Lorenzo and Socorro Velasco v. CA and Magdalena Estate Inc. P20,000.
P20,000.00, which offer the defendant refused to accept because it
[June 29, 1973] (digest)
Facts:
This is a suit for specific performance filed by Lorenzo Velasco
against the Magdalena Estate, Inc.
On Nov 29, 1962 the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a
CONTRACT OF SALE of land (2,059 sq m) at for P100,000.00. the
terms of payment were as follows: down payment: P10,000.00 and
P20,000.00 and the remaining P70,000.00 would be paid in
instalments, an equal monthly amortization will be determined as
soon as the P30,000.00 DP had been completed.
Plaintiff paid P10,000.00 on November 29, 1962. On Jan 8, 1964 he
tendered the payment of P20,000.00 however defendant refused to
accept and refused to execute a formal deed of sale.
Socorro Velasco is his sister-in-law and that he had requested her to
make the necessary contacts referring to the purchase of the
property because he does not understand English well.
The receipt states: "Earnest money for the purchase of Lot 15, Block
7, Psd-6129, Area 2,059 square meters including improvements
thereon P10,000.00." At the bottom of Exhibit A the following
appears: "Agreed price: P100,000.00, P30,000.00 down payment,
bal. in 10 years."
On the other hand, defendant alleged that there was no contract of
sale that was perfected because the minds of the parties did not
meet "in regard to the manner of payment. Contract is
unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
The property was leased by Socorro Velasco and that the defendant
indicated its willingness to sell the property for P100,000.00, with
the following terms of payment: downpayment of P30,000.00,
P20,000.00 of which was to be paid on November 31, 1962 and the
P70,000.00 including interest a 9% per annum was to be paid on
installments for a period of ten years at the rate of P5,381.32 on
June 30 and December of every year until the same shall have been
fully paid;
On November 29, 1962 Socorro Velasco offered to pay P10,000.00
as initial payment instead of the agreed P20,000.00 but because the
amount was short of the alleged P20,000.00 the same was accepted
merely as deposited and upon request of Socorro Velasco the
receipt was made in the name of her brother-in-law the plaintiff
herein;
Socorro Velasco failed to complete the down payment of P30,000.00
and neither has she paid any installments on the balance of
P70,000.00 up to the present time;
On January 8, 1964 that Socorro Velasco tendered payment of
had considered the offer to sell rescinded on account of her failure
to complete the down payment on or before December 31, 1962.
Issue:
Whether the talks between the Magdalena Estate, Inc. and Lorenzo
Velasco ever ripened into a consummated sale?
Held: NO
Ratio:
The material averments contained in the petitioners' complaint
disclose a lack of complete "agreement in regard to the manner of
payment" of the lot in question. The complaint states pertinently:
That plaintiff and defendant further agreed that the total down
payment shall by P30,000.00, including the P10,000.00 partial
payment mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof, and that upon
completion of the said down payment of P30,000.00, the balance of
P70,000.00 shall be said by the plaintiff to the defendant in 10 years
from November 29, 1962;
That the time within the full down payment of the P30,000.00 was
to be completed was not specified by the parties but the defendant
was duly compensated during the said time prior to completion of
the down payment of P30,000.00 by way of lease rentals on the
house existing thereon which was earlier leased by defendant to the
plaintiff's sister-in-law, Socorro J. Velasco, and which were duly paid
to the defendant by checks drawn by plaintiff.
Petitioners admit that they still had to meet and agree on how and
when the down-payment and the installment payments were to be
paid.
Such being the situation, it cannot be said that a definite and firm
sales agreement between the parties had been perfected over the
lot in question.
Indeed, this Court has already ruled before that a definite
agreement on the manner of payment of the purchase price is an
essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable
contract of sale.
G.R. No. 186264 July 8, 2013
DR. LORNA C. FORMARAN, Petitioner, vs. DR. GLENDA B. ONG
AND SOLOMON S. ONG, Respondents.
Facts:
Formaran received by way of donation by his uncle and aunt, Sps.
Melquiades Barraca and Praxedes Casidsid a parcel of land situated
in Nabas, Aklan.
From the time of donation until present, Formaran was in actual
possession of the land
Subsequent to the said donation, Ong and father, Melquiades
Barraca approached Formaran to borrow one-half of the land
donated to her so the Ong could obtain a loan from a bank to buy a
dental chair. An absolute deed of sale was executed without
monetary consideration.
More or less 30 years after the said deed of sale was executed, Ong
filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Ibajay-Nabas, IBajay, Aklan against Formaran
ordering the latter to vacate the land sold to the former. The court
rendered a decision in favor of Ong and ordered Formaran to vacate
the land in question.
Petitioner, Formaran filed an action for the annulment of the deed
of absolute sale against Respondent, Ong in the RTC of Kalibo,
Aklan. And rendered a decision in favor of Formaran.
Respondent coursed an appeal to the CA and CA reversed and set
aside the decision of the RTC and ordered petitioner to vacate the
land.
Hence this present petiotion
Issue:
WON the absolute deed of sale is valid
Held: NO
Ruling:
The Court believes and so holds that the subject Deed of Sale is
indeed simulated,2 as it is: (1) totally devoid of consideration; (2) it
was executed on August 12, 1967, less than two months from the
time the subject land was donated to petitioner on June 25, 1967 by
no less than the parents of respondent Glenda Ong; (3) on May 18,
1978, petitioner mortgaged the land to the Aklan Development
Bank for a 23,000.00 loan; (4) from the time of the alleged sale,
petitioner has been in actual possession of the subject land; (5) the
alleged sale was registered on May 25, 1991 or about twenty four
(24) years after execution; (6) respondent Glenda Ong never
introduced any improvement on the subject land; and (7)
petitioners house stood on a part of the subject land. These are
facts and circumstances which may be considered badges of bad
faith that tip the balance in favor of petitioner.
"The amplitude of foregoing undisputed facts and circumstances
clearly shows that the sale of the land in question was purely
simulated. It is void from the very beginning (Article 1346, New
Civil Code). If the sale was legitimate, defendant Glenda should have
immediately taken possession of the land, declared in her name for
taxation purposes, registered the sale, paid realty taxes, introduced
improvements therein and should not have allowed plaintiff to
mortgage the land. These omissions properly militated against
defendant Glendas submission that the sale was legitimate and the
consideration was paid.

While the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized, it cannot justify the
conclusion that the sale is a true conveyance to which the parties
are irrevocably and undeniably bound. Although the notarization of
Deed of Absolute Sale, vests in its favor the presumption of
regularity, it does not validate nor make binding an instrument
never intended, in the first place, to have any binding legal effect
upon the parties thereto (Suntay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114950, December 19, 1995; cited in Ruperto Viloria vs. Court of
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119974, June 30, 1999)."
G.R. No. 121559 June 18, 1998
XENTREX AUTOMOTIVE, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, MACARTHUR M. SAMSON and GERTRUDES C.
SAMSON, respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner is a dealer of motor vehicles. On October 25, 1991,
private respondents went to petitioner to purchase a brand new car,
a 1991 Nissan Sentra Super Saloon A/T model, valued at
P494,000.00. Private respondents made an initial deposit of
P50,000.00; petitioner issued the corresponding official receipt
(O.R. NO. 6504). The balance was to be paid thru bank financing.
Pending the processing of their application for financing, private
respondents paid an additional P200,000.00 to petitioner which
was covered by another receipt (O.R. NO. 6547). Eventually, due to
the slow pace in the processing of their application for financing,
private respondents decided to pay the remaining balance on
November 6, 1991 by tendering a check in the amount of
P250,000.00. As it turned out however, to private respondents'
shock and disappointment, the car had already been sold to another
buyer without their knowledge, prompting them to send a demand
letter to petitioner asking the latter to comply with its obligation to
deliver the car. Their demand unheeded, private respondents
(plaintiffs below) filed a suit for breach of contract and damages
before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 42. Denying
any liability, petitioner (defendant below) alleged that the
complaint stated no cause of action. After trial, judgment was
rendered by the trial court in private respondents' favor. On appeal
by petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court. 2
ISSUE: WON THERE WAS A PERFECTED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT.
HELD: YES
RULING:
Petitioner argues that there was no perfected contract of sale
between the parties due to private respondents' failure to comply
with their obligation to pay the purchase price of the car in full.
Thus, petitioner assert that it has no obligation to deliver the car to
private respondents and therefore could not be held liable for
breach of contract and damages
Undoubtedly, there was a perfected contract of sale between the Trial Court decided in favor of Sabesaje and ordered the Dalions to
petitioner and private respondents as confirmed by the trial court deliver the parcel of land in a public document. CA affirmed.
when it found that "[b] y accepting a deposit of P50,000.00 and by
pulling out a unit of Philippine Nissan 1.6 cc Sentry Automatic Issues:
(Flamingo red), defendant obliged itself to sell to plaintiffs a
determinate thing for a price certain in money which was 1. Was the contract of sale valid?
P494,000.00". 4 2. Is a public document needed for transfer of ownership?
Resultingly, petition committed a breach of contract when it Held:
allowed the unit in question to be sold to another buyer to the
prejudice of private respondents. 1. Yes. People who witnessed the execution of the deed positively
testified on its authenticity. They stated that it had been executed
The Court of Appeals gave complete accord to the aforementioned and signed by the signatories. A contract of sale is a consensual
findings and affirmed the same in its, decision. 5 In this regard, it contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent.
must be emphasized that the prevailing rule is that the findings of No particular form is required for its validity. Upon perfection of the
fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of contract, the parties may reciprocally demand performance (NCC
Appeals, are binding upon this Court. 6 1475, NCC), i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the
object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the
thing sold (NCC 1458).
Nevertheless, We sustain the award of moral damages considering
private respondent Macarthur Samson's testimony that he suffered 2. No. The provision of NCC 1358 of NCC on the necessity of a public
from shock and embarrassment as a result of petitioner's failure to document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability.
comply with its obligation. The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered Dalion to deliver to
Sabesaje the parcel of land and to execute corresponding formal
Spouses Dalion v. CA deed of conveyance in a public document. Under NCC 1498, when
GR. No. 78903 February 28,1990 the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution is
equivalent to the delivery of the thing. Delivery may either be actual
Facts: (real) or constructive. Thus delivery of a parcel of land may be done
by placing the vendee in control and possession of the land (real) or
A land in Southern Leyte was declared in the name of Segundo by embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive).
Dalion. Sabesaje sued to recover ownership this land based on a
private document of absolute sale, allegedly executed by Segundo
Dalion.
Dalion, however, denied the sale, saying that:
The document was fictitious
His signature was a forgery, and
That the land is conjugal property, which he and his wife
acquired in 1960 from Saturnina Sabesaje as evidenced
by the "Escritura de Venta Absoluta."
The spouses denied the claims of Sabesaje that after executing a
deed of sale over the parcel of land, they had pleaded with Sabesaje
to be allowed to administer the land because Dalion did not have
livelihood.
Spouses Dalion admitted, however, administering 5 parcels of land
in Southern Leyte, which belonged to Leonardo Sabesaje,
grandfather of Sabesaje, who died in 1956.
The Dalions never received their agreed 10% and 15% commission
on the sales of copra and abaca. Sabesaje's suit, they say, was
intended merely to harass and forestall Dalion's threat to sue for
these unpaid commissions.