Perpetua Vda.

De Ape vs Court of Appeals

456 SCRA 193 – Civil Law – Law on Sales – Elements of a Contract of Sale – Consent
Vitiated

Cleopas Ape died in 1950 and left a parcel of land (Lot 2319) to his 11 children. The
children never formally divided the property amongst themselves except through hantal-
hantal whereby each just occupied a certain portion and developed each.

On the other hand, the spouses Lumayno were interested in the land so they started
buying the portion of land that each of the heirs occupied. On 11 Apr 1973, one of the
children, Fortunato, entered into a contract of sale with Lumayno. In exchange of his lot,
Lumayno agreed to pay P5,000.00. She paid in advance P30.00. Fortunato was given a
receipt prepared by Lumayno’s son in law (Andres Flores). Flores also acted as witness.
Lumayno also executed sales transactions with Fortunato’s siblings separately.

In 1973, Lumayno compelled Fortunato to make the the delivery to her of the registrable
deed of sale over Fortunato’s portion of the Lot No. 2319. Fortunato assailed the validity
of the contract of sale. He also invoked his right to redeem (as a co-owner) the portions of
land sold by his siblings to Lumayno. Fortunato died during the pendency of the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid contract of sale?

HELD: No. Fortunato was a “no read no write” person. It was incumbent for the the
other party to prove that details of the contract was fully explained to Fortunato before
Fortunato signed the receipt.

A contract of sale is a consensual contract, thus, it is perfected by mere consent of the

parties. It is born from the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is
the object of the sale and upon the price. Upon its perfection, the parties may reciprocally
demand performance, that is, the vendee may compel the transfer of the ownership and to
deliver the object of the sale while the vendor may demand the vendee to pay the thing
sold. For there to be a perfected contract of sale, however, the following elements must be
present: consent, object, and price in money or its equivalent.

For consent to be valid, it must meet the following requisites:

(a) it should be intelligent, or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers;

(b) it should be free and

(c) it should be spontaneous. Intelligence in consent is vitiated by error; freedom by

violence, intimidation or undue influence; spontaneity by fraud.

Lumayno claimed that she explained fully the receipt to Fortunato, but Flores’ testimony
belies it. Flores said there was another witness but the other was a maid who also lacked
education. Further, Flores himself was not aware that the receipt was “to transfer the
ownership of Fortunato’s land to her mom-in-law”. It merely occurred to him to explain
the details of the receipt but he never did.