JOVELLANOS v.
COURT OF APPEALS  Private respondent Annette Jovellanos (2nd marriage)
G.R. No. 100728
June 18, 1992
Petitioners: Wilhelma Jovellanos, Mercy Jovellanos-Martinez, and
Jose Hermilo Jovellanos (Children of 1st Marriage)
Respondents: The Court of Appeals and Annette H. Jovellanos
representing Ana Maria and Ma. Jenette Jovellanos (Children of 2nd
Marriage)
J. REGALADO:
In the case of a contract to sell, ownership is not transferred upon
delivery of the property, but upon full payment of the purchase price.
While deceased husband had possessed a lot through a lease and
conditional sale agreement during his first marriage, he did not acquire
full ownership over it until he had completed his payment which only
occurred during his second marriage.
FACTS:
 September 2, 1955: Daniel Jovellanos and Philamlife entered
into a contract which was a lease and conditional sale
agreement over Lot 8 Block 3 of Philamlife’s QC Community
Development Project
o At this time, Daniel was married to Leonor Dizon (1st
marriage) with whom he had three children (petitioners)
 January 2, 1959: Leonor Dizon passed away.
 May 30, 1967: Daniel married Annette H. Jovellanos (2nd
marriage) ang begot two children (respondents) ooohhh
children battle
 December 18, 1971: Petitioners, at the behest of Daniel, built a
house at the back portion of the lot.
 January 8, 1975: The lease amounts having paid, Philamlife
executed to Daniel a deed of absolute sale.
 January 9, 1975: Daniel donated all his rights, title and interests
over the lot and bungalow to the children of his 1st marriage
(petitioners)
 September 8, 1985: Daniel Jovellanos passed away
claimed in the lower court that the property was acquired by
Daniel while their marriage was still subsisting
o She claims that this form part of the conjugal partnership
of the second marriage (Deed of Absolute Sale 1975)
 Petitioners contend that the property, the lot and the
bungalow erected were acquired by Daniel and Leonor (1st
marriage) during the existence of the first marriage. (Lease and
Conditional Sale Agreement 1955)
 December 28, 1989: Lower court rendered judgment in favor of
respondent Annette. She will own half of the property and her
children (2nd marriage) will own 1/6th pro indivsio shares on the
other half. Children of first marriage will be exclusive owners of
the bungalow.
 CA affirmed decision of lower court, but modified it so that
private respondents also reimburse to petitioners their
proportionate shares in the proven hospitalization and burial
expenses of Daniel.
o CA applied FC 118:
Property bought on installment paid partly from exclusive funds of
either or both spouses and partly from conjugal funds belongs to the
buyer or buyers if full ownership was vested before the marriage and
to the conjugal partnership if such ownership was vested during the
marriage. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership
or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or
owners upon liquidation of the partnership.
 Petitioners contends that lower court erred in holding that:
o The lot and bungalow covered by the lease is conjugal
property of the 2md marriage
o The provision of FC are applicable in resolving the rights
of the parties herein (But SC later ruled under Art 256
that it FC has retroactive effect)
ISSUE:
W/N the property should belong to the conjugal partnership of the
second marriage. YES
HELD:
YES. We need to look at the nature of the contract entered into by
the contracting parties:
 It was a “Lease and Conditional Sale Agreement” with 20 years
lease period and monthy rental.
 As a lessee-vendee, Daniel only had right of POSSESSIOn over
property.
 Philamlife transferred only the TEMPORARY USE of the land
leased.
 The conditional sale agreement is in the nature of a
contract to sell
o Ownership is NOT transferred upon delivery of the
property but upon FULL PAYMENT of the purchase
price.
o The ownership may still be with the seller until full
payment is made, if there is stipulation to this effect.
o Pactum reservati dominii, or contractual reservation of
title.
CONTRACT OF SALE v. CONTRACT TO SELL
 Contract of sale: The title passes to the buyer upon delivery of
the thing sold; non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory
condition
o Vendor loses and cannot recover ownership of the thing
sold unless the contract of sale is rescinded or set aside.
 Daniel’s right to property under his contract with Philamlife was
merely an inchoate and expectant right that would ripen into a
vested right only upon full payment.
o Vested Right: right that is fixed, unalterable and
absolute; perfect in itself and not dependent upon
contingency.
 In this case, NO CERTIFICATE OF SALE was delivered and full
payment of rentals was a condition before ownership could be
transferred to Daniel.
 The deed of absolute sale (executed when it was already fully
paid) was executed 1975; during his 2nd marriage.
o THIS PROPERTY NECESSARILY BELONGED TO
HIS CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS SAID
SECOND WIFE.
 Lower courts ordered reimbursements should be made in line
with FC 118 :
“Any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or
both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon
liquidation of the partnership”
RULING:
Judgment of CA AFFIRMED,

 Contract to sell: The ownership is reserved in the seller and is

not to pass until full payment of the purchase price. Full payment
is a positive suspensive condition.
o Title remains in the vendor if the vendee does not
comply with the full payment as specified in the contract.

 In the case, the contract was a contract to sell, where Daniel

faithfully complied with all the stipulations of the contract
o Made monthly amortization payments and rentals.
o Fully paid Jan 8, 1975 (even though he was already in
possession since 1955)
 Therefore, Daniel did not enjoy full attributes of ownership until
the execution of deed of sale in his favor (when he fully paid)