University of Mindanao - College of Legal Education

SALES

Case Name Heirs of Severina San Miguel

Docket Number G.R. No. 136054. September 5, 2001

| Date

Ponente PARDO, J.:

Complainant HEIRS OF SEVERINA SAN MIGUEL, namely: MAGNO

LAPINA, PACENCIA LAPINA, MARCELO LAPINA,
SEVERINO LAPINA, ROSARIO LAPINA, FRANCISCO
LAPINA, CELIA LAPINA assisted by husband RODOLFO
TOLEDO

Respondent THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DOMINADOR SAN

MIGUEL, GUILLERMO F. SAN MIGUEL, PACIENCIA F. SAN
MIGUEL, CELESTINO, assisted by husband, ANTERO
CELESTINO, represented by their Attorney-in-Fact
ENRICO CELESTINO, AUGUSTO SAN MIGUEL, ANTONIO
SAN MIGUEL, RODOLFO SAN MIGUEL, CONRADO SAN
MIGUEL and LUCITA SAN MIGUEL

Case summary - In 1974, Respondent, Dominador San Miguel, filed a

petition with the CFI to issue title over lots in dispute
which was a parcel of land originally claimed by Severina
San Miguel

- In 1974, Respondent, Dominador San Miguel, filed a

petition with the CFI to issue title over lots in dispute
which was a parcel of land originally claimed by Severina
San Miguel

- August 22, 1978, Severina filed with the Court of First

Instance of Cavite a petition for review of the decision
alleging that the land registration proceedings were
fraudulently concealed by Dominador from her.

- It was agreed that the 300K shall be fulfilled by

Dominado 2 months from the date of the execution
of sale, which is August 1993.
 - 3 months after, Dominador filed a complaint with
the trial court a motion to deliver the owners copy
of TCT, and admitted that he did not pay the P300K
for the reason that the petitioner failed to adduced
proof of ownership.

Doctrine Requisites of Express warranty in a Contract of Sale

(1) the express warranty must be an affirmation of fact or
any promise by the seller relating to the subject matter of
the sale;

(2) the natural tendency of such affirmation or promise is

to induce the buyer to purchase the thing; and

(3) the buyer purchases the thing relying on such

affirmation or promise thereon

Trigger - If the sellers can’t deliver the object of the sale to the buyer,
words/Phrase such contract may be deemed inoperative.

Relevant Facts

Respondent, Dominador San Miguel, filed a petition with the CFI to issue title over
lots in dispute which was a parcel of land originally claimed by Severina San
Miguel. Severina filed with the Court of First Instance of Cavite a petition for
review of the decision alleging that the land registration proceedings were
fraudulently concealed by Dominador from her.

To solve this problem, the heirs of Severina did not pursue the writs of possession
and demolition, and instead entered into a compromise with Dominador. According
to the compromise, the heirs were to sell the land for P1.5M with the TCT
conditioned upon the purchase of another lot, which was not yet titled, at an
additional sum of P300K. It was agreed that the 300K shall be fulfilled by Dominado
2 months from the date of the execution of sale.

3 months after, Dominador filed a complaint with the trial court a motion to deliver
the owners copy of TCT, and admitted that he did not pay the P300K for the reason
that the petitioner failed to adduced proof of ownership.

In time, petitioners opposed stressing the condition in the compromise agreement.

Since Dominador, et al. have not paid the amount of three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00), then they were justified in withholding release of the certificate of
title.
Ruling of RTC:The court ruled in favor of the respondent. The respondent vendors
are ordered to surrender to the petitioners vendees.

Ruling of CA:The Court of Appeals promulgated a decision denying the appeal, and
affirming the decision of the trial court.  

Ratio Decidendi

Whether respondent shall be - SC held in the negative. The respondent cannot

compelled to pay the P300K
despite the petitioner’s lack of
evidence of ownership.
be compelled to pay the P300k deposit. -
Severina’s heirs anchor their claim on the
compromise agreement, stressing on their freedom
to stipulate and the binding effect of contracts. This
argument is misplaced.

The Civil Code provides: Under Article 1306. The

contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient provided they are not contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

- It is basic that the law is deemed written into

every contract. Although a contract is the law
between the parties, the provisions of positive law
which regulate contracts are deemed written
therein and shall limit and govern the relations
between the parties.

- True, in contracts of sale, the vendor need not

possess title to the thing sold at the perfection of
the contract. However, the vendor must possess
title and must be able to transfer title at the time
of delivery. In a contract of sale, title only passes
to the vendee upon full payment of the stipulated
consideration, or upon delivery of the thing sold.

In relation to the case: - Under the facts of the

case, Severina’s heirs are not in a position to
transfer title. Without passing on the question of
who actually owned the land, SC noted that there
is no proof of ownership in favor of Severina’s
heirs. - In fact, it is a certain Emiliano Eugenio,
who holds a tax declaration over the said land in
his name. Though tax declarations do not prove
ownership of the property of the declarant, tax
 declarations and receipts can be strong evidence of
ownership of land.

- To insist that Dominador pay the price of the

untitled lot, would result in Severina’s Heirs’ unjust
enrichment. - The essence of a sale is the transfer
of title or an agreement to transfer it for a price
actually paid or promise.

- If the sellers can’t deliver the object of the sale to

the buyer, such contract may be deemed
inoperative. - Severina’s heirs insist that delivery of
the certificate of title is predicated on a condition -
payment of three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to cover the sale of. SC said that it
is not meritorious.

- Article 1183 also provides that: ” Impossible

conditions, those contrary to good customs or
public policy and those prohibited by law shall
annul the obligation which depends upon them. If
the obligation is divisible, that part thereof which is
not affected by the impossible or unlawful condition
shall be valid.”

- Hence, the non-payment of the P300k is not a

valid justification for refusal to deliver the
certificate of title. - Besides, it was noted that the
certificate of title covering the land in question
were fully paid for by Dominador, et al. -
Therefore, Severina’s heirs are bound to deliver the
certificate of title covering the lots
.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G. R. CV No. 48430 is AFFIRMED in toto.