Lorenzo and Socorro Velasco v. CA and Magdalena Estate Inc. P20,000.

P20,000.00, which offer the defendant refused to accept because it

[June 29, 1973] (digest) had considered the offer to sell rescinded on account of her failure Subsequent to the said donation, Ong and father, Melquiades
to complete the down payment on or before December 31, 1962. Barraca approached Formaran to borrow one-half of the land
Facts: donated to her so the Ong could obtain a loan from a bank to buy a
Issue: dental chair. An absolute deed of sale was executed without
This is a suit for specific performance filed by Lorenzo Velasco Whether the talks between the Magdalena Estate, Inc. and Lorenzo monetary consideration.
against the Magdalena Estate, Inc. Velasco ever ripened into a consummated sale?
More or less 30 years after the said deed of sale was executed, Ong
On Nov 29, 1962 the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a Held: NO filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Circuit
CONTRACT OF SALE of land (2,059 sq m) at for P100,000.00. the Trial Court of Ibajay-Nabas, IBajay, Aklan against Formaran
terms of payment were as follows: down payment: P10,000.00 and Ratio: ordering the latter to vacate the land sold to the former. The court
P20,000.00 and the remaining P70,000.00 would be paid in The material averments contained in the petitioners' complaint rendered a decision in favor of Ong and ordered Formaran to vacate
instalments, an equal monthly amortization will be determined as disclose a lack of complete "agreement in regard to the manner of the land in question.
soon as the P30,000.00 DP had been completed. payment" of the lot in question. The complaint states pertinently:
Petitioner, Formaran filed an action for the annulment of the deed
Plaintiff paid P10,000.00 on November 29, 1962. On Jan 8, 1964 he That plaintiff and defendant further agreed that the total down of absolute sale against Respondent, Ong in the RTC of Kalibo,
tendered the payment of P20,000.00 however defendant refused to payment shall by P30,000.00, including the P10,000.00 partial Aklan. And rendered a decision in favor of Formaran.
accept and refused to execute a formal deed of sale. payment mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof, and that upon
completion of the said down payment of P30,000.00, the balance of Respondent coursed an appeal to the CA and CA reversed and set
Socorro Velasco is his sister-in-law and that he had requested her to P70,000.00 shall be said by the plaintiff to the defendant in 10 years aside the decision of the RTC and ordered petitioner to vacate the
make the necessary contacts referring to the purchase of the from November 29, 1962; land.
property because he does not understand English well.
That the time within the full down payment of the P30,000.00 was Hence this present petiotion
The receipt states: "Earnest money for the purchase of Lot 15, Block to be completed was not specified by the parties but the defendant
7, Psd-6129, Area 2,059 square meters including improvements was duly compensated during the said time prior to completion of Issue:
thereon P10,000.00." At the bottom of Exhibit A the following the down payment of P30,000.00 by way of lease rentals on the WON the absolute deed of sale is valid
appears: "Agreed price: P100,000.00, P30,000.00 down payment, house existing thereon which was earlier leased by defendant to the
bal. in 10 years." plaintiff's sister-in-law, Socorro J. Velasco, and which were duly paid Held: NO
to the defendant by checks drawn by plaintiff.
On the other hand, defendant alleged that there was no contract of Ruling:
sale that was perfected because the minds of the parties did not Petitioners admit that they still had to meet and agree on how and The Court believes and so holds that the subject Deed of Sale is
meet "in regard to the manner of payment. Contract is when the down-payment and the installment payments were to be indeed simulated,2 as it is: (1) totally devoid of consideration; (2) it
unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. paid. was executed on August 12, 1967, less than two months from the
time the subject land was donated to petitioner on June 25, 1967 by
The property was leased by Socorro Velasco and that the defendant Such being the situation, it cannot be said that a definite and firm no less than the parents of respondent Glenda Ong; (3) on May 18,
indicated its willingness to sell the property for P100,000.00, with sales agreement between the parties had been perfected over the 1978, petitioner mortgaged the land to the Aklan Development
the following terms of payment: downpayment of P30,000.00, lot in question. Bank for a 23,000.00 loan; (4) from the time of the alleged sale,
P20,000.00 of which was to be paid on November 31, 1962 and the petitioner has been in actual possession of the subject land; (5) the
P70,000.00 including interest a 9% per annum was to be paid on Indeed, this Court has already ruled before that a definite alleged sale was registered on May 25, 1991 or about twenty four
installments for a period of ten years at the rate of P5,381.32 on agreement on the manner of payment of the purchase price is an (24) years after execution; (6) respondent Glenda Ong never
June 30 and December of every year until the same shall have been essential element in the formation of a binding and enforceable introduced any improvement on the subject land; and (7)
fully paid; contract of sale. petitioners house stood on a part of the subject land. These are
facts and circumstances which may be considered badges of bad
On November 29, 1962 Socorro Velasco offered to pay P10,000.00 G.R. No. 186264 July 8, 2013 faith that tip the balance in favor of petitioner.
as initial payment instead of the agreed P20,000.00 but because the DR. LORNA C. FORMARAN, Petitioner, vs. DR. GLENDA B. ONG
amount was short of the alleged P20,000.00 the same was accepted AND SOLOMON S. ONG, Respondents. "The amplitude of foregoing undisputed facts and circumstances
merely as deposited and upon request of Socorro Velasco the clearly shows that the sale of the land in question was purely
receipt was made in the name of her brother-in-law the plaintiff Facts: simulated. It is void from the very beginning (Article 1346, New
herein; Civil Code). If the sale was legitimate, defendant Glenda should have
Formaran received by way of donation by his uncle and aunt, Sps. immediately taken possession of the land, declared in her name for
Socorro Velasco failed to complete the down payment of P30,000.00 Melquiades Barraca and Praxedes Casidsid a parcel of land situated taxation purposes, registered the sale, paid realty taxes, introduced
and neither has she paid any installments on the balance of in Nabas, Aklan. improvements therein and should not have allowed plaintiff to
P70,000.00 up to the present time; mortgage the land. These omissions properly militated against
From the time of donation until present, Formaran was in actual defendant Glendas submission that the sale was legitimate and the
On January 8, 1964 that Socorro Velasco tendered payment of possession of the land consideration was paid.
 Undoubtedly, there was a perfected contract of sale between the Trial Court decided in favor of Sabesaje and ordered the Dalions to
While the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized, it cannot justify the petitioner and private respondents as confirmed by the trial court deliver the parcel of land in a public document. CA affirmed.
conclusion that the sale is a true conveyance to which the parties when it found that "[b] y accepting a deposit of P50,000.00 and by
are irrevocably and undeniably bound. Although the notarization of pulling out a unit of Philippine Nissan 1.6 cc Sentry Automatic Issues:
Deed of Absolute Sale, vests in its favor the presumption of (Flamingo red), defendant obliged itself to sell to plaintiffs a
regularity, it does not validate nor make binding an instrument determinate thing for a price certain in money which was 1. Was the contract of sale valid?
never intended, in the first place, to have any binding legal effect P494,000.00". 4 2. Is a public document needed for transfer of ownership?
upon the parties thereto (Suntay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114950, December 19, 1995; cited in Ruperto Viloria vs. Court of Resultingly, petition committed a breach of contract when it Held:
Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119974, June 30, 1999)." allowed the unit in question to be sold to another buyer to the
prejudice of private respondents. 1. Yes. People who witnessed the execution of the deed positively
G.R. No. 121559 June 18, 1998 testified on its authenticity. They stated that it had been executed
XENTREX AUTOMOTIVE, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF The Court of Appeals gave complete accord to the aforementioned and signed by the signatories. A contract of sale is a consensual
APPEALS, MACARTHUR M. SAMSON and GERTRUDES C. findings and affirmed the same in its, decision. 5 In this regard, it contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent.
SAMSON, respondents. must be emphasized that the prevailing rule is that the findings of No particular form is required for its validity. Upon perfection of the
fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of contract, the parties may reciprocally demand performance (NCC
FACTS: Appeals, are binding upon this Court. 6 1475, NCC), i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the
Petitioner is a dealer of motor vehicles. On October 25, 1991, object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the
private respondents went to petitioner to purchase a brand new car, thing sold (NCC 1458).
a 1991 Nissan Sentra Super Saloon A/T model, valued at Nevertheless, We sustain the award of moral damages considering
P494,000.00. Private respondents made an initial deposit of private respondent Macarthur Samson's testimony that he suffered 2. No. The provision of NCC 1358 of NCC on the necessity of a public
P50,000.00; petitioner issued the corresponding official receipt from shock and embarrassment as a result of petitioner's failure to document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability.
(O.R. NO. 6504). The balance was to be paid thru bank financing. comply with its obligation. The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered Dalion to deliver to
Pending the processing of their application for financing, private Sabesaje the parcel of land and to execute corresponding formal
respondents paid an additional P200,000.00 to petitioner which Spouses Dalion v. CA deed of conveyance in a public document. Under NCC 1498, when
was covered by another receipt (O.R. NO. 6547). Eventually, due to GR. No. 78903 February 28,1990 the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution is
the slow pace in the processing of their application for financing, equivalent to the delivery of the thing. Delivery may either be actual
private respondents decided to pay the remaining balance on Facts: (real) or constructive. Thus delivery of a parcel of land may be done
November 6, 1991 by tendering a check in the amount of by placing the vendee in control and possession of the land (real) or
P250,000.00. As it turned out however, to private respondents' A land in Southern Leyte was declared in the name of Segundo by embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive).
shock and disappointment, the car had already been sold to another Dalion. Sabesaje sued to recover ownership this land based on a
buyer without their knowledge, prompting them to send a demand private document of absolute sale, allegedly executed by Segundo
letter to petitioner asking the latter to comply with its obligation to Dalion.
deliver the car. Their demand unheeded, private respondents
(plaintiffs below) filed a suit for breach of contract and damages Dalion, however, denied the sale, saying that:
before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 42. Denying The document was fictitious
any liability, petitioner (defendant below) alleged that the His signature was a forgery, and
complaint stated no cause of action. After trial, judgment was That the land is conjugal property, which he and his wife
rendered by the trial court in private respondents' favor. On appeal acquired in 1960 from Saturnina Sabesaje as evidenced
by petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial by the "Escritura de Venta Absoluta."
court. 2
The spouses denied the claims of Sabesaje that after executing a
ISSUE: WON THERE WAS A PERFECTED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE deed of sale over the parcel of land, they had pleaded with Sabesaje
PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT. to be allowed to administer the land because Dalion did not have
livelihood.
HELD: YES
RULING: Spouses Dalion admitted, however, administering 5 parcels of land
Petitioner argues that there was no perfected contract of sale in Southern Leyte, which belonged to Leonardo Sabesaje,
between the parties due to private respondents' failure to comply grandfather of Sabesaje, who died in 1956.
with their obligation to pay the purchase price of the car in full.
Thus, petitioner assert that it has no obligation to deliver the car to The Dalions never received their agreed 10% and 15% commission
private respondents and therefore could not be held liable for on the sales of copra and abaca. Sabesaje's suit, they say, was
breach of contract and damages intended merely to harass and forestall Dalion's threat to sue for
these unpaid commissions.