Villanueva vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 107624. January 28, 1997

Facts:
Plaintiff Gamaliel and Irene Villanueva, son and mother have been
tenants-occupants of a unit in a 3-door apartment owned by the defendant
spouses Jose and Leonila Dela Cruz.

In 1986, spouses Dela Cruz offered to sell the parcel of land to the
plaintiffs. A P10,000 payment was also made by the plaintiffs to the
defendants as payment of the realty taxes.

It was agreed by the parties that the P10,000 payment would form part
of the P550,000 sale price.

Sometime after, Dela Cruz informed the Villanuevas that Ben Sabio
(another tenant of the units) to purchase one-half of the property being
occupied by him which the plaintiffs consented.

The property was accordingly subdivided, and two separate titles were
secured by the defendants and Mr. Sabio immediately made payments by
installments.

In March 1987, the spouses Dela Cruz, executed a Deed of Assignment

in favor of spouses Guido and Felicitas Pili over the half portion wherein the
plaintiff’s apartment is situated.

Upon discovery, the plaintiff filed a complaint and the trial court ruled in
favor of the respondents. Hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not there has been a perfected contract of sale Villanueva
and spouses Dela Cruz.
Ruling:
No. The court ruled that there was no perfected contract of sale as there
was no agreement as to the price.
Sale is a consensual contract. It follows that a lessee cannot compel the
lessor to sell the leased land to him. The price must be certain, real and not
fictitious otherwise there is no true consent between the parties. There can be
no sale without a price.
In the present case, there was no meeting of the mind as to the price,
expressly or impliedly, directly of indirectly. The statute of fraud cannot also
be assailed in this case because there was no perfected contract, and such
only applies to executory contracts.
The statute of frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to
partially or completely executed ones. Here, there is no perfected contract,
therefore there is no basis for the application of the statute of frauds. The
application of such statute presupposes the existence of a perfected contract
and requires only that a note or memorandum be executed in order to compel
judicial enforcement thereof.

Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui She

No. L-17587. September 12, 1967

Facts:
Justina Santos and her sister own a piece of land. In it are two residential
houses and a restaurant.

The sisters lived in one of the houses while Wong Heng, lived with family
in the restaurant.

In 1957, Justina Santos executed a contract of lease on a 50-year term

in favor of Wong, covering the portion then already leased to him.

Ten days later, the contract was amended so as to make it cover the
entire property.
 In the same year, Justina executed another contract giving Wong the
option to buy the leased premises for P120,000 payable within ten years.

The following year, Justina executed a contract extending the term of

lease to 99 years.

In 1959, appearing to have a change of heart, secured the annulment

of the contracts claiming that she was induced by Wong. An action was filed
in the CFI of Manila alleging that the contracts were obtained by Wong through
fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and abuse of confidence and taking
advantage of the plaintiff.

The court rendered judgement declaring the lease contract null and void
with the exception of the first which is the lease contract in 1957.

While on appeal, both parties died, Wong was substituted by his wife Lui
she, while Justina was substituted by the Philippine Banking Corporation.

Issue:
Whether the lease contract involving Wong were valid.

Ruling:
No, the contracts were invalid and annulled.
The contracts show nothing that is necessarily illegal, but considered
collectively, it revealed an insidious pattern to subvert by indirection what the
Constitution prohibits. A lease to an alien for a reasonable period is valid, so
is an option giving an alien the right to buy real property on condition that he
is granted Philippine citizenship.
In the present case, in a span of one year, was given an option by
Justina to lease a property for 50 years, it became clear that there is
arrangement of a virtual transfer of ownership providing the right to enjoy the
land but also the right to dispose of it. If this can be done, then the
Constitutional ban against alien landholding in the Philippines is a grave peril.