7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

TodayisTuesday,July19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.158646June23,2005
HEIRSOFJESUSM.MASCUANA,representedbyJOSEMA.R.MASCUANA,petitioners,
vs.
COURTOFAPPEALS,AQUILINOBARTE,andSPOUSESRODOLFOandCORAZONLAYUMAS,respondents.
DECISION
CALLEJO,SR.,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarioftheDecision1oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.53117
affirmingtheDecision2 of the RegionalTrial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, which ordered
thedismissalofthepetitionerscomplaintforrecoveryofpossessionanddamages.
TheAntecedents
GertrudisWuthrichandhersixothersiblingswerethecoownersofaparceloflandidentifiedasLotNo.124of
theSanCarlosCity,NegrosOccidentalCadastre,withanareaof1,729squaremetersandcoveredbyTransfer
CertificateofTitle(TCT)No.1453R(T29937)38.3Overtime,Gertrudisandtwoothercoownerssoldeachof
theironeseventh(1/7)shares,oratotalareaof741squaremeters,toJesusMascuana.Thelatterthensolda
portionofhis140squaremeterundividedshareofthepropertytoDiosdadoSumilhig.Mascuanalatersoldan
additional160squaremeterportiontoSumilhigonApril7,1961.However,thepartiesagreedtorevokethesaid
deed of sale and, in lieu thereof, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on August 12, 1961. In the said deed,
Mascuana,asvendor,soldanundivided469squaremeterportionofthepropertyforP4,690.00,withP3,690.00
asdownpayment,andunderthefollowingtermsofpayment:
That the balance of ONETHOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) shall be paid by the VENDEE unto the VENDOR as
soon as the aboveportions of Lot 124 shall have been surveyed in the name of the VENDEE and all papers
pertinentandnecessarytotheissuanceofaseparateCertificateofTitleinthenameoftheVENDEEshallhave
beenprepared.4
OnDecember31,1961,MascuanaandJoseG.EstabilloexecutedaDeedofExchangeandAbsoluteSaleof
RealEstate,5inwhichEstabillodeededtoMascuanaaportionofhispropertyabuttingthatofSumilhigonthe
southeast.
Inthemeantime,asurveywasconductedforthecoownersofLotNo.124onJuly9,1962.Thesubdivisionplan
ofthesaidlotwasapprovedbytheDirectorofLandsonAugust2,1962.Theportionofthepropertydeededto
SumilhigwasidentifiedinthesaidplanasLotNo.124B.6
Meanwhile, Mascuana died intestate on April 20, 1965 and was survived by his heirs, Eva M. Ellisin, Renee
Hewlett,CarmenVda.deOpea,MarilouDyandJoseMa.R.Mascuana.
OnApril24,1968,SumilhigexecutedaDeedofSaleofRealProperty 7onaportionofLotNo.124Bwithanarea
of 469 square meters and the improvements thereon, in favor of Corazon Layumas, the wife of Judge Rodolfo
Layumas,forthepriceofP11,000.00.ThespousesLayumasthenhadthepropertysubdividedintotwolots:Lot
No.124B2withanareaof71squaremetersunderthenameofJesusMascuana,andLotNo.124B1,with
anareaof469squaremetersundertheirnames.8The spouses Layumas took possession of the property and
causedthecuttingoftallgrassesthereon.Uponthepleaofareligiousorganization,theyallowedachapeltobe
constructedonaportionoftheproperty.9InJanuary1985,thespousesLayumasallowedAquilinoBartetostay
on a portion of the property to ward off squatters.10 Barte and his kin, Rostom Barte, then had their houses
constructedontheproperty.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

1/8

7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

OnOctober1,1985,thespousesLayumasreceivedaLetter11fromthecounselofReneeTedrew,offeringtobuy
theirshareofthepropertyforUS$1,000.00.Forherpart,CorazonLayumaswrotePepitoMascuana,offeringto
paytheamountofP1,000.00,thebalanceofthepurchasepriceofthepropertyunderthedeedofabsolutesale
executedbyMascuanaandSumilhigonAugust12,1961. 12However,theaddresseerefusedtoreceivethemail
matter.13
Unknown to the spouses Layumas, TCT No. 8986 14 was issued over Lot No. 124B in the name of Jesus
MascuanaonMarch17,1986.
OnNovember17,1986,theheirsofMascuanafiledaComplaint15forrecoveryofpossessionofLotNo.124B
and damages with a writ of preliminary injunction, alleging that they owned the subject lot by virtue of
successional rights from their deceased father. They averred that Barte surreptitiously entered the premises,
fenced the area and constructed a house thereon without their consent.Attached as annexes to the complaint
wereTCTNo.8986andacertification 16fromtheOfficeoftheCityTreasurer,LandTaxDivision,vouchingthat
thepropertyinquestionwasownedbythepetitionersandthattheyhadpaidthetaxesthereonuntil1992.
In his answer to the complaint, Barte admitted having occupied a portion of Lot No. 124B, but claimed that he
securedthepermissionofRodolfoLayumas,theownerofthesubjectproperty.Headdedthathedidnotfence
theproperty,andthatthepetitionersdidnotusethesameasapassagewayingoingtoBroceStreetfromtheir
house. Barte raised the following special defenses: (a) the petitioners were estopped from asserting ownership
overthelotinquestionbecausetheydidnotobjectwhenheoccupiedthesaidportionofthelot(b)neitherdid
the petitioners protest when a church was built on the property, or when residential houses were constructed
thereon(c)thepetitionersstillaskedBarteandtheotheroccupantswhethertheyhadnotifiedRodolfoLayumas
of the constructions on the property and (d) the heirs of Mascuana, through the lawyer of Mrs. Renee M.
Tedrew, even wrote a letter17 to Rodolfo Layumas on October 1, 1985, expressing her willingness to buy the
subjectpropertyforUS$1,000.00.
OnApril8,1991,thespousesLayumasfiledaMotionforLeavetoIntervene, 18allegingthereinthattheyhada
legalinterestinLotNo.124B1asitsbuyersfromSumilhig,whointurnpurchasedthesamefromMascuana.In
their answer in intervention,19 the spouses Layumas alleged that they were the true owners of the subject
property and that they had wanted to pay the taxes thereon, but the Land Tax clerk refused to receive their
payments on account that the petitioners had already made such payment. The spouses Layumas further
maintained that the petitioners had no cause of action against Barte, as they had authorized him to occupy a
portionofLotNo.124B1.ThespousesLayumasalsoaverredthatthepetitionerswereestoppedfromdenying
their right of ownership and possession of the subject lot, as one of them had even offered to repurchase a
portionofLotNo.124Bvialetter.Thesaidspousesinterposedacounterclaimfordamages,claimingownership
overtheproperty,andprayed,thus:
WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this HONORABLE COURT render judgment in favor of the
IntervenorsandthedefendantAquilinoBarte,ordering:
1.ThatthecomplaintagainstAquilinoBartebedismissedwithcostsagainsttheplaintiff
2.ThattheIntervenorsspousesJudgeRodolfoS.LayumasandCorazonA.Layumasbedeclaredasthe
legalandtrueownersofLot124B
3. That the plaintiffs should deliver immediately to the Intervenors, TCT No. 8986 which is in their
possession
4. That the plaintiffs be made to pay to the Intervenors the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00)
PESOS moral damages TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS attorneys fees plus THREE HUNDRED
(P300.00)PESOSasappearancefeeperhearing.
Intervenors pray for such other relief and remedies as may be deemed by this Honorable Court as just and
equitableinthepremises.
Atthetrial,intervenorRodolfoLayumastestifiedthatheandhiswifeboughtthesubjectpropertyin1968,andthat
nobodyobjectedtotheirpossessionoftheland,includingthepetitioners.In1970,areligiousorganizationasked
his permission to construct a chapel on the disputed lot he allowed the construction since the same would be
usedforthefiesta.Hefurtherdeclaredthatpartofthechapelstillstoodontheproperty.In1985,afirerazedthe
townspublicmarket,therebydislocatingnumerouspeople.Bartewasoneofthefirevictims,whoalsohappened
tobeagoodfriendandpoliticalsupporterofRodolfo.Outofgoodwill,Bartewasallowedtooccupyaportionof
the said lot, along with some other fire victims. Rodolfo clarified that the others were to stay there only on a
temporarybasis,butadmittedthatBarteschildrenalsostayedinthesubjectproperty.20
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

2/8

7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

Rodolfo Layumas further narrated that in 1987, Corazon wrote one of the petitionersheirs, Pepito Mascuana,
requesting that the title of the lot be transferred in Sumilhigs name so that they could likewise arrange for the
conveyance of the title in their names. Pepito failed to claim the letter, and thereafter, filed a case of ejectment
againstBarteandRodolfoLayumasbrotherinlaw,PepitoAntonio.Thecase,thewitnessadded,wasdismissed
as against the two parties. Offered in evidence were the following: a Sworn Statement on the Current and Fair
MarketValueoftheRealPropertyissuedin1973asrequiredbyPresidentialDecreeNo.76,andtaxreceipts.21
RodolfoLayumasadmittedoncrossexaminationthatatthetimetheyboughtthepropertyfromSumilhig,thetitle
wasstillinthepossessionoftheWuthrichfamily.HeaddedthathefiledanadverseclaimbeforetheRegisterof
DeedsofSanCarlosCity,NegrosOccidental,onLotNo.124BinJanuary1986,orafterthecasehadalready
beenfiledincourt.Lastly,thewitnessdeposedthathedidnotfencethepropertyafterbuyingthesame,butthat
hisbrotherinlawconstructedacocolumberyardthereonuponhisauthority.22
OnJanuary30,1996,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentinfavorofBarteandthespousesLayumas.Thefalloof
thedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of Intervenorscounterclaimants and
defendantandagainstplaintiffscounterclaimdefendantsorderingasfollows:
1.Thedismissaloftheplaintiffscomplaintwithcostsagainstthem
2. The plaintiffs to jointly pay Intervenorscounterclaimants now RTC Judge Rodolfo S. Layumas and
CorazonA.Layumas:
(a)P10,000.00forattorneysfeesand
(b)P30,000.00asmoraldamages
3.Theplaintiffs,ascounterclaimdefendants,tocomplywiththeabovestatedobligationoftheirlatefather,
Mr. Jesus Mascuana, under the Deed ofAbsolute Sale, Exh. "3", pp. 9293, Exp., thru plaintiff Mr. Jose
Mascuana,includingthedesegragation(sic)surveytodesegregatethe469squaremeterportionofsaid
LotNo.124B,SanCarlosCadastre,thisprovince,soldtothelateDiosdadoSumilhig,ifthesamehasnot
yetbeendonedespitewhathasbeensaidhereinearliertosaideffect,andtheexecutionoftheFinalDeed
ofSaleintheircapacityastheheirsandsuccessorsininterestofthelateMr.JesusMascuana,thruMr.
JoseMascuana,coveringthe469squaremeterdesegregatedportionofsaidLotNo.124B,withinsixty
(60)dayscountedfromthefinalityofthisDecision,infavoroftheIntervenorsspouses,afterwhichthesaid
Intervenorsspouses shall pay them, thru Mr. Jose Mascuana, the P1,000.00 balance due to them as
successorsininterestofthelateMr.JesusMascuana
4.Incaseplaintiffsfailtocomplywithwhatarehereinorderedforthemtodo,theClerkofCourtVofthis
Court to do all that they were to do as herein ordered in the text and dispositive portion hereof, at the
expense of Intervenors spouses to be later reimbursed by plaintiffs, including the desegragation (sic)
surveyofsaid469squaremeterportionofsaidLot[No.]124B,SanCarlosCadastre,NegrosOccidental,
ifthesamehasnotyetbeendoneandtheexecutionoftheFinalDeedofSaleonbehalfofalltheplaintiffs
as heirs and successorsininterest of the late Mr. Jesus Mascuana covering the said desegregated
portionof469squaremetersoftheaforesaidlot,infavorofIntervenorsspouses,totheendthatseparate
titlethereformaybeissuedintheirnames,aftertheyshallhavepaidtheP1,000.00balancedueplaintiffs
undersaidDeedofAbsoluteSale,Exh."3."
SOORDERED.23
Forthwith,thepetitionersappealedthecasetotheCA,raisingthefollowingissuesoffactandlaw:
a.WhetherornotthecontractofalienationofLotNo.124BinfavorofDiosdadoSumilhigin1961wasa
contracttoselloracontractofsale
b. Whether or not Diosdado Sumilhig had any right to sell Lot No. 124B in favor of intervenor Corazon
Layumasin1968.24
OnMay5,2003,theCAaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourt.Itruledthatthecontractbetweenthepetitioners
fatherandSumilhigwasoneofsale.Foremost,theCAexplained,thecontractwasdenominatedasa"Deedof
Absolute Sale." The stipulations in the contract likewise revealed the clear intention on the part of the vendor
(Mascuana) to alienate the property in favor of the vendee (Sumilhig). In three various documents, the late
MascuanaevenmadedeclarationsthatSumilhigwasalreadytheownerofthedisputedland.TheCAaddedthat
theadmissionmaybegiveninevidenceagainstMascuanaandhispredecessorsininterestunderSection26,
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. As to the argument that the contract between Mascuana and
Sumilhigwasnoteffectivebecauseitwassubjecttoasuspensiveconditionthatdidnotoccur,theCAruledthat
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

3/8

7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

theconditionreferredtobythepetitionersrefersonlytothepaymentofthebalanceofthepurchasepriceandnot
totheeffectivityofthecontract.
1 a v v p h i1 .z w +

As to the petitioners contention that even if the contract were one of sale, ownership cannot be transferred to
SumilhigbecauseMascuanawasnotyettheownerofthelotatthetimeoftheallegedsale,theappellatecourt
ruledthattheregistrationofthelandtobesoldisnotaprerequisitetoacontractofsale.
ThePresentPetition
Aggrieved,thepetitionersfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorariwiththisCourt,wherethefollowinglone
legalissuewasraised:
WASTHESALEOFLOTNO.124BMADEBYJESUSM.MASCUANAINFAVOROFDIOSDADO
SUMILHIGACONTRACTTOSELLORCONTRACTOFSALE?25
WenotethattheoriginalactionofthepetitionersagainstAquilinoBartewasoneforrecoveryofpossessionofLot
No.124B.WiththeinterventionoftherespondentsRodolfoandCorazonLayumaswhoclaimedownershipover
theproperty,andtheacquiescenceoftheparties,evidencewasadducedtoprovewho,betweenthepetitioners
(asplaintiffs)andtherespondents(asdefendantsintervenors)werethelawfulownersofthesubjectpropertyand
entitledtoitspossession.
ThepetitionersresolutelycontendthattheDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedAugust12,1961betweentheirfatherand
Sumilhig was a mere contract to sell because at the time of the said sale, the late Mascuana was not yet the
registered owner of Lot No. 124 or any of its portions. They assert that Sumilhig could not have acquired any
rightsoverthelotduetothefactthatapersoncanonlysellwhatheownsorisauthorizedtosell,andthebuyer
canacquirenomorethanwhatthesellercantransferlegally.Finally,thepetitionersinsistthatthedocumentin
controversy was subject to a suspensive condition, not a resolutory condition, which is a typical attribute of a
contractofsale.
Thepetitionisdeniedforlackofmerit.
The issues raised by the petitioners in this case are factual, and under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only
questionsoflawmayberaisedinthisCourt,thereasonbeingthatthisCourtisnotatrieroffacts.Itisnottore
examine the evidence on record and to calibrate the same. Moreover, the findings and conclusions of the trial
courtasaffirmedbytheCAareconclusiveontheCourt,absentofanyevidencethatthetrialcourt,aswellasthe
CA ignored, misinterpreted and misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would
alterorreversetheoutcomeofthecase.26
We have reviewed the records and find no justification for a reversal or even a modification of the assailed
decisionoftheCA.
Evenonthemeritsofthepetition,theCourtfindsthatthedecisionofthetrialcourtaswellastherulingoftheCA
arebasedontheevidenceonrecordandtheapplicablelaw.
The petitioners reiterated their pose that the deed of absolute sale over the property executed by their father,
JesusMascuana,asvendor,andDiosdadoSumilhigasvendee,wasacontracttosellandnotacontractofsale.
Theyassertthatonitsface,thecontractappearstobeacontracttosell,becausethepaymentoftheP1,000.00
balanceofthepurchasepricewassubjecttoasuspensivecondition:thesurveyoftheproperty,thesegregation
oftheportionthereofsubjectofthesale,andthecompletionofthedocumentsnecessaryfortheissuanceofa
Torrens title over the property to and in the name of Sumilhig who was the vendee.The petitioners assert that
Sumilhigneverpaidtheaforesaidamounttothevendorhence,theobligationofthelatterandhispredecessors
ininterest(hereinpetitioners)toexecuteafinaldeedofsaleneverarose.Assuch,theyaver,titletotheproperty
remainedreservedinthevendorandhisheirsevenafterhisdeath.Therewasnoneedforthevendortorescind
the deed or collect the said amount of P1,000.00 under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code because such a
remedyappliesonlytocontractsofsale.ThepetitionersinsistthatSumilhigneveracquiredtitleovertheproperty
hecouldnothavetransferredanytitletotherespondents.Sumilhigcouldnothavetransferredthatwhichhedid
notown.
Thepetitionerscontentionhasnofactualandlegalbases.
ThedeedofabsolutesaleexecutedbyJesusMascuanaandSumilhig,provides,thus:
That the VENDOR is the true and absolute owner of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 124 of the Cadastral
SurveyofSanCarlos,situatedatBroceStreetandisfreefromliensandencumbrances,andcoveredbyO.C.T.
No.T299[3]7(R1453)ofReg.ofDeeds,NegrosOcc.
That for and in consideration of the sum of FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY PESOS (P4,690.00),
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

4/8

7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

PhilippineCurrency,tobepaidbytheVENDEEinthemannerhereinafterstated,theVENDORdoesherebysell,
transfer,cedeandconvey,aportionoftheabovedescribedpropertycontaininganareaof469squaremeters,
thesketchofwhichcanbefoundatthebackofthisdocumentandhavingafrontageatBroceStreetofaround14
meters,andfromtheBroceStreettotheinterioronitsSouthwestsidewithalengthof30.9meters,withalength
of 24.8 meters on its Northeast side where it turned to the right with a length of 2.8 meters and continuing to
Northwest with a length of 6.72 meters, the backyard dimension is 17.5 meters to the Northwest, unto the
VENDEE, his heirs and assigns, by way of Absolute Sale, upon the receipt of the down payment of THREE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED NINETY PESOS (P3,690.00), which is hereby acknowledged by the VENDOR as
receivedbyhim.
la w p h il.n e t

That the balance of ONETHOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) shall be paid by the VENDEE unto the VENDOR as
soon as the aboveportions of Lot 124 shall have been surveyed in the name of the VENDEE and all papers
pertinentandnecessarytotheissuanceofaseparateCertificateofTitleinthenameoftheVENDEEshallhave
beenprepared.
TheevidenceonrecordshowsthatduringthelifetimeofvendorJesusMascuana,andevenafterhisdeath,his
heirs, the petitioners herein, unequivocably declared that Diosdado Sumilhig was the owner of the property
subjectofthiscase,andthattherespondentsacquiredtitleovertheproperty,havingpurchasedthesameviaa
deed of absolute sale from Diosdado Sumilhig. Thus, on December 31, 1961, Jesus Mascuana and Jose
EstabilloexecutedaDeedofExchangeandAbsoluteSaleofRealEstate,inwhichbothpartiesdeclaredthatthey
werecoownersofportionsofLotNo.124abuttedbythepropertyownedbyDiosdadoSumilhig.27
InthesubdivisionplanofLotNo.124,signedbyRicardoQuilop,PrivateLandSurveyor,followinghissurveyof
LotNo.124onJuly9,1962forandinbehalfofJesusMascuana,etal.,itappearsthatLotNo.124Bwithan
areaof540squaremetersbelongedtoDiosdadoSumilhig,28whichisabuttedbyLotNo.124C,ownedbyJesus
Mascuana.
OnOctober1,1985,longafterthedeathofJesusMascuana,oneofhisheirs,petitionerReneeTedrew,through
counsel,wroterespondentRodolfoLayumasofferingtobuythepropertyoccupiedbyhisoverseerAquilinoBarte
forUS$1,000.00:
ATTY.RODOLFOS.LAYUMAS
SanCarlosCity
NegrosOccidental
DearAtty.Layumas:
ThishasreferencetothelotlocatedatBroceStreet,portionsofwhicharepresentlyoccupiedbyMr.
Barte.
Mrs.ReneeTedrew(neeAgapuyan),whoisnowintheUnitedStates,wouldliketooffertheamount
of$1,000.00tobuyyourshareofthesaidlot.
If you are amenable, kindly inform the undersigned for him to communicate [with] Mrs. Tedrew in
California.
Verytrulyyours,
(Sgd.)
SAMUELSMLEZAMA29
It was only after the respondents rejected the proposal of petitioner ReneeTedrew that the petitioners secured
title over the property on March 17, 1986 in the name of Jesus Mascuana (already deceased at the time),
cancelingTCT No. 967 issued on July 6, 1962 under the name of Jesus Mascuana, who appears to be a co
ownerofLotNo.124withanundividedtwoseventh(2/7)portionthereof.30
WhileitistruethatJesusMascuanaexecutedthedeedofabsolutesaleoverthepropertyonAugust12,1961in
favorofDiosdadoSumilhigforP4,690.00,andthatitwasonlyonJuly6,1962thatTCTNo.967wasissuedinhis
name as one of the coowners of Lot No. 124, Diosdado Sumilhig and the respondents nevertheless acquired
ownershipovertheproperty.ThedeedofsaleexecutedbyJesusMascuanainfavorofDiosdadoSumilhigon
August12,1961wasaperfectedcontractofsaleovertheproperty.Itissettledthataperfectedcontractofsale
cannot be challenged on the ground of the nontransfer of ownership of the property sold at that time of the
perfection of the contract, since it is consummated upon delivery of the property to the vendee. It is through
traditionordeliverythatthebuyeracquiresownershipofthepropertysold.AsprovidedinArticle1458oftheNew
CivilCode,whenthesaleismadethroughapublicinstrument,theexecutionthereofisequivalenttothedelivery
ofthethingwhichistheobjectofthecontract,unlessthecontraryappearsorcanbeinferred.Therecordofthe
sale with the Register of Deeds and the issuance of the certificate of title in the name of the buyer over the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

5/8

7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

propertymerelybindthirdpartiestothesale.Asbetweenthesellerandthebuyer,thetransferofownershiptakes
effectupontheexecutionofapublicinstrumentcoveringtherealproperty.31Longbeforethepetitionerssecured
a Torrens title over the property, the respondents had been in actual possession of the property and had
designatedBarteastheiroverseer.
Article1458oftheNewCivilCodeprovides:
Bythecontractofsale,oneofthecontractingpartiesobligateshimselftotransfertheownershipofandtodeliver
adeterminatething,andtheothertopaythereforapricecertaininmoneyoritsequivalent.
Acontractofsalemaybeabsoluteorconditional.
Thus,therearethreeessentialelementsofsale,towit:
a)Consentormeetingoftheminds,thatis,consenttotransferownershipinexchangefortheprice
b)Determinatesubjectmatterand
c)Pricecertaininmoneyoritsequivalent.32
Inthiscase,therewasameetingofthemindsbetweenthevendorandthevendee,whenthevendorundertook
to deliver and transfer ownership over the property covered by the deed of absolute sale to the vendee for the
price of P4,690.00 of which P3,690.00 was paid by the vendee to the vendor as down payment. The vendor
undertooktohavethepropertysold,surveyedandsegregatedandaseparatetitlethereforissuedinthenameof
thevendee,uponwhichthelatterwouldbeobligedtopaythebalanceofP1,000.00.Therewasnostipulationin
thedeedthatthetitletothepropertyremainedwiththevendor,orthattherighttounilaterallyresolvethecontract
uponthebuyersfailuretopaywithinafixedperiodwasgiventosuchvendor.Patently,thecontractexecutedby
thepartiesisadeedofsaleandnotacontracttosell.AstheCourtruledinarecentcase:
InDignosv.CourtofAppeals(158SCRA375),wehavesaidthat,althoughdenominateda"DeedofConditional
Sale," a sale is still absolute where the contract is devoid of any proviso that title is reserved or the right to
unilaterallyrescindisstipulated,e.g., until or unless the price is paid. Ownership will then be transferred to the
buyer upon actual or constructive delivery (e.g. by the execution of a public document) of the property sold.
Wheretheconditionisimposedupontheperfectionofthecontractitself,thefailureoftheconditionwouldprevent
suchperfection.Iftheconditionisimposedontheobligationofapartywhichisnotfulfilled,theotherpartymay
eitherwaivetheconditionorrefusetoproceedwiththesale.(Art.1545,CivilCode)
Thus,inonecase,whenthesellersdeclaredina"ReceiptofDownPayment"thattheyreceivedanamountas
purchasepriceforahouseandlotwithoutanyreservationoftitleuntilfullpaymentoftheentirepurchaseprice,
the implication was that they sold their property. In Peoples Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Court of
Appeals,itwasstated:
A deed of sale is considered absolute in nature where there is neither a stipulation in the deed that title to the
property sold is reserved in the seller until full payment of the price, nor one giving the vendor the right to
unilaterallyresolvethecontractthemomentthebuyerfailstopaywithinafixedperiod.
Applying these principles to this case, it cannot be gainsaid that the contract of sale between the parties is
absolute, not conditional. There is no reservation of ownership nor a stipulation providing for a unilateral
rescissionbyeitherparty.Infact,thesalewasconsummateduponthedeliveryofthelottorespondent.Thus,Art.
1477 provides that the ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructivedeliverythereof.33
TheconditioninthedeedthatthebalanceofP1,000.00shallbepaidtothevendorbythevendeeassoonasthe
propertysoldshallhavebeensurveyedinthenameofthevendeeandallpaperspertinentandnecessarytothe
issuanceofaseparatecertificateoftitleinthenameofthevendeeshallhavebeenpreparedisnotacondition
which prevented the efficacy of the contract of sale. It merely provides the manner by which the total purchase
priceofthepropertyistobepaid.Theconditiondidnotpreventthecontractfrombeinginfullforceandeffect:
Thestipulationthatthe"paymentofthefullconsiderationbasedonasurveyshallbedueandpayableinfive(5)
yearsfromtheexecutionofaformaldeedofsale"isnotaconditionwhichaffectstheefficacyofthecontractof
sale.Itmerelyprovidesthemannerbywhichthefullconsiderationistobecomputedandthetimewithinwhich
thesameistobepaid.Butitdoesnotaffectinanymannertheeffectivityofthecontract.34
Inacontracttosell,ownershipisretainedbyasellerandisnottobetransferredtothevendeeuntilfullpayment
oftheprice.Suchpaymentisapositivesuspensivecondition,thefailureofwhichisnotabreachofcontractbut
simplyaneventthatpreventedtheobligationfromacquiringbindingforce.35
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

6/8

7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

It bears stressing that in a contract of sale, the nonpayment of the price is a resolutory condition which
extinguishes the transaction that, for a time, existed and discharges the obligation created under the
transaction.36Asellercannotunilaterallyandextrajudiciallyrescindacontractofsaleunlessthereisanexpress
stipulation authorizing it. In such case, the vendor may file an action for specific performance or judicial
rescission.37
Article1169oftheNewCivilCodeprovidesthatinreciprocalobligations,neitherpartyincursindelayiftheother
doesnotcomplyorisnotreadytocomplyinapropermannerwithwhatisincumbentuponhimfromthemoment
one of the parties fulfills his obligation, delay by the other begins. In this case, the vendor (Jesus Mascuana)
failed to comply with his obligation of segregating Lot No. 124B and the issuance of a Torrens title over the
property in favor of the vendee, or the latters successorsininterest, the respondents herein. Worse, petitioner
JoseMascuanawasabletosecuretitleoverthepropertyunderthenameofhisdeceasedfather.
INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thepetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.Costsagainstthepetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Puno,(Chairman),AustriaMartinez,Tinga,andChicoNazario,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1 Penned byAssociate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, withAssociate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.

andMercedesGozoDadole,concurring.
2PennedbyJudgeAbrahamD.Caa.
3Exhibit"L,"Records,p.253.
4Records,p.210.
5Exhibit"17,"Records,p.287.
6Exhibit"19,"Id.at289.
7Exhibit"2,"Id.at208.
8Exhibit"10,"Id.at219.
9Id.,TSN,19April1994,pp.2324.
10Exhibits"1"and"10,"Id.at207and219.
11Exhibit"4,"Id.at212.
12Exhibit"5A,"Id.at214.
13Id.
14Exhibit"A,"Records,p.183.
15Records,p.1.
16Id.at7.
17Records,p.26.
18Id.at86.
19Id.at88.
20TSN,19August1994,pp.16,2325.
21Id.at3237.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

7/8

7/19/2016

G.R.No.158646

22Id.at46,4951.
23Records,pp.376377.
24CARollo,p.46.
25Rollo,p.15.
26 See Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91003, 23 May 1991, 197 SCRA 391 Universal Motors

Corporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.47432,27January1992,205SCRA448andArroyo v.Courtof
Appeals,G.R.No.96602andG.R.No.96715,19November1991,203SCRA750.
27Exhibits"17A"and"17C,."Records,p.287.
28Exhibits"19"and"19A,"Id.at289.
29Exhibit"1,"Records,p.212.
30Exhibit"N,"Id.at257.
31Art.1458,NewCivilCode.
32HeirsofJuanSanAndresv.Rodriguez,G.R.No.135634,31May2000,332SCRA769.
33Ibid.
34Id..
35HeirsofPedroEscanlarv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.119777,23October1997,281SCRA176.
36Ibid.
37Benitov.SaquitanRuiz,G.R.No.149906,26December2002,394SCRA250.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_158646_2005.html

8/8