renato !a1riel cannot 1e
co)pelled to conve, su1Eect propert, /to petitioners0 1ecause the land never passed on to Renato
either 1efore or after the death of Dalu,on' !a1riel and that the whole propert, is now owned 1,
8a" Rita !" (artolo)e per Transfer Certificate of Title No" T$>$+2 entered in the Re'istr, of
Deeds of Davao del Norte on -anuar, .3, .%%."
[13]
In short, Renato !a1riel cannot conve, that
which does not 1elon' to hi)"
[14]
6ssentiall,, the issue here is whether or not the ver1al a'ree)ent which petitioners entered
into with private respondent Renato !a1riel in .%>+ involvin' the sale of the three hundred /#330
s:uare )eter portion of land re'istered in the na)e of RenatoAs late father Dalu,on' !a1riel is a
valid and enforcea1le contract of sale of real propert,"
(, law
[15]
a contract of sale is perfected at the )o)ent there is a )eetin' of )inds upon the
thin' which is the o1Eect of the contract and upon the price" It is a consensual contract which is
perfected 1, )ere consent"
[16]
Once perfected, the contract is 'enerall, 1indin' in whatever for)
/i"e" written or oral0 it )a, have 1een entered into
[17]
provided the three /#0 essential re:uisites for
its validit, prescri1ed under Article .#.> supra, are present" @ore)ost of these re:uisites is the
consent and the capacit, to 'ive consent of the parties to the contract" The le'al capacit, of the
parties is an essential ele)ent for the e;istence of the contract 1ecause it is an indispensa1le
condition for the e;istence of consent"
[18]
There is no effective consent in law without the capacit,
to 'ive such consent" In other words, le'al consent presupposes capacit,"
[19]
Thus, there is said to
1e no consent, and conse:uentl,, no contract when the a'ree)ent is entered into 1, one in 1ehalf
of another who has never 'iven hi) authoriDation therefor
[20]
unless he has 1, law a ri'ht to
represent the latter"
[21]
It has also 1een held that if the vendor is not the owner of the propert, at
the ti)e of the sale, the sale is null and void,
[22]
1ecause a person can sell onl, what he owns or is
authoriDed to sell"
[23]
One e;ception is when a contract entered into in 1ehalf of another who has
not authoriDed it, su1se:uentl, confir)ed or ratified the sa)e in which case, the transaction
1eco)es valid and 1indin' a'ainst hi) and he is estopped to :uestion its le'alit,"
[24]
The trial court held that the oral contract of sale was valid and enforcea1le statin' that while
it is true that at the ti)e of the sale, Renato !a1riel was not the owner and that it was Dalu,on'
!a1riel who was the re'istered owner of the su1Eect propert,, Dalu,on' !a1riel knew a1out the
transaction and tacitl, authoriDed his son Renato !a1riel /who) he earlier desi'nated as
ad)inistrator of his &,3.3 s:uare )eter re'istered propert,0 to enter into it" The receipt 1,
Renato !a1riel of the 5%3,333"33 paid 1, petitioner spouses as purchase price of su1Eect portion
of land
[25]
and also of the a)ount of 5.2,233"33 paid 1, petitioners as advance rental fee for
the 76AS6 of one hundred sevent, si; /.+$0 s:uare )eters thereof, in accordance with the
then still e;istin' Contract of 7ease /6;h" .30 entered into 1, Renato !a1riel as 7essor and
7,dia delos Re,es as lessee on Septe)1er *$ .%>& which was to e;pire onl, on -une .&, .%%.
was also known not onl, to Dalu,on' !a1riel 1ut also to his late wife @e SalaDar !a1riel and his
two other children, 8aria 7uisa !a1riel 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !a1riel (artolo)e" And even
assu)in' that Dalu,on' !a1riel did not e;pressl, authoriDe Renato !a1riel to enter into such
contract of sale with petitioners in .%>>, he /Dalu,on' !a1riel0 confir)ed<ratified the sa)e 1,
his conte)poraneous conduct and actuations shown durin' his lifeti)e" 8ore i)portantl,, the
trial court noted that Dalu,on' never presented Renato durin' the entire proceedin's, despite
evidence
[26]
which tends to show that Renato !a1riel was not )issin' nor were his wherea1outs
unknown as Dalu,on' wanted to i)press the trial court, 1ut had all the while 1een sta,in' at the
Dalu,on' !a1riel residence at .>& I" 7opeD St", 8andalu,on' Cit, 1ut was deli1eratel,
prevented /1, Dalu,on'0 fro) testif,in' or sheddin' li'ht on the transactions involved in the
two cases then at 1ar" Hence, the decision of the trial court ordered Dalu,on' !a1riel, Renato
!a1riel, 8aria 7uisa !" 6ste1an and 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e to e;ecute a Deed of Conve,ance
and other necessar, docu)ents in favor of petitioners coverin' su1Eect area of #33 s:uare )eters
to 1e taken fro) the &,3.3 s:uare )eters covered 1, TCT No" T.+%#* under the na)e of
Dalu,on' !a1riel which portion is actuall, occupied 1, petitioners Delos Re,es couple"
The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled that the contract of sale cannot 1e upheld,
)ainl, 1ecause Renato !a1riel, as vendor, did not have the le'al capacit, to enter and to 'ive
consent to the a'ree)ent, he, 1ein' neither the authoriDed a'ent /of Dalu,on' !a1riel0 nor the
owner of the propert, su1Eect of the sale" It was pointed out that three theories were advanced 1,
appellees to prove that the transaction the, had with Renato concernin' the sale of the portion in
:uestion was re'ular, valid and enforcea1le" @irst theor, is that Renato acted as the dul,
authoriDed representative or a'ent of Dalu,on'" Second, that the portion in dispute was alread,
'iven to Renato as his share, hence, he validl, sold the sa)e to appellees" And third, that the
portion 1ein' liti'ated was part of RenatoAs inheritance fro) the estate of her deceased )other
which he validl, disposed of to appellees" These reasons, accordin' to the appellate court,
cannot 'o to'ether, or even co)ple)ent each other, to esta1lish the re'ularit,, validit, or
enforcea1ilit, of the sale )ade 1, Renato" It could not 1e possi1le for Renato to have acted in
three different capacities as a'ent, owner, and heir when he dealt with appellees, as the le'al
conse:uences for each situation would 1e different" Thus, it was incu)1ent upon appellees to
e;plain what actuall, convinced the) to 1u, the land fro) Renato, and 1ecause the, failed to do
so, no proper 1asis can 1e found to uphold the alle'ed sale )ade 1, Renato as it cannot 1e
deter)ined with certaint, in what capacit, Renato acted" And even assu)in' that he /Renato0
alread, succeeded to whatever hereditar, ri'ht or participation he )a, have over the estate of his
father, he is still considered a coowner with his two sisters of the su1Eect propert, and that prior
to its partition, Renato cannot validl, sell or alienate a specific or deter)inate part of the
propert, owned in co))on" (esides, the entire lot covered 1, TCT No" T.+%#* was
su1se:uentl, donated 1, Dalu,on' !a1riel to his dau'hter 8arie Rita !" (artolo)e on Octo1er
., .%%3 and is now covered 1, TCT No" T$>$+2 in her na)e"
[27]
Hence, the appellate courtAs
decision ordered appellees /petitioners0 spouses Claudio and 7,dia delos Re,es to i))ediatel,
vacate the #33 s:uare )eter portion of that land covered 1, TCT No" T.+%#* which the, are
occup,in' and to turnover possession thereof to the appellants, private respondents herein"
As a 'eneral rule, the findin's of fact of the Court of Appeals are 1indin' upon this Court"
[28]
Fhen such findin's of fact are the sa)e and confir)ator, of those of the trial court, the, are
final and conclusive and )a, not 1e reviewed on appeal,
[29]
In such cases, the authorit, of the
Supre)e Court is confined to correctin' errors of law, if an,, that )i'ht have 1een co))itted
1elow"
[30]
In the instant case, it is noted that the trial court and the Court of Appeals are not at
variance in their factual findin's that so)eti)e in .%>>, an oral contract of sale was entered into
1, Renato !a1riel, /as vendor0 with petitioners De los Re,es couple /as vendees0 involvin' a
#33 s:uare )eter portion of a &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of land located in (arrio 8a'u'po,
Ta'u), Davao del Norte owned and re'istered under Transfer Certificate of Title No" T.+%#* in
the na)e of Dalu,on' !a1riel, father of Renato" Thus, this Court is tasked to review and
deter)ine whether or not respondent Court of Appeals co))itted an error of law
[31]
in its le'al
conclusion that at the ti)e the parties entered into said oral a'ree)ent of sale, Renato !a1riel as
the purported vendor, did not have the le'al capacit, to enter and<or to 'ive consent to the sale"
Fe a'ree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Renato !a1riel was neither the
owner of the su1Eect propert, nor a dul, desi'nated a'ent of the re'istered owner /Dalu,on'
!a1riel0 authoriDed to sell su1Eect propert, in his 1ehalf, and there was also no sufficient
evidence adduced to show that Dalu,on' !a1riel su1se:uentl, ratified RenatoAs act" In this
connection it )ust 1e pointed out that pursuant to Article .>+2 of the Civil Code, when the sale
of a piece of land or an, interest therein is throu'h an a'ent, the authorit, of the latter shall 1e in
writin'? otherwise the sale shall 1e void" In other words, for want of capacit, /to 'ive consent0
on the part of Renato !a1riel, the oral contract of sale lacks one of the essential re:uisites for its
validit, prescri1ed under Article .#.>, supra and is therefore null and void ab initio"
5etitionersA contention that althou'h at the ti)e of the alle'ed sale, Renato !a1riel was not
,et the owner of the su1Eect portion of land, after the death of Dalu,on' !a1riel, he /Renato0
1eca)e the owner and ac:uired title thereto 1, wa, of hereditar, succession which title passed
1, operation of law to petitioners pursuant to Article .2#2 of the Civil Code
[32]
is not
tena1le" Records show that on Octo1er ., .%%3 Dalu,on' !a1riel donated the entire lot covered
1, TCT No" T.+%#* to his dau'hter 8aria Rita !" (artolo)e and the propert, is now covered
1, TCT No" T$>$+2 in her na)e" This )eans that when Dalu,on' !a1riel died on Septe)1er
.2, .%%&, he was no lon'er the owner of the su1Eect propert," Accordin'l,, Renato !a1riel never
ac:uired ownership or title over an, portion of said propert, as one of the heirs of Dalu,on'
!a1riel"
However, respondent Court of Appeals failed to consider the undisputed fact pointed out 1,
the trial court that petitioners had alread, perfor)ed their o1li'ation under su1Eect oral contract
of sale, i"e" co)pletin' their pa,)ent of 5%3,333"33 representin' the purchase price of the #33
s:uare )eter portion of land" As was held in BNool vs" Court of AppealsC
[33]
if a void contract
has 1een perfor)ed, the restoration of what has 1een 'iven is in order" The relationship 1etween
parties in an, contract even if su1se:uentl, voided )ust alwa,s 1e characteriDed and punctuated
1, 'ood faith and fair dealin'"
[34]
Hence, for the sake of Eustice and e:uit,, and in consonance
with the salutar, principle of nonenrich)ent at anotherAs e;pense,
[35]
private respondent Renato
!a1riel, should 1e ordered to refund to petitioners the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 which the, have
paid to and receipt of which was dul, acknowled'ed 1, hi)" It is the polic, of the Court to
strive to settle the entire controvers, in a sin'le proceedin' leavin' no root or 1ranch to 1ear the
seeds of future liti'ation especiall, where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute 1ased
on the records 1efore it and where the ends of Eustice would not likel, 1e su1served 1, the
re)and thereof, to the lower Court" The Supre)e Court is clothed with a)ple authorit, to
review )atters, even those not raised on appeal if it finds that their consideration is necessar, in
arrivin' at a Eust disposition of the case"
[36]
However, petitionersA clai) for the refund to the) of 5.,333,333"33 representin' the alle'ed
value and cost of the twostore, co))ercial 1uildin' the, constructed on su1Eect portion of land
cannot 1e favora1l, considered as no sufficient evidence was adduced to prove and esta1lish the
sa)e"
2#ERE$ORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April #3, .%%+ in CA!"R" CV
No" #$%&& is here1, A@@IR86D in so far as it declared the oral contract of sale entered into 1,
Renato !a1riel of portion of the &,3.3 s:uare )eter parcel of land re'istered in the na)e of
Dalu,on' !a1riel in favor of petitioners, null and void" Renato !a1riel is here1, ordered to
refund to petitioners the a)ount of 5%3,333"33 which was 'iven in pa,)ent for su1Eect land" No
pronounce)ent as to costs"
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., please see concurrin' opinion.