Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THIRD DIVISION
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Case
"In fine, then, we find and so declare that the [respondent] had a
cause of action against the [petitioner spouses] for 'Specific
Performance and Damages.' Hence, the [c]ourt a quo committed a
reversible error in dismissing the 'Supplement to Amended
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 1 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
The Facts
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 2 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
added that she would be willing to sell her property to him for
P16,000,000.00.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 3 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
the morning, x x x.
"On March 10, 1995, the Register of Deeds cancelled the 'Adverse
Claim' of [petitioners] annotated at the dorsal portion of [TCT] No.
171333.
"On March 15, 1995, or more than one (1) year from the rejection by
Bunye of his proferred earnest money, [Respondent] Jordana filed a
complaint against Bunye, with the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, entitled and docketed as 'Juan Jose Jordana, Plaintiff versus
Madeliene S. Bunye, Defendant, Civil Case No. 95-443,' for 'Specific
Performance and Damages' praying that, after due proceedings,
judgment be rendered in her favor x x x.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 4 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
"The summons and complaint in Civil Case No. 95-443 were served
on Bunye through her security guard, Joseph Ytac, on March 23,
1995, as she was still in the United States of America.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 5 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
"On March 28, 1995, [petitioners] filed, in Civil Case No. 95-443, a
'Motion for Leave to Intervene' x x x. "However, [respondent]
opposed the motion x x x.
"On April 5, 1995, [TCT] No. 171333 was cancelled on the basis of
the 'Deed of Absolute Sale' executed on March 30, 1995 by Bunye,
pendente lite, in favor of [petitioners] and, on the same day, the
Register of Deeds issued [TCT] No. 200308 over the property to
and under the name of the said spouses. The 'Adverse Claim' of
[respondent] was carried over in said title, x x x, as Entry No. 18053.
"On June 13, 1995, [petitioners] secured a loan from the Urban
Bank in the amount of P12,000,000.00 and executed a 'Real Estate
Mortgage' over the said property, as security therefor which deed
was annotated, on June 14, 1995, at the dorsal portion of [TCT] No.
200308.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 6 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
The CA ruled that the trial court had erred in dismissing the "Supplement
to Amended Complaint." The appellate court held that respondent
alleged a sufficient cause of action against petitioners for the recovery
of the Adelfa property. The CA said that such action was "real," not
personal.
Moreover, the appellate court held that respondent and Bunye had
entered into a Contract of Sale -- not a Contract to Sell -- which was
perfected by their mere consent thereto. Thus, Bunye was deemed to
have relinquished ownership of the property to respondent.
Regarding the double sale of the property, the CA said that the spouses
could not have registered the second sale in good faith because they
had prior knowledge of respondent's claim. It noted that even the Deed
of Absolute Sale in favor of petitioners had been executed during the
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 7 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
Issues
"4. Did the Spouses Jimenez register their title to the subject
property in good faith?
The foregoing questions point to only one main issue: the nature and the
sufficiency of respondent's cause of action, if any.
Main Issue:
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 8 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
In resolving this issue, we shall begin with some basic rules and guiding
principles regarding cause of action, dismissal of suit, and the law on
sales.
Cause of Action
Generally, the court takes into account only the material allegations of
the complaint, without considering extraneous facts and circumstances.
In some cases, however, the court may also consider -- in addition to the
complaint -- annexes or documents appended to it, other pleadings of
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 9 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
the plaintiff, or admissions in the record.16 It must then bear in mind that
the facts proving the existence of a cause of action do not have to be
established or alleged by the complaint and/or the other pleadings at the
outset but, under exceptional circumstances, even during the trial on the
merits of the case.17
Contracts of Sale
The elements of a valid contract of sale under Article 1458 of the Civil
Code are the following: (1) the parties' consent or meeting of minds, (2)
a determinate subject matter, and (3) a price certain in money or its
equivalent. Being consensual, a contract of sale is perfected upon the
meeting of the minds of the buyer and the seller as to the object of the
sale and the cause or consideration.18 From that moment on, the parties
may reciprocally demand performance; that is, the vendee may compel
the transfer of the ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor
may require the vendee to pay the price of the thing sold.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 10 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
10. Their acts or omissions have compelled him to litigate, for which
they must be ordered to reimburse attorney's fees and litigation
expenses.30
What appears from all these contentions is that the action rests upon the
basic hypothesis that, prior to the second sale and delivery to
petitioners, there was already a perfected sale of the Adelfa property to
respondent. Hence, Bunye was duty-bound to execute a deed of sale;
and petitioners, to reconvey the property to him. From this hypothesis
sprang the CA's conclusion that the suit against petitioners was for
recovery of property.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 11 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
Third, despite the discrepancies and the linguistic lapses in the material
averments of the Supplement, the acts and/or the omissions that
violated respondent's rights are fairly discernible from the records and
the pleadings of the plaintiff. They more than compensate for such
shortcomings.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 12 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
"5. Earlier on March 15, 1995, a Notice of Lis Pendens was filed by
plaintiff before the Register of Deeds, Makati, Metro Manila
informing the Honorable Office of the pendency of a case docketed
as Civil Case No. 94-443 involving the property covered by TCT No.
17133.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 13 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 14 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
Having decided that the CA correctly ruled that respondent had a cause
of action against petitioners, we deem it no longer necessary to take up
the other issues. These questions deal with evidentiary facts that need
to be finally resolved by the trial court after trial on the merits.
The Court must, however, emphasize the provisional nature of any ruling
herein on the nature of the contract between respondent and Bunye, as
we have premised such ruling only on the hypothetical admissions of
petitioners' averments. Additionally, in determining that a cause of action
exists against petitioners, the Court has necessarily inquired only into
the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations.50 The truth
of those allegations, as well as petitioners' defenses, can be determined
only after the parties have adduced their respective sets of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 15 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
10 Gochan v. Young, 354 SCRA 207, 211 & 216, March 12, 2001;
Saura v. Saura Jr., supra; Spouses Abrin v. Campos, 203 SCRA 420,
423, November 12, 1991.
13 Id., p. 39; Drilon v. CA, 357 SCRA 12, 22, April 20, 2001; Fil-
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 16 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. CA, 333 Phil. 465, 490,
December 16, 1996.
15 Ramos v. Condez, 127 Phil. 601, 606, August 30, 1967, per
Angeles, J.
16 Alberto v. CA, 390 Phil. 253, 264-265, June 30, 2000; City of
Cebu v. CA, 327 Phil. 799, 807-808, July 5, 1996; Marcopper Mining
Corporation v. Garcia, 227 Phil. 166, 176, July 30, 1986.
20 Par. 4, ibid.
21 Par. 5, ibid.
25 Par. 8, ibid.
26 Par. 9, ibid.
45 Heirs of Seraspi v. CA, 387 Phil. 306, 314, April 28, 2000.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 18 of 19
G.R. No. 152526 10/1/20, 7:00 PM
(a) The party joining the causes of action shall comply with the
rules on joinder of parties;
(b) The joinder shall not include special civil actions or actions
governed by special rules;
(c) Where the causes of action are between the same parties
but pertain to different venues or jurisdictions, the joinder may
be allowed in the Regional Trial Court provided one of the
causes of action falls within the jurisdiction of said court and
the venue lies therein; and
(d) Where the claims in all the causes of action are principally
for recovery of money, the aggregate amount claimed shall be
the test of jurisdiction."
48 Under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, "[t]he injured party may
choose between the fulfillment and rescission of the obligation, with
the payment of damages in either case. x x x."
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_152526_2004.html Page 19 of 19