Mananzala vs. CA The RTC dismissed the complaint.

It held that there

Facts: Fidela Mananzala is the registered owner of
a parcel of land located at Bagong Pagasa, Quezon
City. She had been in actual possession of the land
since 1955 by virtue of a conditional sale made in
her favor by the Philippine Homesite and Housing
Corporation (PHHC), now the National Housing
Authority (NHA).
n 1960, however, the PHHC awarded the land to
Nestor and Elisea Mercado who took possession of
the land in that year.
Fidela Contested the award in court/ She She
claimed precedence not only in actual occupation
of the land but also in application for its purchase.
Both CFIand IAC upheld the right of Fidela. Thus the
PHHC cancelled the award made to the Mercado
spouses.
Later, Fidela paid the full price of the land under
the deed of conditional sale. he NHA therefore
executed a deed of sale in her favour.
Later, one Corazon Ernaez brought an action of
specific performance against Fidel to enforce a
deed of sale covering the same lot for the
agreement they have entered to. The
4
contract stipulated that title to the land shall be
transferred to private respondent within 30 days
after full payment of the purchase price by
petitioner to the PHHC.
But Fidela denied selling the land to Aranez. She
contended that the deed was a forgery and that
her signature was secured through fraud by Aranez
and by Atty. Pio Lopez.
was no perfected contract of sale because
petitioner never really intended to sell the land.
Furthermore, the trial court also found the alleged
contract to be null and void because, at the time of
the sale, petitioner was not yet the owner thereof.
But the CA reversed the decision. It held that there
was a meeting of the minds between the parties as
evidenced by the signature of the petitioner on the
deed of sale which the National Bureau of
Investigation found to be genuine. The notarization
of the deed gave rise to the presumption of its
regularity.
The Court of Appeals further held that petitioner
could validly sell the land even before the actual
award to her pursuant to Art. 1461 of the Civil
Code, which provides that things having a potential
existence may be the object of a contract of sale.
Consequently, the court ordered petitioner to
transfer ownership of the land to private
respondent.
Issue: WON there is a valid contract of Sale
Ruling:
Affirmed CA’s decision.
The question whether the sale was void because it
was made within the one-year period of
prohibition to petitioner as awardee was never
briefed or in any way argued below. For all intents
and purposes, therefore, petitioner waived this
ground and cannot now urge it as ground for
reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Also she averred that the deed of sale was void

because it was made before the actual award of
the land to her and that it was made in violation of
the prohibition in the rules and regulations of the
PHHC against the subsequent disposition of the
land within one year of the issuance of the title.