Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1
www.howardscasedigests.webs.com G.R. No. L-30786: Olegario Clarin vs Alberto Rulona and the Court of Appeals 20 February

G.R. No. L-30786: Olegario Clarin vs Alberto Rulona and the Court of Appeals 20 February 1984, 127 scra 512 Perfected Contract of Sale

Clarin was the owner of a 10 hectare land in Carmen, Bohol. The same was said to be his share from the other co-owners. In 1959, he executed a Contract of Sale with Rulona as he was selling his 10 hectare land. It was agreed that the purchase price would be P2500.00. Down payment would be P1000.00 and the remaining balance would be paid monthly at P100.00 per month. Rulona paid the down payment as well as the 1 st installment but then later on Clarin returned the P1100.00 against Rulona’s will. Clarin said he could not convince the other co- owners about the selling of his share. Clarin also said there was no perfected sale between him and Rulona as he said that the sale was subject to the condition that the other co-owners should give their consent to the sale.

the other co-owners should give their consent to the sale. ISSUE: Whether or not there was

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale.

HELD: Yes there is. During trial there were 3 documents shown. Exhibit A shows that upon payment of P800.00 by Rulona, a survey of the land was authorized. Exhibit B shows that P200.00, part of the down payment was paid to Clarin and that the 1 st installment of P100.00 was also made. Though these exhibits are not the Contract of Sale, they show that there was a contract of sale between Rulona and Clarin.

Construing Exhibits A and B together, it can be seen that the Clarin agreed to sell and Rulona agreed to buy a definite object, that is, 10 hectares of land which is part and parcel of Lot 20 PLD No. 4, owned in common by the Clarin and his sisters although the boundaries of the 10 hectares would be delineated at a later date. The parties also agreed on a definite price which is P2,500.00. Exhibit B further shows that Clarin has received from Rulona as initial payment, the amount of P800.00. Hence, it cannot be denied that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties and that such contract was already partially executed when the petitioner received the initial payment of P800.00. The latter's acceptance of the payment clearly showed his consent to the contract thereby precluding him from rejecting its binding effect.

Further, Clarin’s letter to Rulona marked Exhibit C stated;

"My dear Mr. Rulona:

Replying to your letter of recent date, I deeply regret to inform you that my daughter, Alice, who is now in Manila, could not be convinced by me to sell the land in question, that is, the ten (10) hectares of land referred to in our tentative agreement. It is for this reason that I hereby authorize the bearer, Mr. Paciano Parmisano, to return to you in person the sum of One Thousand and One Hundred (P1,100.00) Pesos which you have paid in advance for the proposed sale of the land in question."

The reasons given by the Clarin cannot operate against the validity of the contract in question. A contract is valid even though one of the parties entered into it against his better judgment.