Digest Cases

Subject: Special Contracts

Sps. Dalion vs. CA & Sabesaje Jr.

Based on the private document of absolute sale, Sabsaje filed a complaint for the recovery of a parcel of land against Dalion. Dalion, however, denied the contract of sale between them. He alleged that the document used upon is fictitious and the signature is being forged. It was also alleged that the subject property is a conjugal property. Sps Dalion added they never received their commission in the administration of the lot, hence Sps Dalion concluded that Sabesajes compaint is merely intended to preempt and forestall their treat to sue for the validity of the contract of sale. However, Sps. Dalion was not contented in the lower courts decision, hence, he appealed to the CA. The CA upheld the validity of the sale on the testimonies of the people who witnessed the execution of the deed. Issue: Whether or not the sale is valid though it was executed in a private document. Ruling: Yes, the sale is valid. The signature and the genuineness of the document must be assumed when it was executed by the parties. But Dalion was still impugned the validity of the sale because it was in a private document. Here, the alleged of Dalion is misplaced. Article 1358 provides the necessity of the public document only for convenience, not for the validity or enforceability. . It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public instrument. A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity. Article 1475 of Civil Code provides, upon perfection of the contract, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, hence vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the thing sold. In contract of sale, 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.

YUVIENCO V. DACUYCUY (May 27, 1981)

Facts: A parcel of land that was subject of contract of sale was owned by the petitioners. The property was located somewhere in Tacloban City. Petitioners and respondents agreed that the respondents have the right to repurchase of the property until July 31, 1978. Respondents agreed to buy the property and the petitioner accepted the proposal via telegram. However, the lawyer of defendant arrived brought in the contract with altered mode of payment which stated: that the balance payment should be paid within 30 days instead of the former 90 days Issue: Whether or not there was already a perfected contract of sale between the parties. Held: There was no contract of sale because the parties are still in the negotiation stage in the contract of sale, hence, there was no meeting of the minds. The coming the defendants lawyer was to negotiate the contract and there was no absolute acceptance because respondents still insisted on further details. Moreover, there was no evidence to prove that the respondents agreed to pay not in cash but in installment. In sale of real property, payment of installment must be in requisite of a note under the statute of frauds

LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: BPI as trustee of Remnants Co, Inc. has the right to manage, administer and even sell its real property. As trustee BPI gave Revilla the authority to sell the parcel of land with a price of Php 1,000.00 per square meter. Revilla communicated Limketkai Sons Milling and agreed the purchase the parcel of land. Both parties agreed during their negotiations and terms of payment. BPI later, refused the payment made by the petitioner and sold the subject property to National Book Store. Issue: Whether or not there was perfected sale between the parties.

Held: Yes. The negotiation started when the authority given by the Philippine Remnants to BPI to sell, manage, administer the subject parcel of land constitutes the perfected contract of sale. The perfection of the contract of sale occurred when Aromin and Albano, acting for BPI, agreed to sell and Alfonso Lim with Limketkai, representative for the petitioner. Limketkai agreed to but the disputed land with a contract price of Php1,000.00 per square meter. In this case, there was a concurrence of offer and acceptance on the object and the consideration therof. Our Civil Code of the Philippines provides that consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon a thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. The offer must be certain and the acceptance absolute.

Secuya vs Vda Selma Facts: Caballero owner of the parcel of land entered into an agreement of partition where 1/3 of the property should be in favor of Sabellona. Later, Sabellona, took possession and sold the property to Dalmacio Secuya through a private document that was already lost. However, Selma bought a portion of land including some portion of land that Secuya was occupied. She presented a Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT. Hence, prompting Secuya to a file a case for quieting of title which the CA upheld Selmas title considering her TCT and a Deed of Sale. Issue: Who has a better right, Secuya or Selma?

Held: The Secuya evidence to support ownership on a parcel of land was the private instrument indicating the sale to their predecessor-in-interest. Though the evidence was lost, it was only binding as between the parties and cannot prejudice the third person since it is not embodied in the public document. In sale of real property or any interest therein must appear in a public instrument in order to be valid, however this requirement is only for convenience and not for validity or enforceability.

XENTREX AUTOMOTIVE, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS Facts: Private respondents went to petitioner, a dealer of motor vehicles to purchase a brand new car valued at 494,000.00. Private respondent made an initial deposit of Php 50,000.00 and the balance was to be paid thru bank financing. Because of the slow pace in processing, Samson decided to pay the balance by issuing check in the amount of Php 250,000.00. However, the respondent was disappointed after issuing the balance because the car was already sold to another buyer without his knowledge, hence a complaint was filed for breach of contract and damages against Xentrex. Issue: Whether or not there was a perfected sale between Samson and the Xentrex. Held: There was a perfected contract of sale between the parties by accepting the deposit. The petitioner has an obligation to sell a determinate thing for a price certain in money which was Php 494,000.0. The Phil. Nissan committed a breach of contract when it allowed the unit in question to be sold to another buyer to the prejudice of private respondent. Article 1475 explicitly provides that the contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon a thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. The parties therefore may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the law on contracts.

ORTEGA VS. LEONARDO

Facts: After the liberation, the government assigned the lot to the Rural Progress Admin which the lot that Ortega was occupied. Ortega and Leonardo agreed to a compromise with each other. Ortega has to to desist from pressing her claim, and Leonardo would sell to her a portion upon getting the provided she paid the survey expenses. Thus, Ortega desisted from her claim and paid the survey expenses and the monthly rental as well. She made some improvement on her house and extended over the subject lot. When Leonardo acquired the title, he refused to sell the portion agreed upon. He claims that the contract is unenforceable based on the Statute of Frauds.

Issue: Whether or not the contract is unenforceable.

Held: Since there was a partial performance, the contract is enforceable. Ortega did what they have agreed upon. She made improvements on the lot, desisted her claim and occupied the possession, paid for the surveying and the monthly rentals as wells. These evidences will amount to partial performance that takes the agreement out of the operation of the Statutes of Frauds.