was no perfected contract of sale because Facts: Fidela Mananzala is the registered owner of petitioner never really intended to sell the land. a parcel of land located at Bagong Pagasa, Quezon Furthermore, the trial court also found the alleged City. She had been in actual possession of the land contract to be null and void because, at the time of since 1955 by virtue of a conditional sale made in the sale, petitioner was not yet the owner thereof. her favor by the Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC), now the National Housing But the CA reversed the decision. It held that there Authority (NHA). was a meeting of the minds between the parties as evidenced by the signature of the petitioner on the n 1960, however, the PHHC awarded the land to deed of sale which the National Bureau of Nestor and Elisea Mercado who took possession of Investigation found to be genuine. The notarization the land in that year. of the deed gave rise to the presumption of its Fidela Contested the award in court/ She She regularity. claimed precedence not only in actual occupation The Court of Appeals further held that petitioner of the land but also in application for its purchase. could validly sell the land even before the actual Both CFIand IAC upheld the right of Fidela. Thus the award to her pursuant to Art. 1461 of the Civil PHHC cancelled the award made to the Mercado Code, which provides that things having a potential spouses. existence may be the object of a contract of sale. Consequently, the court ordered petitioner to Later, Fidela paid the full price of the land under transfer ownership of the land to private the deed of conditional sale. he NHA therefore respondent. executed a deed of sale in her favour. Issue: WON there is a valid contract of Sale Later, one Corazon Ernaez brought an action of specific performance against Fidel to enforce a Ruling: deed of sale covering the same lot for the Affirmed CA’s decision. agreement they have entered to. The 4 contract stipulated that title to the land shall be The question whether the sale was void because it transferred to private respondent within 30 days was made within the one-year period of after full payment of the purchase price by prohibition to petitioner as awardee was never petitioner to the PHHC. briefed or in any way argued below. For all intents and purposes, therefore, petitioner waived this But Fidela denied selling the land to Aranez. She ground and cannot now urge it as ground for contended that the deed was a forgery and that reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals. her signature was secured through fraud by Aranez and by Atty. Pio Lopez.
Also she averred that the deed of sale was void
because it was made before the actual award of the land to her and that it was made in violation of the prohibition in the rules and regulations of the PHHC against the subsequent disposition of the land within one year of the issuance of the title.