You are on page 1of 2

26 Cabrera vs. Ysaac 9. RTC dismissed the complaint of Cabrera and Henry’s counterclaim.

G.R. No. 166790 | November 19 2014 CA affirmed, stating that there was a perfected contract of sale. CA
Leonen, J. | Digest by: Lopez, A. held that even if the subject of the sale is part of Henry’s undivided
property, a co-owner may sell a definite portion of the property. CA
Topic: Art. 484 - 501 – Co-Ownership ordered Henry to return the payments made by Cabrera.
10. Hence, this petition.
Doctrine: Prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common property
requires the consent of all co-owners because it operates to partition the land Issue: W/N there was a valid cocntarct of sale between Cabrera and Henry
with respect to the co-owner selling his or her share.
Held: No! There was no valid contract.
Facts: 1. A "contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of
1. Heirs of Luis and Matilde Ysaac co-owned a 5,517-square-meter minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the
parcel of land in Naga. One of the heirs was respondent Henry price." The seller and buyer must agree as to the certain thing that
Ysaac. will be subject of the sale as well as the price in which the thing will
2. One of the portions of the land was leased out to Juan Cabrera. be sold. The thing to be sold is the object of the contract, while the
When Henry needed money, he offered to sell a parcel of land, a price is the cause or consideration. The object of a valid sales
portion of which was leased by Henry to the Borbe and Espiritu contract must be owned by the seller. If the seller is not the owner,
family. the seller must be authorized by the owner to sell the object.
3. They settled on a price, but Cabrera only paid Php 1,500 and the 2. Specific rules attach when the seller co-owns the object of the
balance will be paid after Cabrera’s retirement. Henry agreed. When contract. Sale of a portion of the property is considered an alteration
Cabrera was informed that the Borbe and Espiritu family was not of the thing owned in common. Under the Civil Code, such
interested anymore to purchase the property, Cabrera paid another disposition requires the unanimous consent of the other co-owners.
Phpp 6,100 as he agreed to reimburse both families’ initial deposit. However, the rules also allow a co-owner to alienate his or her part
4. Cabrera offered to already pay the balance, but since Henry was in in the co-ownership. (So ano mag-govern? See next number)
the US, he paid to the wife; but the wife of Henry refused. After 3. These two rules are reconciled through jurisprudence. In the case of
almost a year, Henry offered a smaller portion of the property since Lopez vs. Ilustre, the SC held that if the alienation precedes the
one part was going to be a barangay walkwat, and another part had partition, the co-owner cannot sell a definite portion of the land
a family that was difficult to eject. Cabrera agreed. (This was done without consent from his or her co-owners. He or she could
verbally only, with no documentation) only sell the undivided interest of the co-owned property. If he is
5. Since Henry was in Manila, Cabrera tried to pay to Henry’s wife, but the owner of an undivided half of a tract of land, he has a right to sell
she refused.. and convey an undivided half, but he has no right to divide the lot
6. Subsequently, Henry;s counsel informed Cabrera’s counsel that into two parts, and convey the whole of one part by metes and
Henry wanted to rescind the contract of sale for failure of Cabrera to bounds.
pay the balance. The money already paid by Cabrera was to be 4. Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common
applied to overdue rent. Henry also stated that he could no longer property requires the consent of all co-owners because it operates to
sell the property as it was Franklin Ysaac who was the new partition the land with respect to the co-owner selling his or her
administrator. share. The co-owner or seller is already marking which portion
7. Hence, Cabrera filed a case for specific performance for the should redound to his or her autonomous ownership upon future
execution of a deed of sale and transfer of title, while tendering the partition.
balance of the payment. 5. The object of the sales contract between petitioner and respondent
8. Henry prayed for the dismissal of the case, and a counterclaim for was a definite portion of a co-owned parcel of land. At the time of the
damages. alleged sale between petitioner and respondent, the entire property
was still held in common. Hence, Henry has "no right to sell or
alienate a concrete, specific or determinate part of the thing owned in
common, because his right over the thing is represented by quota or
ideal portion without any physical adjudication."
6. There was no showing that respondent was authorized by his co-
owners to sell the portion of land occupied by Juan Cabrera, the
Espiritu family, or the Borbe family. Without the consent of his co-
owners, respondent could not sell a definite portion of the co-owned
property.
7. At best, the agreement between petitioner and respondent is a
contract to sell, not a contract of sale. A contract to sell is a promise
to sell an object, subject to suspensive conditions. Without the
fulfillment of these suspensive conditions, the sale does not operate
to determine the obligation of the seller to deliver the object.

Other Held:
1. Since there was no contract, such non-existence cannot be a source
of obligations and cannot be enforced by the courts. Since there was
no contract, there was nothing to rescind.
2. Petitioner argued that he was willing to comply with the suspensive
condition on the contract to sell because he was ready to pay the
balance of the purchase price on June 15, 1992. However, his
argument is unmeritorious. As ruled by the Regional Trial Court,
petitioner should have resorted to the various modes of consignment
when respondent’s wife refused to accept the payment on
respondent’s behalf.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.