Sioco Carino bought a parcel of land from H.C. Heald.

Ting-el Dicman Predecessor-in-interest of

the petitioners, was employed by Sioco as his cattle herder. 0n the advice of his lawyers, and because
there were many parcels of land recorded in his name. Sioco then caused the survey of the land in
controversy in the name of Ting-el Dicman.

Dicman executed a public instrument for the conveyance of his parts rights and interests in
agricultural land in favor to Sioco. Sioco executed, as seller a deed of absolute sale covering said land
and its improvements with his son Guzman Cariño. Guzman had the entire lot 46 resurveyed so as to
indicate the half portion that belonged to him and the other half to heirs of Dicman the said lots were
indicated as 76-A and 76-B.

Upon petition of heirs of Dicman the court rendered a partial judgment and confirmed that the
title over lot 76-A belonged to heirs of Dicman there having been no adverse claims, but as to Lot 76-B,
the trial Court found it necessary to hold further hearing in order to decide on the adverse claims of
parties.

The case was dismissed, Guzman was left undisturbed in his possession of the subject property.
The heirs of Dicman, Revived the foregoing case by filing a complaint for recovery of possession.
However, RTC declared Cariño as lawful possessor and has a better right over the property. C.A.
dismissed the petition and affirmed in toto the ruling of RTC. The heirs brought the case to the Supreme
Court and one of their allegations is that the C.A erred in the application of the ruling in Borromeo Vs
Franco that an agreement on the part of the party to a contract to perfect the title papers to a certain
property within a certain time is not condition subsequent or essential of the obligation to sell.

Issue :

Ruling: