6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

SECONDDIVISION
[G.R.No.135634.May31,2000]

HEIRSOFJUANSANANDRES(VICTORS.ZIGA)andSALVACIONS.TRIA,
petitioners,vs.VICENTERODRIGUEZ,respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals[1]reversingthe
decisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,NagaCity,Branch19,inCivilCaseNo.871335,aswellasthe
appellatecourtsresolutiondenyingreconsideration.Slxsc
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
JuanSanAndreswastheregisteredownerofLotNo.1914B2situatedinLiboton,NagaCity.On
September28,1964,hesoldaportionthereof,consistingof345squaremeters,torespondent
VicenteS.RodriguezforP2,415.00.ThesaleisevidencedbyaDeedofSale.[2]
UponthedeathofJuanSanAndresonMay5,1965,RamonSanAndreswasappointedjudicial
administratorofthedecedentsestateinSpecialProceedingsNo.R21,RTC,Branch19,NagaCity.
RamonSanAndresengagedtheservicesofageodeticengineer,JosePeero,topreparea
consolidatedplan(Exh.A)oftheestate.EngineerPeeroalsopreparedasketchplanofthe345
squaremeterlotsoldtorespondent.Fromtheresultofthesurvey,itwasfoundthatrespondenthad
enlargedtheareawhichhepurchasedfromthelateJuanSanAndresby509squaremeters.[3]
Accordingly,thejudicialadministratorsentaletter,[4]datedJuly27,1987,torespondentdemanding
thatthelattervacatetheportionallegedlyencroachedbyhim.However,respondentrefusedtodoso,
claiminghehadpurchasedthesamefromthelateJuanSanAndres.Thereafter,onNovember24,
1987,thejudicialadministratorbroughtanaction,inbehalfoftheestateofJuanSanAndres,for
recoveryofpossessionofthe509squaremeterlot.Slxmis
InhisReamendedAnswerfiledonFebruary6,1989,respondentallegedthatapartfromthe345
squaremeterlotwhichhadbeensoldtohimbyJuanSanAndresonSeptember28,1964,thelatter
likewisesoldtohimthefollowingdaytheremainingportionofthelotconsistingof509squaremeters,
withbothpartiestreatingthetwolotsasonewholeparcelwithatotalareaof854squaremeters.
Respondentallegedthatthefullpaymentofthe509squaremeterlotwouldbeeffectedwithinfive(5)
yearsfromtheexecutionofaformaldeedofsaleafterasurveyisconductedoversaidproperty.He
furtherallegedthatwiththeconsentoftheformerowner,JuanSanAndres,hetookpossessionofthe
sameandintroducedimprovementsthereonasearlyas1964.
Asproofofthesaletohimof509squaremeters,respondentattachedtohisanswerareceipt(Exh.2)
[5]
signedbythelateJuanSanAndres,whichreadsinfullasfollows:Missdaa
ReceivedfromVicenteRodriguezthesumofFiveHundred(P500.00)Pesos
representinganadvancepaymentforaresidentiallotadjoininghispreviouslypaidloton
threesidesexceptingonthefrontagewiththeagreedpriceofFifteen(15.00)Pesosper
squaremeterandthepaymentofthefullconsiderationbasedonasurveyshallbedue
andpayableinfive(5)yearsperiodfromtheexecutionoftheformaldeedofsaleandit
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

1/8

6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

isagreedthattheexpensesofsurveyanditsapprovalbytheBureauofLandsshallbe
bornebyMr.Rodriguez.
NagaCity,September29,1964.
(Sgd.)
JUANR.SAN
ANDRES
Vendor
Noted:
(Sgd.)
VICENTERODRIGUEZ
Vendee
RespondentalsoattachedtohisansweraletterofjudicialadministratorRamonSanAndres(Exh.3),
[6]
askingpaymentofthebalanceofthepurchaseprice.Theletterreads:
DearInting,
PleaseaccommodatemyrequestforThreeHundred(P300.00)PesosasIaminneed
offundsasIintimatedtoyoutheotherday.
Wewilljustadjustitwithwhateverbalanceyouhavepayabletothesubdivision.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
(Sgd.)
RAMONSAN
ANDRES
VicenteRodriguez
PenafranciaSubdivision,NagaCity
P.S.
YoucanletbearerEnriquedelCastillosignfortheamount.
ReceivedOneHundredOnly
(Sgd.)
RAMONSAN
ANDRES
3/30/66
RespondentdepositedincourtthebalanceofthepurchasepriceamountingtoP7,035.00forthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

2/8

6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

aforesaid509squaremeterlot.Sdaadsc
Whiletheproceedingswerepending,judicialadministratorRamonSanAndresdiedandwas
substitutedbyhissonRicardoSanAndres.Ontheotherhand,respondentVicenteRodriguezdiedon
August15,1989andwassubstitutedbyhisheirs.[7]
Petitioner,asplaintiff,presentedtwowitnesses.Thefirstwitness,Engr.JosePeero,[8]testifiedthat
basedonhissurveyconductedsometimebetween1982and1985,respondenthadenlargedthearea
whichhepurchasedfromthelateJuanSanAndresby509squaremetersbelongingtothelatters
estate.AccordingtoPeero,thetitledproperty(Exh.A5)ofrespondentwasenclosedwithafence
withmetalholesandbarbedwire,whiletheexpandedareawasfencedwithbarbedwireandbamboo
andlightmaterials.Rtcspped
Thesecondwitness,RicardoSanAndres,[9]administratoroftheestate,testifiedthatrespondenthad
notfiledanyclaimbeforeSpecialProceedingsNo.R21anddeniedknowledgeofExhibits2and3.
However,herecognizedthesignatureinExhibit3assimilartothatoftheformeradministrator,
RamonSanAndres.Finally,hedeclaredthattheexpandedportionoccupiedbythefamilyof
respondentisnowenclosedwithbarbedwirefenceunlikebeforewhereitwasfoundwithoutfence.
Ontheotherhand,BibianaB.Rodriguez,[10]widowofrespondentVicenteRodriguez,testifiedthat
theyhadpurchasedthesubjectlotfromJuanSanAndres,whowastheircompadre,onSeptember
29,1964,atP15.00persquaremeter.Accordingtoher,theygaveP500.00tothelateJuanSan
AndreswholateraffixedhissignaturetoExhibit2.SheaddedthatonMarch30,1966,RamonSan
AndreswrotethemaletteraskingforP300.00aspartialpaymentforthesubjectlot,buttheywere
abletogivehimonlyP100.00.SheaddedthattheyhadpaidthetotalpurchasepriceofP7,035.00on
November21,1988bydepositingitincourt.BibianaB.Rodriquezstatedthattheyhadbeenin
possessionofthe509squaremeterlotsince1964whenthelateJuanSanAndressignedthereceipt.
(Exh.2)Lastly,shetestifiedthattheydidnotknowatthattimetheexactareasoldtothembecause
theyweretoldthatthesamewouldbeknownafterthesurveyofthesubjectlot.Korte
OnSeptember20,1994,thetrialcourt[11]renderedjudgmentinfavorofpetitioner.Itruledthatthere
wasnocontractofsaletospeakofforlackofavalidobjectbecausetherewasnosufficientindication
inExhibit2toidentifythepropertysubjectofthesale,hence,theneedtoexecuteanewcontract.
RespondentappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,whichonApril21,1998renderedadecisionreversing
thedecisionofthetrialcourt.Theappellatecourtheldthattheobjectofthecontractwas
determinable,andthattherewasaconditionalsalewiththebalanceofthepurchasepricepayable
withinfiveyearsfromtheexecutionofthedeedofsale.Thedispositiveportionofitsdecisionsreads:
INVIEWOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thejudgmentappealedfromishereby
REVERSEDandSETASIDEandanewoneenteredDISMISSINGthecomplaintand
renderingjudgmentagainsttheplaintiffappellee:
1.toaccepttheP7,035.00representingthebalanceofthepurchasepriceoftheportion
andwhichisdepositedincourtunderOfficialReceiptNo.105754(page122,Records)
2.toexecutetheformaldeedofsaleoverthesaid509squaremeterportionofLot
1914B2infavorofappellantVicenteRodriguez
3.topaythedefendantappellanttheamountofP50,000.00asdamagesand
P10,000.00attorneysfeesasstipulatedbythemduringthetrialofthiscaseand
4.topaythecostsofthesuit.
SOORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

3/8

6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

Hence,thispetition.Petitionerassignsthefollowingerrorsashavingbeenallegedlycommittedbythe
trialcourt:Sclaw
I.THEHON.COURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATTHEDOCUMENT
(EXHIBIT"2")ISACONTRACTTOSELLDESPITEITSLACKINGONEOFTHE
ESSENTIALELEMENTSOFACONTRACT,NAMELY,OBJECTCERTAINAND
SUFFICIENTLYDESCRIBED.
II.THEHON.COURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATPETITIONERIS
OBLIGEDTOHONORTHEPURPORTEDCONTRACTTOSELLDESPITENON
FULFILLMENTBYRESPONDENTOFTHECONDITIONTHEREINOFPAYMENTOF
THEBALANCEOFTHEPURCHASEPRICE.
III.THEHON.COURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATCONSIGNATION
WASVALIDDESPITENONCOMPLIANCEWITHTHEMANDATORY
REQUIREMENTSTHEREOF.
IV.THEHON.COURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATLACHESAND
PRESCRIPTIONDONOTAPPLYTORESPONDENTWHOSOUGHTINDIRECTLYTO
ENFORCETHEPURPORTEDCONTRACTAFTERTHELAPSEOF24YEARS.
Thepetitionhasnomerit.
First.Art.1458oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Bythecontractofsaleoneofthecontractingpartiesobligateshimselftotransferthe
ownershipofandtodeliveradeterminatething,andtheothertopaythereforaprice
certaininmoneyoritsequivalent.
Acontractofsalemaybeabsoluteorconditional.
Asthusdefined,theessentialelementsofsalearethefollowing:
a)Consentormeetingoftheminds,thatis,consenttotransferownershipinexchange
fortheprice
b)Determinatesubjectmatterand,
c)Pricecertaininmoneyoritsequivalent.[12]
Asshowninthereceipt,datedSeptember29,1964,thelateJuanSanAndresreceivedP500.00from
respondentas"advancepaymentfortheresidentiallotadjoininghispreviouslypaidlotonthreesides
exceptingonthefrontage"theagreedpurchasepricewasP15.00persquaremeterandthefull
amountofthepurchasepricewastobebasedontheresultsofasurveyandwouldbedueand
payableinfive(5)yearsfromtheexecutionofadeedofsale.
Petitionercontends,however,thatthe"propertysubjectofthesalewasnotdescribedwithsufficient
certaintysuchthatthereisanecessityofanotheragreementbetweenthepartiestofinallyascertain
theidentity,sizeandpurchasepriceofthepropertywhichistheobjectoftheallegedsale."[13]He
arguesthatthe"quantityoftheobjectisnotdeterminateasinfactasurveyisneededtodetermineits
exactsizeandthefullpurchasepricetherefor."[14]Insupportofhiscontention,petitionercitesthe
followingprovisionsoftheCivilCode:Sclex
Art.1349.Theobjectofeverycontractmustbedeterminateastoitskind.Thefactthat
thequantityisnotdeterminableshallnotbeanobstacletotheexistenceofacontract,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

4/8

6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

provideditispossibletodeterminethesamewithouttheneedofanewcontract
betweentheparties.
Art.1460...Therequisitethatathingbedeterminateissatisfiedifatthetimethe
contractisenteredinto,thethingiscapableofbeingmadedeterminatewithoutthe
necessityofanewandfurtheragreementbetweentheparties.
Petitionerscontentioniswithoutmerit.ThereisnodisputethatrespondentpurchasedaportionofLot
1914B2consistingof345squaremeters.ThisportionislocatedinthemiddleofLot1914B2,which
hasatotalareaof854squaremeters,andisclearlywhatwasreferredtointhereceiptasthe
"previouslypaidlot."Sincethelotsubsequentlysoldtorespondentissaidtoadjointhe"previously
paidlot"onthreesidesthereof,thesubjectlotiscapableofbeingdeterminedwithouttheneedofany
newcontract.Thefactthattheexactareaoftheseadjoiningresidentiallotsissubjecttotheresultofa
surveydoesnotdetractfromthefactthattheyaredeterminateordeterminable.AstheCourtof
Appealsexplained:[15]
Concomitantly,theobjectofthesaleiscertainanddeterminate.UnderArticle1460of
theNewCivilCode,athingsoldisdeterminateifatthetimethecontractisenteredinto,
thethingiscapableofbeingdeterminatewithoutnecessityofaneworfurther
agreementbetweentheparties.Here,thisdefinitionfindsrealization.
AppelleesExhibit"A"(page4,Records)affirminglyshowsthattheoriginal345sq.m.
portionearliersoldliesatthemiddleofLot1914B2surroundedbytheremaining
portionofthesaidLot1914B2onthree(3)sides,intheeast,inthewestandinthe
north.Thenorthernboundaryisa12meterroad.Conclusively,therefore,thisistheonly
remaining509sq.m.portionofLot1914B2surroundingthe345sq.m.lotinitially
purchasedbyRodriguez.Itisquitedefined,determinateandcertain.Withal,thisisthe
sameportionadjunctivelyoccupiedandpossessedbyRodriguezsinceSeptember29,
1964,unperturbedbyanyoneforovertwenty(20)yearsuntilappelleeinstitutedthissuit.
Thus,alloftheessentialelementsofacontractofsalearepresent,i.e.,thattherewasameetingof
themindsbetweentheparties,byvirtueofwhichthelateJuanSanAndresundertooktotransfer
ownershipofandtodeliveradeterminatethingforapricecertaininmoney.AsArt.1475oftheCivil
Codeprovides:Xlaw
Thecontractofsaleisperfectedatthemomentthereisameetingofmindsuponthe
thingwhichistheobjectofthecontractandupontheprice....
Thatthecontractofsaleisperfectedwasconfirmedbytheformeradministratoroftheestates,Ramon
SanAndres,whowrotealettertorespondentonMarch30,1966askingforP300.00aspartial
paymentforthesubjectlot.AstheCourtofAppealsobserved:
Withoutanydoubt,thereceiptprofoundlyspeaksofameetingofthemindbetweenSan
AndresandRodriguezforthesaleofthepropertyadjoiningthe345squaremeter
portionpreviouslysoldtoRodriguezonitsthree(3)sidesexceptingthefrontage.The
priceiscertain,whichisP15.00persquaremeter.Evidently,thisisaperfectedcontract
ofsaleonadeferredpaymentofthepurchaseprice.Alltheprerequisiteelementsfora
validpurchasetransactionarepresent.Saledoesnotrequireanyformaldocumentfor
itsexistenceandvalidity.Anddeliveryofpossessionoflandsoldisaconsummationof
thesale(Galarvs.Husain,20SCRA186[1967]).Aprivatedeedofsaleisavalid
contractbetweentheparties(Carbonellv.CA,69SCRA99[1976]).Xsc
Inthesamevein,afterthelateJuanR.SanAndresreceivedtheP500.00downpayment
onMarch30,1966,RamonR.SanAndreswrotealettertoRodriguezandreceivedfrom
RodrigueztheamountofP100.00(althoughP300.00wasbeingrequested)deductible
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

5/8

6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

fromthepurchasepriceofthesubjectportion.EnriquedelCastillo,Ramonsauthorized
agent,correspondinglysignedthereceiptfortheP100.00.Surely,thisisexplicitlya
veritableproofofthesaleovertheremainingportionofLot1914B2andaconfirmation
byRamonSanAndresoftheexistencethereof.[16]
Thereisaneed,however,toclarifywhattheCourtofAppealssaidisaconditionalcontractofsale.
Apparently,theappellatecourtconsideredasa"condition"thestipulationofthepartiesthatthefull
consideration,basedonasurveyofthelot,wouldbedueandpayablewithinfive(5)yearsfromthe
executionofaformaldeedofsale.Itisevidentfromthestipulationsinthereceiptthatthevendor
JuanSanAndressoldtheresidentiallotinquestiontorespondentandundertooktotransferthe
ownershipthereoftorespondentwithoutanyqualification,reservationorcondition.InAngYu
Asuncionv.CourtofAppeals,[17]weheld:Sc
InDignosv.CourtofAppeals(158SCRA375),wehavesaidthat,although
denominateda"DeedofConditionalSale,"asaleisstillabsolutewherethecontractis
devoidofanyprovisothattitleisreservedortherighttounilaterallyrescindisstipulated,
e.g.,untilorunlessthepriceispaid.Ownershipwillthenbetransferredtothebuyer
uponactualorconstructivedelivery(e.g.,bytheexecutionofapublicdocument)ofthe
propertysold.Wheretheconditionisimposedupontheperfectionofthecontractitself,
thefailureoftheconditionwouldpreventsuchperfection.Iftheconditionisimposedon
theobligationofapartywhichisnotfulfilled,theotherpartymayeitherwaivethe
conditionorrefusetoproceedwiththesale.(Art.1545,CivilCode)
Thus,inonecase,whenthesellersdeclaredina"ReceiptofDownPayment"thattheyreceivedan
amountaspurchasepriceforahouseandlotwithoutanyreservationoftitleuntilfullpaymentofthe
entirepurchaseprice,theimplicationwasthattheysoldtheirproperty.[18]InPeoplesIndustrialand
CommercialCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,[19]itwasstated:
Adeedofsaleisconsideredabsoluteinnaturewherethereisneitherastipulationinthedeedthat
titletothepropertysoldisreservedintheselleruntilfullpaymentoftheprice,noronegivingthe
vendortherighttounilaterallyresolvethecontractthemomentthebuyerfailstopaywithinafixed
period.Scmis
Applyingtheseprinciplestothiscase,itcannotbegainsaidthatthecontractofsalebetweenthe
partiesisabsolute,notconditional.Thereisnoreservationofownershipnorastipulationprovidingfor
aunilateralrescissionbyeitherparty.Infact,thesalewasconsummateduponthedeliveryofthelot
torespondent.[20]Thus,Art.1477providesthattheownershipofthethingsoldshallbetransferredto
thevendeeupontheactualorconstructivedeliverythereof.
Thestipulationthatthe"paymentofthefullconsiderationbasedonasurveyshallbedueandpayable
infive(5)yearsfromtheexecutionofaformaldeedofsale"isnotaconditionwhichaffectsthe
efficacyofthecontractofsale.Itmerelyprovidesthemannerbywhichthefullconsiderationistobe
computedandthetimewithinwhichthesameistobepaid.Butitdoesnotaffectinanymannerthe
effectivityofthecontract.Consequently,thecontentionthattheabsenceofaformaldeedofsale
stipulatedinthereceiptpreventsthehappeningofasalehasnomerit.Missc
Second.WithrespecttothecontentionthattheCourtofAppealserredinupholdingthevalidityofa
consignationofP7,035.00representingthebalanceofthepurchasepriceofthelot,nowhereinthe
decisionoftheappellatecourtisthereanymentionofconsignation.UnderArt.1257ofthisCivil
Code,consignationisproperonlyincaseswhereanexistingobligationisdue.Inthiscase,however,
thecontractingpartiesagreedthatfullpaymentofpurchasepriceshallbedueandpayablewithinfive
(5)yearsfromtheexecutionofaformaldeedofsale.Atthetimerespondentdepositedtheamountof
P7,035.00inthecourt,noformaldeedofsalehadyetbeenexecutedbytheparties,and,therefore,
thefiveyearperiodduringwhichthepurchasepriceshouldbepaidhadnotcommenced.Inshort,the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

6/8

6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

purchasepricewasnotyetdueandpayable.
Thisisnottosay,however,thatthedepositofthepurchasepriceinthecourtiserroneous.TheCourt
ofAppealscorrectlyorderedtheexecutionofadeedofsaleandpetitionerstoaccepttheamount
depositedbyrespondent.
Third.TheclaimofpetitionersthatthepriceofP7,035.00isiniquitousisuntenable.Theamountis
basedontheagreementofthepartiesasevidencedbythereceipt(Exh.2).Timeandagain,wehave
stressedtherulethatacontractisthelawbetweentheparties,andcourtshavenochoicebutto
enforcesuchcontractsolongastheyarenotcontrarytolaw,morals,goodcustomsorpublicpolicy.
Otherwise,courtswouldbeinterferingwiththefreedomofcontractoftheparties.Simplyput,courts
cannotstipulateforthepartiesnoramendthelattersagreement,fortodosowouldbetoalterthereal
intentionsofthecontractingpartieswhenthecontraryfunctionofcourtsistogiveforceandeffectto
theintentionsoftheparties.Misspped
Fourth.Finally,petitionersarguethatrespondentisbarredbyprescriptionandlachesfromenforcing
thecontract.Thiscontentionislikewiseuntenable.Thecontractofsaleinthiscaseisperfected,and
thedeliveryofthesubjectlottorespondenteffectivelytransferredownershiptohim.Forthisreason,
respondentseekstocomplywithhisobligationtopaythefullpurchaseprice,butbecausethedeedof
saleisyettobeexecuted,hedeemeditappropriatetodepositthebalanceofthepurchasepricein
court.Accordingly,Art.1144oftheCivilCodehasnoapplicationtotheinstantcase.[21]Considering
thatasurveyofthelothasalreadybeenconductedandapprovedbytheBureauofLands,
respondentsheirs,assignsorsuccessorsininterestshouldreimbursetheexpensesincurredby
hereinpetitioners,pursuanttotheprovisionsofthecontract.Spped
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMEDwiththemodificationthat
respondentisORDEREDtoreimbursepetitionersfortheexpensesofthesurvey.Jospped
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,(Chairman),andBuena,JJ.,concur.
Quisumbing,andDeLeon,Jr.,JJ.,onleave.

[1] PerJusticeConradoM.VasquezandconcurredinbyJusticesFerminA.Martin,Jr.andArtemioS.Tuquero.
[2] Records,p.119.
[3] TSN,pp.123,April5,1993.
[4] Records,p.84.
[5] Id.,p.120.
[6] Id.,p.121.
[7] Id.,p.69.
[8] TSN,pp.123,April5,1993.
[9] TSN,pp.122,July7,1993.
[10] TSN,pp.133,April13,1994.
[11] PresidedoverbyJudgeGregorioE.Manio,Jr.
[12] JovanLand,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,268SCRA160(1997)Coronelv.CourtofAppeals,263SCRA15(1996).
[13] Rollo,p.15.
[14] Id.,p.16.
[15] CADecision,p.5.
[16] Id.,pp.56.
[17] 238SCRA602,612(1994).
[18] Coronelv.CourtofAppeals,263SCRA15(1996)
[19] 281SCRA206(1997).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

7/8

6/24/2016

SanAndresvsTria:135634:May31,2000:J.Mendoza:SecondDivision

[20] Cf.Limv.CourtofAppeals,263SCRA569(1996).
[21] SeeBuctonv.Gabar,55SCRA499(1974).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/may2000/135634.html

8/8