61 Dalion vs CA
Formation of Contract of Sale > Formalities of Contract > General Rule:
Form not important
SPS. SEGUNDO DALION AND EPIFANIA SABESAJE-DALION, petitioners, vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND RUPERTO SABESAJE, JR.,
respondents.
G.R. No. 78903| February 18, 1990| J. Medialdea| [ MAOI ]
Doctrine: A sale of a real property may be in a private instrument but that
contract is valid and binding between the parties upon its perfection. A party
may compel the other to execute a public instrument embodying their
contract to affect real rights once the contract has been perfected.
Nature: Petition to annul CA Decision upholding the validity of sale of a parcel
of land by Segundo Dalion in favor of Ruperto Sabesaje Jr.
FACTS
On May 28, 1973, Ruperto Sabesaje sued to recover ownership of a parcel
of land, based on a private document of Absolute Sale, allegedly executed
by Segundo Dalion. Sabesaje and Dalion are relatives.
Dalion denied the sale, contending that his signature was forged on the
document, and the subject land is conjugal property which he and his wife
bought from Saturnina Sabesaje.
Additionally, Sabesaje claims that after executing the assailed deed of sale,
Sps. Dalion pleaded with him to be the administrators of the land because
Mr. Dalion had no livelihood. Sps. Dalion denied this, but admitted that they
were already administering several parcels of land owned by Sabesaje’s
grandfather.
TRIAL COURT - The trial court decided in favor of Sabesaje, ordering the
spouses to deliver the property and pay P2,000 atty’s fees and P500
litigation expenses and the costs. Sps Dalion appealed to the CA.
COURT OF APPEALS - The CA affirmed, and upheld the validity of the sale. It
ruled that Dalion’s signature on the document is authentic. The witnesses to
the execution of the deed of sale positively testified as to its authenticity.
One of the witnesses, Gerardo Ogsoc, even said that in preparing the
questioned deed of sale, he had copied he boundaries from the old deed of
sale executed by Saturnina. CA said Dalion did not substantiate his claim of
forgery, and that the signature specimen comparisons show convincing
proof that it was he who signed the deed.
In the instant petition to the SC, Dalion argues that (1) his signature was
forged, and (2) since the sale is embodied in a private document, it did not
convey title because of Art 1358 of the Civil Code:
"…acts and contracts which have for their object the creation,
transmission, modification or extinction of real rights over
immovable property must appear in a public instrument."
ISSUES AND RATIO
The SC upholds the findings of the CA as to the validity of Dalion’s
signature.
Sole Issue: Is it true that no title transferred because the sale was not in a
public instrument?
NO. A contract of sale, which is a consensual contract, is perfected by
mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity. Upon
perfection, the parties may reciprocally demand performance.
The trial court rightly ordered Dalion to deliver to Sabesaje the parcel of
land, and execute a formal deed of conveyance in a public instrument. A
sale of a real property may be in a private instrument but that contract is
valid and binding between the parties upon its perfection. And a party may
compel the other party to execute a public instrument embodying their
contract to affect real rights once the contract appearing in a private
instrument has been perfected.
DISPOSITIVE
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of
Appeals upholding the ruling of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED. No
costs.
NO SEPARATE OPINIONS