CONSENT : Labagala vs.

Santiago
GR No. 132305, December 4, 2001

I. FACTS:

Jose T. Santiago owned a parcel of land in Manila. However, his

sisters, Nicolasa and Amanda, sued him for recovery of 2/3 share of land
alleging that he had fraudulently registered it in his name. The trial court
decided in favor of the sisters.

Thereafter, Jose died intestate, so the sisters filed a Complaint for

Recovery of the property which was in the possession of Ida Labagala.
According to Ida, she was Jose’s daughter, and that the latter executed a
Deed of Sale over the land in her favor on sometime in March 1979.

II. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid sale in favor of Labagala.

III. RULING:

None, there was no valid sale in this case. Primarily, Jose did not have
the right to transfer the ownership of the entire property since 2/3 of which
belongs to his sisters.

More importantly, Ida Labagala could not have given her consent to
the purported sale, being a MINOR at that time. Under the New Civil Code,
consent of the contracting parties is an essential requisite of a contract,
absent which there can be no valid sale.

OBJECT: Heirs of Del Rosario vs. Santos

GR No. L-46892, September 30, 1981

I. FACTS:

Amparo Del Rosario entered into a contract of sale with Sps. Andres
and Aurora Santos, whereby the latter sold to the former a 20,000 square
meter land but still in the name of a certain Teofilo Custodio. The parties
agreed that Sps. Santos shall execute a Deed of Confirmation of Sale in as
soon as the title has been released and the subdivision plan has been
approved by the Land Registration Commission.

Due to the failure of Sps. Santos to execute the deed, Del Rosario
claims malicious breach of a Contract of Sale. As defense, Sps. Santos
claimed that there was no valid sale since the object of the contract does not
exist at the time of the transaction.

II. ISSUE: Whether or not the sale is valid as to its object.

III. RULING:

Yes, there was a valid sale. Under Art. 1461 of the NCC, “Things
having a potential existence may be the object of a contract of sale. The
efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed subject to the
condition that the thing will come into existence. The sale of vain hope or
expectancy is void.”

The case at bar is not a sale of vain hope or expectancy which is void
under the law. The expectant right came into existence or materialized since
Sps. Santos actually derived the title which subsequently became the object
of subdivision.

CONSIDERATION : Penalosa vs. Santos

GR No. 133749, August 23, 2001

I. FACTS:

Severino Santos sold his property to Hernando “Henry” Penalosa. The

latter already took possession of the property after ejectment of the lessees,
and also paid an earnest money of Php 300,000.00 under the premise that it
shall be forfeited in case of non-payment of the purchase price of Php 2M.

Severino now claims ownership over the property claiming that Henry
did not pay for the property, thus there was no sale to speak of.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale.

III. RULING:

Yes, there is a perfected contract of sale. Under Art. 1458 of the NCC,
the elements of a valid sale are consent, object and consideration – or the
price certain in money or its equivalent. Non-payment of the purchase price
is not among the instances where the law declares a contract to be null and
void.

Said non-payment of the purchase price merely results in breach of

contract and warrants an action for rescission or specific performance.