Domingo Carabeo vs.

Sps Norberto and Susan Dingco, GR

190823, April 4, 2011, 647 SCRA 200
Facts: July 10, 1990 - Petitioner Carabeo and respondent Spouses
Dingco entered into a contract known as "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng
Karapatan sa Lupa" wherein Carabeo agreed to sell his rights over a
648 square meter parcel of unregistered land to the spouses for
P38,000.
An initial payment of Php 10,000 was tendered upon signing of the
contract. The respondent spouses claim that Carabeo asked the
Spouses to keep the payment for the remaining balance of the
purchase price because he had not yet resolved a "squabble" he was
having with the land.
Thereafter, Carabeo received several payments from the spouses
totaling Php 9,100. Despite the alleged problem over the land,
spouses insisted on Carabeo’s acceptance of the remaining balance of
P18,900 but Carabeo remained firm in his refusal, saying that he
would register the land first.
In 1994, Spouses Dingco learned that the problem over the land had
been settled and that Carabeo registered the land in his name. Again,
the respondent spouses offered to pay the balance but Carabeo
declined. No settlement was reached before the Katarungan
Pambarangay which prompted Spouses Dingco to file a complaint for
specific performance before the RTC.
Carabeo contended that the sale was void for lack of object certain
because the Kasunduan did not have specified the metes and bounds
of the land.
After the case was submitted for decision or on January 31, 2001,
Carabeo passed away. However, the records do not show that
petitioner’s counsel informed RTC Bataan, where the complaint was
lodged, of his death and that proper substitution was effected in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
RTC ordered Carabeo to sell his right over the 648 sq m of land
pursuant to the contract by executing a Deed of Sale after the
payment of Php 18,900 by the spouses.
COURT OF APPEALS affirmed RTC’s decision.
Hence this petition.
Issue: Whether the elements of a valid contract is present.
Ruling: Yes. The court answered in affirmative. Even though the
Kasunduan did not specify the technical boundaries of the
property, it does not render the nullity of the sale.
The requirement that a sale must have for its object a determinate
thing is satisfied as long as, at the time the contract is entered into,
the object of the sale is capable of being made determinate without
the necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties.
Furthermore, the respondents herein are pursuing a property right
arising from the kasunduan, whereas petitioner is invoking nullity
of the kasunduan to protect his proprietary interest.
Assuming arguendo, however, that the kasunduan is deemed void,
there is a corollary obligation of the petitioner to return the money
paid by respondents, and since the action involves property rights,
it survives.