APPELLANTS’ BRIEF COME NOW, the defendants-Appellants, through counsel, and unto this Honorable Court of Appeals

, submit the following BRIEF in support of their appeal. The Notice to File Brief within forty five (45) days from receipt dated January 28, 2013 was received February 8, 2013. The 45th day from receipt falls on March 25, 2013. Hence, Appellants’ Brief is filed on time.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a complaint for recovery of possession of real property, filed by HAIDE LAGROSA-YANCE, represented by her attorney-in-fact MARICHEL YANCE-BAUTISTA, Plaintiff Haide Lagrosa-Yance, in her Special Power of Attorney, hereafter SPA empowered her attorney-in-fact to file this case against SPS. CESAR PAGES. The attorney-in-fact, however filed this against defendants SPS ANDRES PAGES who are not the one named in the SPA. Notwithstanding the objection to the SPA when formally offered that the complaint is filed against the defendants SPS. ANDRES PAGES, not mentioned in the Special Power of Attorney, plaintiff still persisted in continuing the case although SPA does not authorize filing against the said SPS. ANDRES PAGES, defendants herein. While the attorney-in-fact is also one of the heirs of the deceased CESAR YANCE, she did not file this case in her own behalf but in behalf of her mother. There being no authority from Haide Lagrosa Yance the court a quo should not have proceeded to try the case. For the reason that the attorney-in-fact has no authority to file this case against spouses Andres Pages, defendants herein, the required verification and certification against forum shopping against spouses Andres Pages is likewise unauthorized. There being no valid certification against forum shopping the case should have been dismissed pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 7 of the Rules of Court. This defect is fatal and cannot be cured by submitting a new certification against forum shopping. Absent a valid certification against forum shopping, the case should be dismissed under the Rule of Rules of Court. This complaint to recover possession should not prosper against defendants because of the finding of the Court of Appeals on CA Case No. GR No. 86145 promulgated March 02, 1997 that there is a contract to sell

1

between estate of Cesar Yance and the sps. Andres Pages and payment of P495,000.00 with a balance of only P5,600.00 of the agreed purchase price.

STATEMENTS OF FACTS 1. Plaintiff filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession of Real Property entitled “HAIDE LAGROSA-YANCE, represented by MARICHEL YANCEBAUTISTA, plaintiff vs. ANDRESS PAGES, NONA PAGES, and all other person claiming rights under them, defendants. 2. Plaintiff averred in the complaint that:
1. “Plaintiff is of legal age, a resident of New Jersey, USA., coowner of a certain parcel of land covered by TCT No. 52170, of the Registry of Deeds of Parañaque City, herein represented by her daughter MARICHEL YANCE-BAUTISTA. The latter is a resident of Block 18, Lot 31, Kalayaan Village, Pasay City. Copy of the Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 52170, Special Power of Attorney and latest receipts of real property tax are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “A” “B” & “C”, respectively, forming integral parts hereof; 2. Spouses Andres Pages and Nona Pages, are both Filipinos, currently occupying the land covered by TCT No. 52170, at 5 Thomas St., Multinational Subdivision, Parañaque City; 3. Sometime in 1992 defendants Andres Pages who purportedly own the property contiguous to the property covered by TCT No. 52170, without permission form plaintiff, began occupying the portion of the latter’s property by placing construction materials and equipment thereon; 4. Not contented with the aforesaid intrusion, defendants constructed a shade with concrete floorings which served as his parking lot for his vehicles; 5. Said parking shade practically covers almost half of the property covered by TCT No. 52170, encroaching practically about 90 square meters more or less; 6. Despite repeated verbal and written demands, defendants refuse to surrender possession of the more or less 90 square meters they are maliciously and illegally occupying without paying rent and over the vehement objection s of the herein plaintiff;

2

by way of reasonable rent. 9. 13. by way of moral damages. 11.00 for every appearance. to the prejudice and damage of the latter.000. the latter must be ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of P100.000. for years have been occupying illegally the property of plaintiff over the objections of the latter. On March 12. defendants continue to maliciously. To educate the public and to serve as example to the public to dissuade them from following the illegal acts of the defendants. without paying any rent or value thereof. answering the complaint.7. Pending the resolution of this instant case. defendants must be ordered to pay the plaintiff the amount of P2. Defendants.00 by way of acceptance fees and reasonable amount of P2. from the time the demand letter was sent to them until possession of the property in question is fully surrendered to the herein plaintiff. Defendants filed their answer alleging as follows: “Answer with Counterclaim Defendants. and illegally occupy the property of the herein plaintiff. 12. before this Honorable Court most respectfully state: 1. the latter was constrained to engage the services of counsel for which they are committed to pay the amount of P50. 8.00 by way of exemplary damages. Despite said demand letter.000.500. Sometime later Andres Pages constructed his house with roofs abutting the property of the plaintiff without observing proper distance between a house adjacent to another lot. 2007. Defendants have no knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained in paragraph 1 respecting the personal circumstances of plaintiff.00. In view of the repeated and deliberate failure of the defendants to vacate the property of the plaintiff. Plaintiff therefore has suffered sleepless nights and moral anguish and prejudice for which the defendants should be made to pay the amount of P100. 3 .000.00. through undersigned counsel. 10. plaintiff sent a demand letter to the defendant copy of which hereto attached and marked as Annex “D”.” 3. forming an integral part of hereof.

and further allege as follows: 5. 3. The allegation contained in paragraph 10. 12. No. absent any stipulation therein reserving title over the property to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price nor giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the contract in case of non payment. In the case entitled Sps. 8. the answers above as far as the allegations are material and relevant hereto. as though fully set forth. 7. in a contract of sale. a portion of which is adjacent to their land. 2007. & 13 are not ultimate allegation of facts.R. Andres Pages and Nona Pages vs. The Estate of Cesar Yance and Maria Cristina Yance.2. 86145 promulgated March 02. G. hence these are denied. On the other hand. and because earnest money was given as part of the purchase price. The allegation contained in paragraph 2 are admitted with the qualification that defendants Pages are occupying only ½ or 90 square meters of TCT 52170. is a contract to sell or contract of sale. it was really a contract of sale since there was no stipulation reserving ownership of the subject land until full payment of the purchase price. 6. herein plaintiffs-appellants argued that while their contract was denominated as Contract to Sell. Affirmative Defenses Defendants reiterate. which was entered into by and between herein plaintiffsappellants and defendant-appellee. 11. in which title passes to the buyer upon delivery of the things sold. 5. the truth of the matter being as stated in Affirmative Defenses. There is no cause of action for recovery of possession. Thus. In the instant case. 4. the truth of the matter being as stated in Affirmative Defenses. a vendor reserves ownership of the property and is not to pass until full payment. & 9 of the complaint are not entirely accurate and therefore denied. docketed as C. a contract is one of sale. 4 . The allegation contained in paragraph 3. the sale is absolute.A. the Court of Appeals ruling that attained finality stated that: “The core issue to be resolved is whether or not the contract denominated as “Contract to Sell”. In a contract to sell. 4. Maria Cristina.

as would entitle the former to be transferred with the ownership of the thing sold. that is. Hence. XXX” One of the conditions in the contract is the full payment of the purchase price which is P495. that a contract of sale over the 90 square meter portion of the property be executed in their favor is to make a consignation of the balance of the purchase price by depositing it at the disposal of judicial authority. We find the contract entered into by and between herein plaintiffs-appellants and defendants-appellee way back on December 16.000. What determines the nature of the contract is whether or not there was a reservation of ownership of the thing sold until full payment of the purchase price. as the former could no longer be located. ownership over the things sold retains (sic) with the seller.” (Citation omitted) 5 . which is P5. We note that the herein plaintiffs-appellants. Before the fulfillment of such condition. for them to be entitled to specific performance. The fact that earnest money was given as part of the purchase price is not determinative of whether the contract is one of contract of sale or contract to sell. the SELLER shall execute the requisite deed transferring ownership of the property to the former’s name. 1997 as a contract to sell.We are not persuaded. spouses Andres Pages and Nona Pages. The trial court found that herein plaintiffsappellants paid only P489.00.400. spouses Andres Pages and Nona Pages. Maria Cristina Yance.00. Maria Cristina Yance. could not even categorically state the total amount of money that they had paid to the seller. herein defendant-appellee. Maria Cristina Yance. The contract entered into by and between herein plaintiffsappellants and defendant-appellee. However.600.00 short of the agreed price. Maria Cristina Yance. still retains ownership over the property sold until full payment of the purchase price thereof. seems to have no more intention without just cause of continuing with her contract with herein plaintiffappellants. specifically provides that ownership over the 90 square meter portion of the subject land shall be transferred only to herein plaintiffs-appellants upon their compliance of all the required conditions. the seller. Maria Cristina-Yance. The least that herein plaintiffs-appellants could do. to wit: “XXX Upon compliance of all the conditions required of the BUYER under this contract. we note that the seller.

600. 6. there is another case involving the same parties. Thus all that the defendants need to do is only to pay the balance of Php5.00.000.A. 2007 is Annex “A” hereof.000. plaintiffs placed defendants in disrepute by practically calling them land grabbers. That defendants were constrained to defend themselves by reason of this frivolous suit and was forced to engaged the service of undersigned attorney for a fee. for which the plaintiffs must be compensate defendants for moral damages in the sum of P100.Photocopy of the Decision promulgated on March 2. ANDRES PAGES and NONA PAGES vs ESTAIE OF CESAR YANCE and MARIA CRISTINA YANCE. Contrary to the certification of non-forum shopping. There is a notice of lis pendens annotated at the back of TCT 52170 involving civil case No.” 6 .000.00 for and as lawyer's retainer fees and appearance fee for each day of hearing attended in the amount of Php5.600. distress and worry.000. 9.00. That said Decision ruled that there is a balance of Php5. 2007 that has attained finality.R. C. 11. plaintiffs should be ordered to pay exemplary damages in the amount Php500. inconvenience. To deter others from committing similar acts. That there is a violation of the certification against forum shopping by Marichel Yance-Bautista.000.V. Php50. In addition the plaintiffs must reimburse defendants of all sums incurred in connection with action in such amount as will be proven in trial. consequently plaintiffs must reimburse defendants of the sum they will spend by reason of this suit to wit. G. No. 99-0241 before the RTC of Parañaque City which was later appealed to the Court of Appeals and docketed as C. As a result. 12. subject matter and issues as the case at bar. That defendant was given possession because of a contract between the estate of Yance and defendant spouses.00 due the estate of Yance and should be paid before transfer of ownership can be affected. 86145.00. Counterclaim 10. In aforementioned case the court of Appeals rendered a decision promulgated on March 2. anxiety. 8. Php100.00 in accordance with the said Decision of the Court of Appeals..00 for and as acceptance fee. defendants suffered unnecessary dishonor. In filing this frivolous and unreasonable suit. 7. The said case is entitled sps.

(5) And costs.00 per court appearance as and for attorney’s fees. 2007 until the said portion of land is fully vacated/surrendered to the plaintiff.The court a quo rendered judgment.portion of which reads: “WHEREFORE. the ---.000.00 peer month for the possession of the said portion of land of plaintiff reckoned from the date of dem and which is March 12. (2) Ordering the defendants to pay a monthly rental herein equitable fixed at P2. 2012. Philippines. August 30. Parañaque City.000. (3) Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P100. in view of the foregoing.000. SO ORDERED.” ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS 1.500. (4) Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P50.00 as moral damages. authorized the filing of the case 7 . judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants: (1) Ordering the defendants to vacate and to surrender to the plaintiff the possession of the portion of the land or about 90 square meters thereof covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.00 plus P2. The court a quo erred in holding that “this is a verified complaint for recovering of possession of real property filed by plaintiff Haide Lagrosa Yance represented by Marichel Yance-Bautista against defendants Andres Pages and Nona Pages” notwithstanding the fact that the Special Power of Attorney executed by Haide Lagrosa Yance. 52170.

The court a quo erred in holding that “this is a verified complaint for recovering of possession of real 8 . between Cesar Yance represented by Maria Cristina Yance by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney and spouses Andres Pages to buy the subject property. The court a quo erred in reversing the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals that there was an argument sometime in July 1997. to pay plaintiff damages.against spouses Cesar Pages only and not against spouses Andres Pages. 3. 5. prior to the death of Cesar Yance. The court a quo erred in holding that plaintiff as the registered owner of the property has the better right to possess the property notwithstanding the fact that there is an adverse claim annotated at the back of the title respecting a contract to sell in favor of the defendants spouses Andres Pages. 86145 that there is contract to sell between the estate of Yance and the defendants spouses Andres Pages. First Assigned Error. . ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION 1. attorney’s fees and cost. 2. The court a quo erred in ordering defendants to vacate the property in question. 4. the existence of which is confirmed ruled by the Court of Appeals in said CA GR No. The court a quo erred in reversing the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals in the case entitled and docketed as CA GR CV No.

resident of Blk. Cesar Pages for recovery of possession involving my property which is registered under TCT No. GIVING AND GRANTING. among others. Lot 31. HAIDE LAGROSA-YANCE. administrative or quasi-judicial body to carry out the objectives of this authorization. a resident of New Jersey. of legal age. To represent me for purpose of preliminary conference and/or pre trial conference in the proper forum for purpose of entering into amicable settlement. and 9 . Kalayaan Village.property filed by plaintiff Haide Lagrosa Yance represented by Marichel Yance-Bautista against defendants Andres Pages and Nona Pages” notwithstanding the fact that the Special Power of Attorney executed by Haide Lagrosa Yance. Pasay City. to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution. unto my said Attorney-InFact full powers and authority to do and perform all and every act and things whatsoever requisite or necessary to be done in and about the premises as full to all intents and purposes as I might or could be lawfully do if personally present. to be my lawful attorney in fact. authorized the filing of the case against spouses Cesar Pages only and not against spouses Andres Pages. petition or claim and verify the same and execute the corresponding certification of non-forum shopping until their final termination. Filipino citizen. 52170. to file the necessary action. 18. do hereby name. and To appear and represent me before any court. of legal age. The Special Power of Attorney reads: " SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That I. after exhaustion of all possible appeals. and to enter stipulation or admission of facts and of documents. tribunal. to wit: To represent me in the filing of a civil ease against Sps. constitute and appoint MARICHEL YANCE-BAUTISTA. to do and perform the following acts and deeds.

prior to the death of Cesar Yance. “A” SPA. Cesar Pages only. This cannot even cured by submitting another certification against forum shopping. The court a quo erred in reversing the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals that there was an argument sometime in July 1997. was made when the document was formally offered. Andres Pages is authorized by the SPA even though the authorization was against sps. in New York. Cesar Pages. Exh. 2. 52170. When the court a quo ruled for the admission of the Special Power of Attorney. petition or claim and verify the same and execute the corresponding certification of non-forum shopping until their final termination. Andres Pages. after exhaustion of ill possible appeal. defendants filed a motion for reconsideration. This case has to be dismissed. “A”. all that my said Attorney-In-Fact shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of these present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. which reads as follows: The objection to the Exh. 2007. Second Assigned Error. to file the action. U. This defect is fatal. “A” in evidence but ruled that the filing of this case against sps.HEREBY RATIFYING AND CONFORMING. I have hereunto set my hand this 17 day of August.YANCE Principal" It bears stressing that portions of the SPA in question reads: “To represent me in filing of a civil case against sps. between Cesar 10 . HAIDE LAGROSA.” It is clear from the foregoing that the authorization to execute the corresponding certification of non-forum shopping is also for the case to be filed against sps.A. There is no such authorization against sps. The court a quo not only ruled for admission of Exh. There if therefore no valid certification against forum shopping.S. Cesar Pages for recovery of possession involving my property which is registered under TCT No.

Benjamin V. were only making partial payments. counsel for plaintiffs.Decision of Regional Trial Court Br. In view of this. 52170 (Exh. the consulted a lawyer in order to protect their interest in the said property and were advised to file an adverse claim on the property 11 . He and his wife accepted defendant Ma. Atty. The agreed price was P5.500.) as they (plaintiffs). Cristina's offer. For failure of the defendants to file responsive pleadings. the sale agreement that was reduced into writing (Exh. During one of the visits of the defendants Maria Cristina. “H" and sub-markings) was only with regard to one-half of the property (90 sq. marked documents (Exhibits "A" to "D' and sub-markings) to prove compliance with judicial requirements and thereafter presented plaintiff Andres Pages to testify in Support of the allegation in their complaint. properly covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. defendants docketed or civil case No. When they were able to pay in full the first half of the properly. Before the commissioner.Yance represented by Maria Cristina Yance by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney and spouses Andres Pages to buy the subject property. “F”). The said property is the same lot as the one situated adjacent to their' which consist of an area of 180 square meters. Aritao. she offered to sell to them by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney (Exh. Decision This is a verified complaint for specific performance. they could no longer find defendant Ma Cristina.00 per square meter. Nona and the defendants.99-0241 reads. The other half of the property will be paid only after full payment of the first half thereof. They have made 18 partial payments as evidenced by the receipts (Exh. the motion to declare them in default was granted and plaintiffs were allowed to present evidence ex-parte before the Branch Clerk of Court of this Court who was designated commissioner for that purpose. Cesar Yance and Maria Cristina Yance. 195 by the Honorable Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal in the case entitled SPS Andres Pages and Nona Pages. are neighbors and that the latter used to visit them. Mr. Pages testified that he and his wife.m. “E" and sub-marking) executed by her father. Exhibit 7 . in her favor. plaintiff versus state of Cesar Yance and Maria Cristina Yance. defendant Cesar. “G” to “G-17”) issued to them by defendant Maria Cristina However.

in their need to protect their interest. Since defendant Cesar had already passed away. his estate was impleaded in the instant complaint. the failure of the plaintiffs to make the full payment of the purchase price prevents defendants obligation to convey title from acquiring any binding force.000. The contract entered into between the parties in this case is a contract to sell involving 90 square meters of a parcel of land located at Lot 16. The transfer of ownership and title would occur only after full payment of the purchase price (Leaño vs Court of Appeals. But record show that a contrary to the claim of the plaintiffs the purchase price has not yet been fully paid.00 short of the agreed price of P495.000. much less the prayer for the execution of the deed of sale over the entire property. cannot be granted. Witness likewise identified all the documents presented and marked before the commissioner.It was provided in their written agreement (Exhibit “H”) that the seller would execute the deed of sale upon payment of the purchase price of P495. they contracted the services of counsel in the amount of P50. On appeal to the Court of Appeals. Blk 9.In the case at bar.00 which is P5.600. hence plaintiffs prayer that defendants be compelled to execute a deed of sale over the 90 square meter portion of the property.400. Further. 369 SCRA 36).(Exh. They also filed the instant complaint and caused annotation of lis pendens (Exh. Parañaque City. "I" and sub-marking). Thomas Street.000. "J”) on the title of the subject property. and covered by TCT 52170. In a contract to sell real property on installments. the failure of which is an event that prevent the obligation of the vendor to convey the title from acquiring any obligatory force. A careful perusal of the evidence (Exhibits "G"-“G-17") presented by the plaintiffs would reveal that they have only paid the amount of P495. Multinational Village. Suffice it state that there was not even an iota of evidence presented by the plaintiff to show that defendants also offered to sell to them the other half of the subject property. the court of appeals ruled: DECISION The Case 12 .00. the full payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition. subject of the contact to sell.00.00.

The SELLER further may. for failure of the plaintiffs to preponderantly prove their claims. Block 9. SO ORDERED. 99 -0241. plaintiffs-appellants and defendant-appellee Maria Cristina Yance. disposing as follows: “xxx WHEREFORE. Multinational Village." for the sale of only half of the total area.) A down payment of (101. 52170.00 per square meter. with an area of 180 square meters. Any amount that remains unpaid on the stipulated due date shall bear a penalty charge of (24%) per annum until fully paid.00)."Before us is an appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court. 1997. Parañaque City.2005. One Hundred One Thousand Four Hundred. offered to sell to plaintiffs-appellants. located at Lot 16.) The balance of Three Hundred Ninety Three Thousand Six Hundred Pesos (393. that is 90 square meters with the following terms and conditions: “xxx The BUYER shall pay to the SELLER the agreed purchase price of the said parcel of land as follows: a. upon signing of this contract receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the SELLER. Parañaque City Civil Case No.00) shall be paid by the BUYER in regular intervals or as per need basis by the SELLER within a period of (18) months. Philippine Currency. Maria Cristina Yance. the late father of Maria Cristina Yance. Plaintiffs-appellants accepted the offer and the agreed purchase price was P5.500. On December 16. herein defendant-appellee. upon prior notice to the BUYER increase or decrease the interest and/or penalty herein from time to time within the limits of law.” Facts Sometime in July 1997. executed a sale agreement denominated as "Contract Sell.600. 13 . a residential lot. the same are DENIIED. b. The lot was registered in the name of Cesar Yance. spouses Eng’r. and the instant complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Branch 195. Andes P.400. by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. Parañaque City January 31. Pages and Nona Pages. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No . Thomas Street.

The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. This Contact shall be obligatory and binding upon the heirs. 99-0241. The case was then referred to the Clerk of Court. who was designated as commissioner for the presentation of evidence ex parte. xxx" As of the other half plaintiff-appellants will pay the purchase price thereof after making a full payment of the first half of the property. Such deed shall be registered with Register of Deeds within 90 days from execution thereof. Upon compliance of all the conditions required of the BUYER under this contract. the court a quo rendered a default judgment and ruled as follows: “xxx 14 . was declared in default after the former failed to file any responsive pleading to the complaint. Adaga. Maria Cristina Yance could no longer be found. Maria Cristina Yance. documentary stamp. and the SELLER shall there upon deliver the covering title to the BUYER. upon motion of plaintiffsappellants. administrator and assign of the respective parties. Expenses incurred for registration. plaintiffs-appellants instituted a complaint for a specific performance before the Regional Trial Court. but defendants-appellee. Defendant-appellee.Real estate taxes and assessment on the subject parcel of land shall be paid by the BUYER without resource to the SELLER. Hence. Lilibeth O. Capital Gains Tax shall be paid for by (sic) the SELLER. transfer tax shall be paid for by the BUYER. Parañaque City. No transfer or assignment of the BUYERS rights and interest under this contract shall be valid without the written acknowledgement and consent of the SELLER. The RTC Ruling Base on the Commissioner's Report. After making eighteen (18) partial payments. but the whole 180 square meters thereof. the SELLER shall execute the requisite deed transferring ownership of the property to the formers name. successors. plaintiffs-appellants wanted to pay the full purchase price of not only the 90 square meter portion of the property by said contact to sell.

Thomas Street.00 which is short P5.00 short of the agreed price of P495.000. much less the prayer for the execution of the deed of sale over the entire property.It was provided in their written agreement (Exhibit “H”) that the seller would execute the deed of sale upon payment of the purchase of (P495. But the records show that contrary to the claim of plaintiffs. Parañaque City covered by certificate of title No. the same are DENIED. the failure of the plaintiffs to make the full payment of the purchase price prevents defendants' obligation to convey title from acquiring any binding force. Parañaque City. The lot was registered in the name of Cesar Yance. for failure of the plaintiffs to preponderantly prove their claims. and the instant complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Estate of Cesar Yance and Maria Cristina Yance reads: “Sometime in July 1997. 52170 with an area of 180 square meters.400. Suffice it to state that there was not even an iota of evidence presented by the plaintiffs to show that defendants also offered to sell to them the other half of the subject property. Blk 9.000. block 9 Thomas Street. 15 . and covered by TCT 52170. The transfer of ownership and title would occur only after full payment of the purchase price (Leano vs Court of Appeals. the purchase price has not yet been fully paid." The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals in the said case entitled sps. January 31. SO ORDERED. WHEREFORE. Pages vs.600.00. cannot be granted. In the case at bar. 369 SCRA 36). the full payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition. the late father of Maria Cristina Yance. herein defendant-appellee Maria Cristina Yance offered to sell to plaintiff-appellant spuses Eng’r Andres and Nona Pages by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. the failure of which is an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey the title from acquiring any obligatory force. located at lot 16. In a contract to sell real property on installment. Parañaque City. Multinational Village. Multinational Village. A careful perusal of the evidence Exhibits “G"-“G-17”) presented by the plaintiffs would reveal that they have only paid the amount of P489. hence plaintiffs prayer that defendant be compelled to execute a deed of sale over the 90 square meters portion of the property.2005. a residential lot.The contract entered into between the parties in this case is a contract to sell involving 90 square meters of a parcel land located at Lot 16.00). subject of the contract to sell.

Third Assigned Error. but defendants-appellee. who was designated as commissioner for the presentation of evidence ex parte. Maria Cristina could no longer be found. the late father of Maria Cristina Yance. by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No . The lot was registered in the name of Cesar Yance. Based on the commissioners report. 52170. Defendant-appellee. Thomas Street. Maria Cristina Yance. Hence plaintiff-appellants instituted complaint for a specific performance before the trial court. herein defendant-appellee.plaintiff-appellant accepted the offer and the agreed purchase price was P5. Plaintiffs-appellants accepted the offer and the agreed purchase price was P5. the court a quo rendered a default judgment and ruled as follows: 3. Maria Cristina Yance. Andes P. The finding of facts of the Court of Appeals are as follows: “Sometime in July 1997. spouses Eng’r. The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. with an area of 180 square meters. 86145 that there is contract to sell between the estate of Yance and the defendants spouses Andres Pages.00 per square meter. The case was then referred to the clerk of court Lilibeth O.00 per square meter. plaintiffappellants wanted to pay the full purchase price of not only the 90 square meter portion of the property by said contract to sell but the whole 180 square meters thereof. Pages and Nona Pages.” 16 . Parañaque City. Parañaque City. located at Lot 16. offered to sell to plaintiffsappellants.xxxx The Court of Appeals decision continuous to state: After making eighteen (18) partial payments. upon motion of plaintiff-appellant was declared in default after the former failed to file any responsive pleading to the complaint. The court a quo erred in reversing the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals in the case entitled and docketed as CA GR CV No. Adaga. 990241.000. Multinational Village. Block 9. a residential lot.500.

00. The SELLER shall execute the requisite deed transferring ownership of the property to the former’s name. in which title passes to the buyer upon delivery of the thing sold. which is P5. the vendor reserves ownership of the property and is not to pass until full payment. is a contract to sell or contract of sale. Maria Cristina. Maria Cristina Yance. could not even categorically state the total amount of money that they had paid to the seller. absent any stipulation therein reserving title over the property to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price nor giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the contract in case of non-payment. the seller.00. Before the fulfillment of such condition. Hence.400. In a contract to sell. ownership over the thing sold retains with the seller.00 short of the agreed price. In the instant case.00. We do not find any evidence to disturb such factual finding of the court a quo. The trial court found that herein plaintiffs-appellants paid only P489. as would entitle the former to be transferred with ownership of the thing sold. Thus in a contract of sale. herein plaintiffs-appellants argued that while their contract was denominated as contract to sell. “xxx Upon compliance of all the condition required of the BUYER under this contract. Maria Cristina Yance still 17 . Om the other hand. Thus.The Court of Appeals decision also raised the core issues to be resolved as follows: “The core issue to be resolved is whether or not the contact denominated as "Contract to Sell". Maria Cristina Yance. We note that herein plaintiffs-appellants.600. spouses Andres Pages and Nona Pages. be that as it may. Xxx” One of the conditions in the contact is the full payment of the purchase price which is P495.000.400. which was entered by and between herein plaintiffs-appellants and defendants and defendant-appellee. the sale is absolute. the full purchase price has yet to be paid by herein plaintiff-appellants since they paid only P489. and because earnest money was given as part of the purchase price. a contract is one of sale. herein defendant-appelee. it was really a contract of sale since there was no stipulation reserving ownership of the subject land until full payment of the purchase price.

It is to the interest of the public that there should be an end to litigation by the parties over a subject and fairly adjudicated. Court of Appeals.retains ownership over the property sold until full payment of the purchase price hereof. as the former could no longer be located. 238 SCRA 252 (1994). Court of Appeals. However. It extends only to the facts and condition as they existed at the time the judgment was rendered and the legal rights and relation of the parties fixed by the fact so determined. The doctrine of res judicata has two aspects: (a) the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the 18 . (Caina v. b. for them to be entitled to specific performance. spouses Andres Pages and Nona Pages. a. GUIIMBA. that a contract of sale over the 90 square meter portion of the property be executed in their favor. that is. d. c. Regional Trial Court Br. The principle of res judicata actually embraces two different concepts: (1) bar by former judgment and (2) conclusiveness of judgment. 275 SCRA 97 (1997). The doctrine of res judicata is more than a mere rule of law. and an individual should not be vexed twice for the same cause (Cartlet v. Res Judicata refers to the rule of the final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former suit. (Sumaong v. Maria Cristina Yance. is to make a consignation of the balance of the purchase price by depositing it at the disposal of judicial authority. XXXI. The least that herein plaintiffs-appellants could do. seems to have no more intention. more even that an important principle of public policy and it is not too much to say that it is a fundamental concept in the organization of every jural society. we note that the seller. NUEVA ECIJA 215 SCRA 136 (1992). the Supreme Court has made the following pronouncements applicable to the instant case. without just cause. The above Court Rulings in the RTC and affirmed and undisturbed by the findings of the Court 0f Appeals show that Plaintiffs cause of action is barred by prior judgment under the doctrine of res judicata and in connection therewith. of continuing with her contract herein plaintiffsappellants.

there is no identity of cause of action. there is identity of parties. (Cartlet v. between the first case where the judgment was rendered. There is "bar by former judgment" when. demand or cause of action. the existence of which is confirmed ruled by the Court of Appeals in said CA GR No. 272 SCRA 454 (1997). f. 4. Bar by former judgment bars prosecution of a second action upon the claim. 195 SCRA 659 (1991). and (b) preclude relitigation of a particular fact of issues in another action between the same parties on a different claim or caused action. subject matter and cause of action while there is "conclusiveness of judgment where there is only identity of parties but there is no identity of cause of action. Fourth Assigned Error. (Calalang v. 19 . demand or cause of action. the judgment being conclusive is the second case only as to those matter actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. Court of Appeals.same claim. e. 231 SCRA 88 (1994). the second case wherein such judgment is invoke. There is conclusiveness of judgment where between the first case in the judgment is rendered. (Islamic Directorate of the Philippines v. g. A party cannot evade the application of the rule of res judicata by adopting a different method of presenting his case. and not as to matters merely involved therein. demand or cause of action while conclusive of action bars relitigation of facts or issues in another litigation between the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. . The court a quo erred in holding that plaintiff as the registered owner of the property has the better right to possess the property notwithstanding the fact that there is an adverse claim annotated at the back of the title respecting a contract to sell in favor of the defendants spouses Andres Pages. the judgment being conclusive in the second case only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determine. and the second case where the judgment is invoked. Court of Appeals. Register of Deeds.

600. that is why the Court of Appeals suggested consignation of the balance of P5.) They have a right to rely of the finality of judgment of the Court of Appeals finding. Even though the case was dismissed. 195 as no longer affirmed by the Court of Appeals when it ruled that: On the contrary that finding of the coexistence of the said contract to sell remains but the prayer for the specific cannot be granted for the reason that there was a balance of P5. Defendants-appellants believe in good faith that they have a right to the reliefs for under the facts and the law on the following: a.00 it did not give rise to the right to compel by specific performance defendant estate of Yance. But the Regional Trial Court grievously erred when it recalled that because of the dismissal of the specific performance case there was contract to sell. The claim of defendants-appellants is valid and legal in the light of the foregoing reversible error committed by the Regional Trial Court.While the case was dismissed because there is a balance of P5.600.00 in the payment of the purchase price. The court a quo erred in ordering defendants to vacate the property in question. 5. the dismissal does not mean that there is no contract to sell. The existence of the contract to sell between the estate of Yance and them. Notice of les pendens in notice to the whole world.00 The dismissal clearly does not mean that the findings of the RTC Br.600. Hence. including of the pending of the action. to pay plaintiff damages.00. 20 . that is why the case for specific performance was dismissed. defendants-appellants should not be made to pay any form of damages. the notice of les pendens is proof that plaintiff-appellees claim that they do not know of the case as not correct. b. There is a contract to sell but because there is a balance of P5.) No action has been brought to declare the said decision of the Court of Appeals null and void.600. attorney’s fees and cost.

the defendants knowingly. Cesar Yance has already died.c. Witness A. Your Honor please.) The CA decision affirm that the defendants-appellants have paid P495. is it your contention. no evidence was actually submitted in favor of Ma. Court: : Are you saying that…. Your Honor. So. Your Honor. 21 . she has a Special Power of Attorney. Aritao: : If your Honor please. this subject matter is already dethroning the Court of Appeals. despite the fact that they knew very well.00. This is but a collateral attack which the Regional Trial Court should not have allowed. You mean the finding of the Court of Appeals that there was a Contract to Sell? Atty. This is supposedly a case against the estate. Yance was already dead. Your Honor. Cristina Yance. our client really have absolutely no idea that there was indeed a case ongoing. that you…. plaintiffs. I should have been directed against all the heirs. I marked the caption in the civil case because my clients were never informed. but we are just saying that it was entered into after Mr. the fact is. Cristina Yance alone. d. Is he Trying to reopen the Court of Appeals? Atty. Cristina Yance. Allaga: : No. Your Honor please. Precisely. And worse. Mr. because. So. Allaga: : No I am just making an emphasis. Atty. Pages: A : Well.00 with only a balance of P5. Atty.000. But it was very clear that here.) The instant case is not action to said decision null and void. as far we were concerned. the Decision was arrived at in view of the absence of Ma.600. the defendants knowingly transacted with Ma. Aritao: : The summary of facts are already final.

Atty. But the existence of the Contract to Sell. which is already a factual…. Allaga: : Yes. Your Honor. Your Honor. Allaga: : Yes. Court: : Is that your contention? Atty. Allaga: : Yes. but just limit to the fact that the execution of the Contract to Sell transpired after the death of Cesar. Your Honor please…. Your Honor. 22 . I will allow that. It is already a res judicata. Atty. Atty. because. you will be short of attacking of assailing the validity of that Contract to Sell. Allaga: : Yes. Your Honor. It should be admitted. Allaga: : Admitted Your Honor. it seems that the line of questioning that you are propounding.Court: : That’s why. Court: : Okay. Court: : But you are now trying to assail the validity of that? Atty. Court: : The validity.

whatever conclusions that maybe arrived at. Your Honor. Atty.Court: : If that is so. just leave it to the court. because that will be already a legal question. we submit. your Honor. 23 . Allaga: : Yes.