University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Formation of the CoS; Formalities of the Contract; GR: Form not Important
Case No. G.R. No. 78903 / Feb. 28, 1990
Case Name Dalion v. CA
Ponente Medialdea, J.

RELEVANT FACTS
 A parcel of land in Sogod, Southern Leyte was registered in the name of Segundo Dalion.
 Ruperto Sabesaje sued him to recover its ownership, based on a private document of absolute sale, allegedly
executed by Segundo.
 However, Segundo denied the sale, pointing out that:
o The document was fictitious
o his signature was forged, and
o the land is conjugal property, which Segundo and his wife acquired from Saturnina Sabesaje.
 Furthermore, the Dalions argued that assuming the document and the signature were valid, the contract itself was
not because it was not embodied in a public document, going against Art. 1358 which mandates that “acts and
contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinction of real rights over
immovable property must appear in a public instrument”.
 The RTC decided in favor of the respondent and ordered the Dalions to deliver to him the parcel of land in a public
document—which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The trial court in particular compelled Dalion to execute a
formal deed of sale. Pointing out that the suit for recovery of ownership was premised on the binding effect and
validity inter parties of the contract of sale, it reasoned out that the respondent merely sought consummation of
said contract which was mandated by Art. 1357.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
WoN the sale of parcel of land
between Segundo Dalion
and Ruperto Sabesaje Jr.
required the execution of a
public document for the transfer
of ownership?
Ratio
NO.
1. The trial court was right in ordering the petitioners to deliver to Ruperto the
parcel of land and to execute corresponding formal deed of conveyance in a
public document.
2. The petitioners’ argument—that the contract was still in a private document
and does not convey title or right to the lot—is misplaced. It is not a
requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that
this be embodied in a public instrument. In particular, Art. 1358 on the
necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or
enforceability
3. A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which means that the sale is
perfected by mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity. As
per Art. 1475, upon perfection of the contract the parties may reciprocally
demand performance, i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of
the object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the
thing sold.
4. As regards to the petitioners’ contention that the proper action should have
been for specific performance, the Court agreed with the RTC that the suit
was properly for recovery of ownership. Art. 1475 of the Civil Code gave the
parties to a perfected contract of sale the right to reciprocally demand
performance, and to observe a particular form, if warranted by law (e.g. Art.
1357).
 University of the Philippines College of Law
RULING
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the ruling of the trial court is
hereby. AFFIRMED. No costs.