Case Number: 1 G.R. Number: 135634 Case Title: HEIRS OF SAN ANDRES VS.

RODRIGUEZ Date: May 31, 2010

FACTS: Juan San Andres, owner of lot 1914-B-2 in Liboton, Naga City sold to Vicente S. Rodriguez 345 square meters of the said lot for Php 2,415.00 on September 28, 1964. Upon the death of Juan San Andres on May 5, 1965, Ramon San Andres was appointed as the judicial administrator. He then hired the services of geodetic engineer Jose Penero to survey the lot. Upon completion of the survey, it appeared that Vicente Rodriguez has also taken into occupancy the additional 509 square meters lot surrounding the lot which he previously bought from the late San Andres. Accordingly, Ramon San Andres sent a letter to Rodriguez dated July 27, 1987 requesting Rodriguez to vacate the lot. Rodriguez however, refused which urged Ramon San Andres to file an action in court against Rodriguez on November 24, 1987 for repossession of the lot. But in Rodriguezs filed answer dated February 6, 1989, he stated that aside from the 345 square meter lot which he bought from Juan San Andres on September 28, 1964, the latter also sold to him the remaining 509 square meter lot the following day. ISSUE: The issue is whether who truly has the right to the 509 square meter lot. There is a question of validity on the evidence presented by Vicente Rodriguez as to the sale of the 509 square meter lot. The courts were to rule if there really was a valid contract of sale between Vicente Rodriguez and the late Juan San Andres. DECISION: The Regional Trial Court of Naga City Branch 19 ruled in favour of the heirs of San Andres. However, upon the appeal of the respondent in the Court of Appeals, the decision was reversed and it was declared that indeed, the sale was valid. RATIONALE: Art. 1458 of the Philippine Civil Code states that: By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. A contract of sale may be absolute or conditional. (1445a)

To claim the validity of such sale, one must look at whether the sale contains the three essential elements namely 1. Meeting of the minds in the form of consent 2. Determinate object/thing to be delivered 3. The price in consideration In the petitioners letter, he claims that the thing in consideration is not determinate since there is no survey yet of the land that can pin point exactly the coverage of the 509 square meter lot. However, upon investigation of the evidence by the court of appeals, it was stated in the contract signed by the parties that the land on the three sides of the 345 square meter lot was to be the object sold. Thus, making the object determinable. Furthermore, the validity was supported by the agreement itself presented by Rodriguez. It stated there that Rodriguez paid 500 pesos as down payment and the balance payable after 5 years from the execution of the deed of sale after the survey. Obviously, there was already a price in consideration, and there was also the meeting of the minds. This consent was even clarified after Ramon San Andres wrote to Vicente Rodriguez asking for 300 pesos deductible from Rodriguezs balance on the lot, since San Andres was in dire need of money. On another note, Art. 1545 of the Civil Code provides: Where the obligation of either party to a contract of sale is subject to any condition is not performed, such party may refuse to proceed with the contract or he may waive performance of the condition. If the other party has promised that the condition should happen or be performed, such first mentioned party may also treat the non-performance of the condition as a breach of warranty. Where the ownership in the thing has not passed, the buyer may treat the fulfilment by the seller of his obligation to deliver the same as described and as warranted expressly or by implication in the contract of sale as a condition of the obligation of the buyer to perform his promise to accept and pay for the thing.