MALACAANG

Manila
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 27 October 21, 1972
DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM
THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR
In as much as the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict
and social tension,
The redress of such legitimate grievances being one of the fundamental objectives of the New Society,
Since Reformation must start with the emancipation of the tiller of the soil from his bondage,
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated
September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, as amended do hereby decree and order the emancipation of all
tenant farmers as of this day, October 21, 1972:
This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or leasetenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not;
The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm
of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated;
In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now
cultivate it;
For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land
shall be equivalent to two and one-half (2 1/2) times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the
promulgation of this Decree;
The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6) per centum per annum, shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15) years of
fifteen (15) equal annual amortizations;
In case of default, the amortization due shall be paid by the farmers' cooperative in which the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member, with
the cooperative having a right of recourse against him;
The government shall guaranty such amortizations with shares of stock in government-owned and government-controlled corporations;
No title to the land owned by the tenant-farmers under this Decree shall be actually issued to a tenant-farmer unless and until the tenantfarmer has become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmer's cooperative;
Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by
hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other
existing laws and regulations;
The Department of Agrarian Reform through its Secretary is hereby empowered to promulgate rules and regulations for the
implementation of this Decree.
All laws, executive orders, decrees and rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed and or
modified accordingly.

Done in the City of Manila, this 21st day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-two.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 228

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 228 - DECLARING FULL LAND OWNERSHIP TO
QUALIFIED FARMER BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE
NO. 27: DETERMINING THE VALUE OF REMAINING UNVALUED RICE AND
CORN LANDS SUBJECT TO P.D. NO. 27; AND PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER
OF PAYMENT BY THE FARMER BENEFICIARY AND MODE OF COMPENSATION
TO THE LANDOWNER

WHEREAS, Presidential Decree No. 27; for purposes of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer; provided that
valuation
shall
be
determined
by
crop
productivity;
WHEREAS, there is a need to complete Operation Land Transfer and accelerate the payment to the landowners of lands transferred to tenantfarmers;
and
WHEREAS, there is also a need to maintain the financial validity of the Land Bank of the Philippines, the financing arm of the agrarian reform
program
of
the
government;
NOW THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, here
order
that:
Section 1. All qualified farmer beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October 21, 1972 of the land they acquired by virtue of
Presidential
Decree
No.
27
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
P.D.
No.
27).
Sec. 2. Henceforth, the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by P.D. No. 27 shall be based on the average gross production determined by the
Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, Series of 1973, and related issuances
and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The average gross production per hectare shall be multiplied by two and a half (2.5), the
product of which shall be multiplied by Thirty Five Pesos (P35.00), the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October
21, 1972, or Thirty One Pesos (P31.00), the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn on October 21, 1972, and the amount
arrived at shall be the value of the rice and corn land, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining its cost to the farmer and
compensation
to
the
landowner.
Lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer beneficiary after October 21, 1972, shall be considered as advance payment for the land. In
the event of dispute with the land owner regarding the amount of lease rental paid by the farmer beneficiary, the Department of Agrarian
Reform and the Barangay Committee on Land Production concerned shall resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days from its submission
pursuant to Department of Agrarian Reform Memorandum Circular No. 26, Series of 1973, and other pertinent issuances. In the event a party
questions in court the resolution of the dispute, the landowners compensation claim shall still be processed for payment and the proceeds shall
be held in trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof, pending the resolution of the
dispute
before
the
court.
Sec. 3. Compensation shall be paid to the landowners in any of the following modes, at the option of the landowners:
(a) Bond payment over ten (10) years, with ten percent (10%) of the value of the land payable immediately in cash, and the balance in the form
of LBP bonds bearing market rates of interest that are aligned with 90-day treasury bills rates, net of applicable final withholding tax. Onetenth of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance until the tenth year.
The

LBP

bonds

issued

hereunder

shall

be

eligible

for

the

purchase

of

government

assets

to

be

privatized.

(b) Direct payment in cash or in kind by the farmer-beneficiaries with the terms to be mutually agreed upon by the beneficiaries and landowners
and
subject
to
the
approval
of
the
Department
of
Agrarian
Reform;
and
(c) Other modes of payment as may be prescribed or approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council.
Sec. 4. All outstanding Land Bank bonds that are retained by the original landowners-payee or by their heirs, are deemed matured up to ontwenty fifth (1/25) of their yearly face value from their date of issue to the date of this Executive Order and may be claimed by the original
landowner-payee by surrendering the bonds to the Land Bank. The original landowner-payee may claim payment for the remaining unmatured
period of the surrendered bonds under any of the modes of compensation provided in Section 3, subsections (a) (b) or (c) hereof.
In order to meet the financial requirements mentioned in this Section, the Central Bank shall remit to the Land Bank such sums as may b
necessary from the Sinking Fund established by the Land Bank from the retirement of its bonds and other long-term obligations and which
Sinking Fund is administered by the Central Bank: Provided, however, That there is no change in maturity of other outstanding Land Bank
bonds
acquired
and
held
by
transferees
from
original
bondholders.
The

landowner

is

exempt

from

capital

gains

tax

on

the

compensation

paid

to

him

under

this

Executive

Order.

Sec. 5. In the event that the landowner does not accept payment of the compensation due him, his compensation shall be held in trust for him by
the Trust Department of the Land Bank. The cash portion of the compensation and such portions that mature yearly shall be invested by the
Trust Department only in government securities fully guaranteed by the Republic of the Philippines. All the net earnings of the investment shall
be
for
the
benefit
of
the
landowner,
his
heirs
or
successors
in
interest.
The

rights

of

the

landowners

may

be

exercised

by

his

heirs

upon

his

death.

Sec. 6. The total costs of the land including interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum with a two percent (2%) interest rebate for
amortizations paid on time, shall be paid by the farmer-beneficiary or his heirs to the Land Bank over a period up to twenty (20) years in twenty
(20) equal annual amortizations. Lands already valued and financed by the Land Bank are likewise extended a 20-year period of payment of
twenty (20) equal annual amortizations. However, the farmer-beneficiary if he so elects, may pay in full before the twentieth year or may request
the Land Bank to structure a repayment period of less than twenty (20) years if the amount to be financed and the corresponding annual
obligations are well within the farmers capacity to meet. Ownership of lands acquired by the farmer-beneficiary may be transferred after full
payment
of
amortizations.
Sec. 7. As of the date of this Executive Order, a lien by way of mortgage shall exist in favor of the Land Bank on all lands it has financed and
acquired by the farmer-beneficiary by virtue of P.D. No. 27 for all amortizations, both principal and interest, due from the farmer-beneficiary or
a
valid
transferee
until
the
amortizations
are
paid
in
full.
Sec. 8. Henceforth, failure on the part of the farmer-beneficiary to pay three (3) annual amortizations shall be sufficient cause for the Land
Bank
to
foreclose
on
the
mortgage.
Sec. 9. Thirty (30) days after final notice for payment to the defaulting tenant-farmer, a copy of which notice shall be furnished to the
Department of Agrarian Reform, the Land Bank may foreclose on the mortgage by registering a certification under oath of its intent to foreclose
with the Registry of Deeds of the city or province where the land is located attaching thereto: a copy of the final notice for payment; proof of
service to the tenant-farmer and the Department of Agrarian Reform of the final notice for payment; and a certification that at least three (3)
annual amortizations on the land or the sum thereof remain unpaid. The mortgage is deemed foreclosed upon registration of said documents
with
the
Registry
of
Deeds.
In the event the defaulting tenant-farmer could not be served the final notice for payment, the Land Bank shall post the notice for payment in
the town hall, public market and barangay hall or any other suitable place frequented by the public of the barangay where the defaulting
tenant-farmer resides. A certification by the Land Bank to this effect will substitute for the proof of service of the final notice of payment for
purposes
of
foreclosure.
The Register of Deeds of all cities and provinces are directed to have a separate registry book to enter all the requirements of foreclosure as
provided
herein.
Sec. 10. The tenant-farmer, or any of his compulsory heirs may lift the foreclosure within a period of two (2) years from its registration by
paying the Land Bank all unpaid amortizations on the land with interest thereon of six percent (6%) per annum. In case of failure to lift the
foreclosure within the said period, ownership of the land shall be deemed transferred to the Land Bank.
Sec. 11. The Land Bank, not later than three (3) months after its acquisition of the land, shall sell the foreclosed land to any interested landless
farmer duly certified to as a bona fide landless farmer by the Department of Agrarian Reform of the barangay or the two closest barangays
where the land is situated. The cost of the land is the unpaid amortizations due on the lands as of the date of the sale with interest thereon of six
percent (6%) per annum. In the event that there is more than one interested buyer, the actual buyer shall be determined by lottery in the
presence of all the buyers or their representatives and a representative of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The Deed of Conveyance
executed by the Land Bank in favor of the farmer transferee shall be registered with the Register of Deeds of the city or province where the land
is located. Ownership shall transfer to the farmer transferee only upon registration with the Registry of Deeds. The lien of the Land Bank by
way of mortgage on the remaining unpaid amortizations shall subsists on the title of the transferee.

Sec. 12. The Land Bank, at least one (1) month prior to the sale, shall furnish the Department of Agrarian Reform with a notice of sale and shall
post a similar notice in the town hall, public market and barangay hall or any other suitable place frequented by the public of the barangay
where the property is located. The notice shall state the description of the property subject of the sale, the price, the date and place of sale.
Sec. 13. The National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration is hereby authorized to issue such rules and regulations as may be
necessary relative to the registration with the Register of Deeds of all transactions/activities required herein taking into consideration the need to
protect
the
integrity
of
the Torrens
System,
the
interests
of
the
parties
and
innocent
third
parties.
All transactions/activities and their corresponding documents that are registered with the Register of Deeds pursuant to the requirements of P.D.
No.
27 and
this
Executive
Order shall
be
free
from
all
documentary
stamps
and
registration
fees.
Sec. 14. The Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank are authorized to issue the additional implementing guidelines of this
Executive
Order
which
shall
not
be
later
than
sixty
(60)
days
from
the
date
hereof.
Sec. 15. To ensure the successful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program, an Agrarian Reform Operating Fund (Agrarian Fund) shall
be set up by the National Government in the Land Bank. The amount of this Agrarian Fund, to be determined by the Government Corporation
Monitoring and Coordinating Committee hereinafter referred to as GCMCC), will source the funding requirements for Land Bank to carry out
the full implementation of this program which will include the net operating losses directly and indirectly attributable to this program and the
credit facilities to farmers and farmers organizations. Within thirty (30) days from the effectivity of this Executive Order, the Land Bank shall
submit to the GCMCC its funding requirements for 1987. Thereafter, within sixty (60) days after the end of each calendar year, the Land Bank
shall submit to the GCMCC an accounting of all drawings the Land Bank had made against the Fund. At the same time, it will also submit its
prospective funding requirements for the current year for review and validation of the GCMCC. The amount approved by the GCMCC shall be
deemed appropriate and the amount programmed for release in coordination with the Department of Finance, Budget and Management and the
National Economic and Development Authority. Within thirty (30) days from GCMCCs approval, such funds shall be remitted to the Land
Bank
for
credit
to
the
Agrarian
Fund.
Sec. 16. If any part of this Executive Order is declared invalid or unconstitutional, it shall not affect any other part thereof.
Sec. 17. All laws, presidential decrees, orders, letters of instructions, rules and regulations, and other issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with
this
Executive
Order
are
hereby
repealed
or
modified
accordingly.
Sec.

18.

This

Executive

Order

shall

take

effect

upon

its

signing

and

publication

as

DONE in the City of Manila, this 17th day of July, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-seven.

G.R. No. 180665 : August 11, 2010

HEIRS OF PAULINO ATIENZA, namely, RUFINA L. ATIENZA,
ANICIA A. IGNACIO, ROBERTO ATIENZA, MAURA A. DOMINGO,
AMBROCIO ATIENZA, MAXIMA ATIENZA, LUISITO ATIENZA,
CELESTINA A. GONZALES, REGALADO ATIENZA and MELITA A.
DELA CRUZ Petitioners, vs. DOMINGO P. ESPIDOL, Respondent.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the legal consequences when a buyer in a contract
to sell on installment fails to make the next payments that he
promised.
The Facts and the Case

provided

by

law.

Petitioner Heirs of Paulino Atienza, namely, Rufina L. Atienza, Anicia A.

Ignacio, Roberto Atienza, Maura A. Domingo, Ambrocio Atienza,
Maxima Atienza, Luisito Atienza, Celestina A. Gonzales, Regalado
Atienza and Melita A. Dela Cruz (collectively, the Atienzas) 1 own a
21,959 square meters of registered agricultural land at Valle Cruz,
Cabanatuan City.2 They acquired the land under an emancipation
patent3 through the government's land reform program.4
cra1aw

cra1aw

cra1aw

cra1aw

On August 12, 2002 the Atienzas and respondent Domingo P. Espidol

entered into a contract called Kasunduan sa Pagbibili ng Lupa na may
Paunang-Bayad (contract to sell land with a down payment) covering
the property.5 They agreed on a price of P130.00 per square meter or
a total of P2,854,670.00, payable in three installments: P100,000.00
upon the signing of the contract; P1,750,000.00 in December 2002,
and the remaining P974,670.00 in June 2003. Respondent Espidol
paid the Atienzas P100,000.00 upon the execution of the contract and
paid P30,000.00 in commission to the brokers.
cra1aw

When the Atienzas demanded payment of the second installment of

P1,750,000.00 in December 2002, however, respondent Espidol could
not pay it. He offered to pay the Atienzas P500.000.00 in the
meantime,6 which they did not accept. Claiming that Espidol
breached his obligation, on February 21, 2003 the Atienzas filed a
complaint7 for the annulment of their agreement with damages
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City in Civil Case
4451.
cra1aw

cra1aw

In his answer,8 respondent Espidol admitted that he was unable to

pay the December 2002 second installment, explaining that he lost
access to the money which he shared with his wife because of an
injunction order issued by an American court in connection with a
domestic violence case that she filed against him. 9 In his desire to
abide by his obligation, however, Espidol took time to travel to the
Philippines to offer P800,000.00 to the Atienzas.
cra1aw

cra1aw

Respondent Espidol also argued that, since their contract was one of
sale on installment, his failure to pay the installment due in December
2002 did not amount to a breach. It was merely an event that
justified the Atienzas' not to convey the title to the property to him.
The non-payment of an installment is not a legal ground for annulling
a perfected contract of sale. Their remedy was to bring an action for
specific performance. Moreover, Espidol contended that the action was
premature since the last payment was not due until June 2003.
In a decision10 dated January 24, 2005, the RTC ruled that, inasmuch
as the non-payment of the purchase price was not considered a
breach in a contract to sell on installment but only an event that
authorized the vendor not to convey title, the proper issue was
whether the Atienzas were justified in refusing to accept respondent
Espidol's offer of an amount lesser than that agreed upon on the
second installment.
cra1aw

The trial court held that, although respondent's legal problems abroad
cannot justify his failure to comply with his contractual obligation to
pay an installment, it could not be denied that he made an honest
effort to pay at least a portion of it. His traveling to the Philippines
from America showed his willingness and desire to make good on his
obligation. His good faith negated any notion that he intended to

renege on what he owed. The Atienzas brought the case to court

prematurely considering that the last installment was not then due.
Furthermore, said the RTC, any attempt by the Atienzas to cancel the
contract would have to comply with the provisions of Republic Act
(R.A.) 6552 or the Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act (R.A.
6552), particularly the giving of the required notice of cancellation,
that they omitted in this case. The RTC thus declared the contract
between the parties valid and subsisting and ordered the parties to
comply with its terms and conditions.
On appeal,11 the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the
trial court.12 Not satisfied, the Atienzas moved for reconsideration. 13
They argued that R.A. 6552 did not apply to the case because the
land was agricultural and respondent Espidol had not paid two years
worth of installment that the law required for coverage. And, in an
apparent shift of theory, the Atienzas now also impugn the validity of
their contract to sell, claiming that, since the property was covered by
an emancipation patent, its sale was prohibited and void. But the CA
denied the motion for reconsideration, hence, the present petition. 14
cra1aw

cra1aw

cra1aw

cra1aw

Questions Presented
The questions presented for resolution are:

chan robles virtual law library

1. Whether or not the Atienzas could validly sell to

respondent Espidol the subject land which they acquired
through land reform under Presidential Decree 2715 (P.D.
27);
cra1aw

2. Whether or not the Atienzas were entitled to the

cancellation of the contract to sell they entered into with
respondent Espidol on the ground of the latter's failure to pay
the second installment when it fell due; and
3. Whether or not the Atienzas' action for cancellation of title
was premature absent the notarial notice of cancellation
required by R.A. 6552.
The Court's Rulings
One. That the Atienzas brought up the illegality of their sale of subject
land only when they filed their motion for reconsideration of the CA
decision is not lost on this Court. As a rule, no question will be
entertained on appeal unless it was raised before the court below.
This is but a rule of fairness.16
cra1aw

Nonetheless, in order to settle a matter that would apparently

undermine a significant policy adopted under the land reform
program, the Court cannot simply shirk from the issue. The Atienzas'
title shows on its face that the government granted title to them on
January 9, 1990 by virtue of P.D. 27. This law explicitly prohibits any
form of transfer of the land granted under it except to the
government or by hereditary succession to the successors of the
farmer beneficiary.
Upon the enactment of Executive Order 22817 in 1987, however, the
cra1aw

restriction ceased to be absolute. Land reform beneficiaries were

allowed to transfer ownership of their lands provided that their
amortizations with the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) have
been paid in full.18 In this case, the Atienzas' title categorically states
that they have fully complied with the requirements for the final grant
of title under P.D. 27. This means that they have completed payment
of their amortization with Land Bank. Consequently, they could
already legally transfer their title to another.
cra1aw

Two. Regarding the right to cancel the contract for non-payment of an

installment, there is need to initially determine if what the parties had
was a contract of sale or a contract to sell. In a contract of sale, the
title to the property passes to the buyer upon the delivery of the thing
sold. In a contract to sell, on the other hand, the ownership is, by
agreement, retained by the seller and is not to pass to the vendee
until full payment of the purchase price. In the contract of sale, the
buyer's non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition; in
the contract to sell, the buyer's full payment of the price is a positive
suspensive condition to the coming into effect of the agreement. In
the first case, the seller has lost and cannot recover the ownership of
the property unless he takes action to set aside the contract of sale.
In the second case, the title simply remains in the seller if the buyer
does not comply with the condition precedent of making payment at
the time specified in the contract.19 Here, it is quite evident that the
contract involved was one of a contract to sell since the Atienzas, as
sellers, were to retain title of ownership to the land until respondent
Espidol, the buyer, has paid the agreed price. Indeed, there seems no
question that the parties understood this to be the case. 20
cra1aw

cra1aw

Admittedly, Espidol was unable to pay the second installment of

P1,750,000.00 that fell due in December 2002. That payment, said
both the RTC and the CA, was a positive suspensive condition failure
of which was not regarded a breach in the sense that there can be no
rescission of an obligation (to turn over title) that did not yet exist
since the suspensive condition had not taken place. And this is correct
so far. Unfortunately, the RTC and the CA concluded that should
Espidol eventually pay the price of the land, though not on time, the
Atienzas were bound to comply with their obligation to sell the same
to him.
But this is error. In the first place, since Espidol failed to pay the
installment on a day certain fixed in their agreement, the Atienzas can
afterwards validly cancel and ignore the contract to sell because their
obligation to sell under it did not arise. Since the suspensive condition
did not arise, the parties stood as if the conditional obligation had
never existed.21
cra1aw

Secondly, it was not a pure suspensive condition in the sense that the
Atienzas made no undertaking while the installments were not yet
due. Mr. Justice Edgardo L. Paras gave a fitting example of suspensive
condition: "I'll buy your land for P1,000.00 if you pass the last bar
examinations." This he said was suspensive for the bar examinations
results will be awaited. Meantime the buyer is placed under no
immediate obligation to the person who took the examinations. 22
cra1aw

Here, however, although the Atienzas had no obligation as yet to turn

over title pending the occurrence of the suspensive condition, it was
implicit that they were under immediate obligation not to sell the land
to another in the meantime. When Espidol failed to pay within the

period provided in their agreement, the Atienzas were relieved of any

obligation to hold the property in reserve for him.
The ruling of the RTC and the CA that, despite the default in payment,
the Atienzas remained bound to this day to sell the property to
Espidol once he is able to raise the money and pay is quite
unjustified. The total price was P2,854,670.00. The Atienzas decided
to sell the land because petitioner Paulino Atienza urgently needed
money for the treatment of his daughter who was suffering from
leukemia.23 Espidol paid a measly P100,000.00 in down payment or
about 3.5% of the total price, just about the minimum size of a
broker's commission. Espidol failed to pay the bulk of the price,
P1,750,000.00, when it fell due four months later in December 2002.
Thus, it was not such a small default as to justify the RTC and the
CA's decision to continue to tie up the Atienzas to the contract to sell
upon the excuse that Espidol tried his honest best to pay.
cra1aw

Although the Atienzas filed their action with the RTC on February 21,
2003, four months before the last installment of P974,670.00 fell due
in June 2003, it cannot be said that the action was premature. Given
Espidol's failure to pay the second installment of P1,750,000.00 in
December 2002 when it was due, the Atienzas' obligation to turn over
ownership of the property to him may be regarded as no longer
existing.24 The Atienzas had the right to seek judicial declaration of
such non-existent status of that contract to relieve themselves of any
liability should they decide to sell the property to someone else.
Parenthetically, Espidol never offered to settle the full amount of the
price in June 2003, when the last installment fell due, or during the
whole time the case was pending before the RTC.
cra1aw

Three. Notice of cancellation by notarial act need not be given before

the contract between the Atienzas and respondent Espidol may be
validly declare non-existent. R.A. 6552 which mandated the giving of
such notice does not apply to this case. The cancellation envisioned in
that law pertains to extrajudicial cancellation or one done outside of
court,25 which is not the mode availed of here. The Atienzas came to
court to seek the declaration of its obligation under the contract to sell
cancelled. Thus, the absence of that notice does not bar the filing of
their action.
cra1aw

Since the contract has ceased to exist, equity would, of course,

demand that, in the absence of stipulation, the amount paid by
respondent Espidol be returned, the purpose for which it was given
not having been attained;26 and considering that the Atienzas have
consistently expressed their desire to refund the P130,000.00 that
Espidol paid.27
cra1aw

cra1aw

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES and

SETS ASIDE the August 31, 2007 decision and November 5, 2007
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 84953. The Court
declares the Kasunduan sa Pagbibili ng Lupa na may Paunang-Bayad
between petitioner Heirs of Paulino Atienza and respondent Domingo
P. Espidol dated August 12, 2002 cancelled and the Heirs' obligation
under it non-existent. The Court directs petitioner Heirs of Atienza to
reimburse the P130,000.00 down payment to respondent Espidol.
SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

chan robles virtual law library

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA
Associate Justice

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

cralaw

Endnotes:
1
Petitioners are the heirs of Paulino Atienza, the original plaintiff in
this case, who died on September 7, 2007. Please see: Certificate of
Death, rollo, p. 84 and October 13, 2008 Resolution of this Court, id.
at 97.
cra

cra1aw

2
cra

cra1aw

3
cra

cra1aw

4
cra

cra1aw

5
cra

cra1aw

6
cra

cra1aw

Covered by Transfer Certificate of Title T-3971.

Emancipation Patent 416698.
Records, pp. 73-74.
Id. at 5-7.
Respondent claimed that the amount offered was P800,000.00.

7
cra

cra1aw

8
cra

cra1aw

9
cra

cra1aw

Rollo, pp. 56-59.

Id. at 60-66.
TSN, June 4, 2004, pp. 7-8.

10
cra

cra1aw

11
cra

cra1aw

Rollo, pp. 70-79.

Docketed as CA-G.R. CV 84953.

12
Rollo, pp. 34-44. Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan
Vidal, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
concurring.
cra

cra1aw

13
cra

cra1aw

14
cra

cra1aw

Id. at 45-51.
Id. at 9-33.

15
Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants From the Bondage of the
Soil, Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and
Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor.
cra

cra1aw

16
Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180853, January
20, 2009, 576 SCRA 787, 793; Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No. 179848,
November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 295, 311.
cra

cra1aw

17
Declaring Full Land Ownership to Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries
Covered by P.D. 27: Determining the Value of Remaining Unvalued
Rice and Corn Lands Subject to P.D. 27; and Providing for the Manner
of Payment by the Farmer Beneficiary and Mode of Compensation to
the Landowner, issued on July 17, 1987.
cra

cra1aw

18
cra

cra1aw

Section 6, E.O. 228.

19
Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85733, February 23, 1990, 182
SCRA 564, 570, citing Sing Yee v. Santos, 47 O.G. 6372; Chua v.
Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 25, 41-42 (2003).
cra

cra1aw

20
cra

cra1aw

Rollo, p. 67.

See: Valenzuela v. Kalayaan Development & Industrial

Corporation, G.R. No. 163244, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 380, 389390; Ayala Life Assurance, Inc. v. Ray Burton Development
Corporation, G.R. No. 163075, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 462, 470.
21

cra

cra1aw

22
Paras IV, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES ANNOTATED, 179-180
(1994 Edition).
cra

cra1aw

23
cra

cra1aw

TSN, December 16, 2003, p. 36.

24
See: Ong v. Court of Appeals, 369 Phil. 243, 253-254 (1999);
Cordero v. F.S. Management & Development Corporation, G.R. No.
167213, October 31, 2006, 506 SCRA 451, 463.
cra

cra1aw

25
Pagtalunan v. Dela Cruz Vda. de Manzano, G.R. No. 147695,
September 13, 2007, 533 SCRA 242, 249, 253.
cra

cra1aw

26
cra

cra1aw

27
cra

cra1aw

See: Manuel v. Rodriguez, Sr., 109 Phil. 1, 12 (1960).

Rollo, pp. 17, 29; CA rollo, p. 26.