t." ......

" "IJD
l\epuhltc of tbe ~bilippineg
~upreme @:ourt
;fManila

THIRD DIVISION

VIVE EAGLE LAND, INC., G.R. No. 230817

Petitioner,
Present:

PERALTA, J., Chairperson,

- versus - LEONEN,
REYES, A., JR.,
HERNANDO, and
NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE INTING, JJ.
FINANCE CORPORATION,
JOSEPH PETER S. SISON, and Promulgated:
CAVACON CORPORATION,
Respondents. September 4, 2019
x-------------------------------------------------------'\')\\ ~ \) C \5 o..W -------------x

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision I dated August 23, 2016 and the
Resolution2 dated March 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 105312, which affirmed the Decision3 dated September 18, 2014 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 138, Makati City and the Order4
dated June 15, 2015 of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City, in Civil Case No.
06-308.

The antecedent facts are as follows.

Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices

Elihu A. lbaftez and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; rollo, Vol. I, pp. 8-34.
2
Id. at 36-43.

~
Id. at 201-235; penned by Judge Josefino A. Subia.
Id. at 250-314; penned by Judge Benjamin T. Pozon.
Decision -2- G.R. No. 230817

On April 18, 2006, petitioner Vive Eagle Landi Inc., a corporation

engaged in the realty business and represented by its President, Virgilio 0.
Cervantes, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of rescission,
declaration of suspension of payment of purchase price and interest, and
other reliefs against respondents National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation (NHMFC), a government corporation created by virtue of
Presidential Decree No. 1267, Joseph Peter S. Sison, President of NHMFC,
and Cavacon Corporation, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
construction. In its complaint, Vive alleged that on November 17, 1999, it
entered into a Deed of Sale of Rights, Interests, and Participation Over
Foreclosed Assets, whereby it agreed to purchase NHMFC 's rights,
interests, and participation in the foreclosed property of Alyansa ng mga
Maka-Maralitang Asosasyon at Kapatirang Organisasyon, Inc. located at
Barangay Sta. Catalina, Angeles City, with an area of 73.5565 hectares
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 86340 and 86341 for a
total purchase price of P40,000,000.00 payable in the following manner: (1)
the amount of P8,000,000.00 as 20% downpayment payable in two equal
installments, the first of which shall be due on or before December 4, 1999,
and the second, from the execution of the Deed of Conditional Sale, but in
no case shall be later than January 4, 2000; and (2) the balance of
P32,000,000.00 shall be paid in l 0 equal installments in the amount of
P3,200,000.00 per installment, plus 14% interest per annum, with the first
installment due on July 4, 2000 and every 6 months thereafter until fully
paid. Pursuant to the Deed of Sale, Vive paid the first installment of the
downpayment in the amount of P4,000,000.00. 5

Vive, however, did not pay the subsequent installments. According to

Vive, it failed to pay because it was prevented from exercising its right to
avail of a developmental loan under Section 8 of the Deed of Sale due to
issues on the subject property, particularly: (1) the issuance of numerous
certificates of land awards over the same; and (2) the classification of the
same as agricultural, subjecting it to the coverage of the Comprehensive ·
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 6 While awaiting the resolution of said
issues, Vive requested NHMFC for a moratorium or suspension of the
period of payment, the corresponding waiver of interest, and a 10%
reduction of the purchase price for litigation costs it incurred. On June 17,
2004, NHMFC, through its then President, Atty. Angelico T. Salud, initially
agreed on the moratorium but advised Vive to submit its request of waiver
and interest reduction to the NHMFC's Board of Directors. 7

Notwithstanding the agreement, NHMFC, through Sison, notified

Vive through a letter dated February 10, 2006 of the rescission/cancellation
and/or revocation of the Deed of Sale due to the alleged non-payment of the

Id. at 103-104.
Id. at 107.
t>f/
Id. at 108.
Decision -3- G.R. No. 230817

balance of the purchase price. It reiterated its decision to rescind in another

letter dated February 27, 2006. Said non-payment by Vive of the subsequent
installments became NHMFC's defense in its Answer to Vive's complaint.
According to NHMFC, its decision to rescind the Deed of Sale was valid in
view of Vive' s refusal to pay the subject installments. Moreover, since Vive
was well aware of the condition of the property prior to its purchase, it was
not justified in suspending its payment of the purchase price.

Vive amended its complaint arguing that without its knowledge and
consent, NHMFC and Cavacon, in bad faith, entered into a Memorandum of
Agreement on August 7, 2008 by virtue of which NHMFC sold the subject
property on an "as is-where is" basis to Cavacon for P35,000,000.00 despite
the pendency of the instant case and Cavacon's knowledge of the prior sale.
NHMFC countered that by virtue of Section 5 of the Deed of Sale, it had the
right to rescind the Deed of Sale due to Vive' s continuous failure to pay the
purchase price and to thereafter freely dispose of the subject property as if
the Deed of Sale has never been made. 8

On September 18, 2014, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 138,

dismissed Vive's complaint, finding NHMFC's rescission of the Deed of
Sale to be valid. 9 It disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, finding the rescission of

the Deed of Sale to be valid, the complaint filed by the plaintiff Vive Eagle
Land, Inc. against defendants National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation, Joseph Peter S. Sison and defendant Cavacon for Declaration
of Nullity of Rescission, Declaration of Suspension of Payment of
Purchase Price and Interest and Other Reliefs is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit.

so ORDERED. 10

On Vive's motion, however, the Presiding Judge of Branch 138

inhibited himself and ordered the re-raffling of the case. Subsequently, the
case was raffled to the RTC Branch 133 which, on January 13, 2015, granted
Vive's motion for reconsideration, declaring null and void NHMFC's
rescission of the Deed of Sale, declaring Vive as the owner of the property,
declaring due and demandable the subsequent installments of the
down payment without interest, and ordering NHMFC to pay attorney's fees
and litigation expenses. The dispositive portion of the Order provides:

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Motion for

Reconsideration of the plaintiff is GRANTED, the Decision dated
September 18, 2014 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, judgment is hereby
rendered against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff as follows:

10
Id. at 111.
Id. at I 13-114.
Id. at 234.
vY
Decision -4 - G.R. No. 230817

a. declaring NULL and VOID defendant NHMFC's

rescission/cancellation of the Deed of Sale dated
November 17, 1999 between plaintiff VELI and
defendant NHMFC;
b. declaring VALID and SUBSISTING the Deed of Sale
dated November 17, 1999 between plaintiff VELI and
defendant NHMFC;
c. declaring plaintiff VELI as the OWNER of the subject
properties covered by Deed of Sale dated November 17,
1999;
d. declaring DUE and DEMANDABLE the second
installment of the downpayment under Section 1.01 of
the Deed of Sale without imposition of any interest or
penalty within thirty (30) days from plaintiff's receipt of
this Order;
e. declaring VALID and SUBSISTING the schedule of
payments under Section 1.02 of the Deed of Sale with
the first ten (10) equal semi-annual installments in the
amount of THREE MILLION TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P3,200,000.00) to be paid six (6)
months after payment of the second installment of the
downpayment under Section 1.01, and the subsequent
ones every six (6) months thereafter without imposition
of any interest or penalty; and
f. ordering defendants, jointly and severally, to pay
plaintiff attorney's fees and litigation expenses in the
amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P500,000.00) and costs of suit.

SO ORDERED. 11

Pursuant to the court's Order, Vive tendered the second installment of

the downpayment in the amount of P4,000,000.00 to NH:rv!FC which refused
to accept. Thereafter, on NHMFC's motion, the Presiding Judge of Branch
133 voluntarily inhibited himself and again ordered the re-raffling of the
case, which was next raffled to RTC Branch 139. In an Order 12 dated June
15, 2015, said court granted NH:rviFC's motion for reconsideration and
reinstated the Decision of RTC Branch 138 finding NHMFC's rescission
valid. Thus:

WHEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, the

defendants' Motions for Reconsideration both filed on 5 February 2015 are
hereby GRANTED. The Order of this Court (Branch 133) dated 13
January 2015, which granted the Motion of Reconsideration filed by
plaintiff VELI, reversed and set aside its (Branch 13 8) Decision dated 18
September 2014 and rendered judgment against the defendants and in
favor of plaintiff, is RECONSIDERED AND SET ASIDE. The Decision
of this Court (Branch 13 8) dated 18 September 2014 finding the rescission
of the Deed of Sale to be valid and dismissing for lack of merit the
complaint filed by the plaintiff Vive Eagle Land, Inc. against defendants

II
Id. at 247-248. ( ·~
12
Id. at 250-3 14.
Decision -5- G.R. No. 230817

National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation, Joseph Peter S. Sison and

defendant Cavacon for Declaration of Nullity of Suspension of Payment of
Purchase Price and Interest and Other Reliefs, is hereby REINSTATED.

Furnish copies of this Order to the plaintiff, the defendants and

their respective counsels.

SO ORDERED." 13

In a Decision dated August 23, 2016, the CA affirmed the Decision of

the RTC Branch 139. First, the appellate court held that Vive's failure to
pay the purchase price on the date and in the manner prescribed by the Deed
of Sale is an event of default giving NHMFC the right to annul/cancel the
contract and forfeiting whatever right Vive may have acquired thereunder
pursuant to Section 5 thereof. 14 Second, it is clear from Section 7 15 of the
Deed of Sale that the parties intended their agreement to be a contract to sell
or a conditional sale. The title to the property was not immediately
transferred, through a formal deed of conveyance, in the name of Vive prior
to or at the time of the first payment. Thus, since the title and ownership
remains with NHMFC until Vive fully pays the balance of the purchase
price, the Deed of Sale was merely a contract to sell. As such, NHMFC can
validly exercise its right to annul and/or cancel the Deed of Sale upon failure
of Vive to pay the purchase price on the date and manner prescribed. Thus,
considering that the Deed of Sale was validly annulled and/or cancelled, the
subsequent transaction and MOA entered into between NHMFC and
Cavacon is valid. 16

Moreover, the appellate court, in its Resolution dated March 30, 2017,
rejected Vive's contention that NHMFC's grant of the moratorium was
proven through a letter dated June 17, 2004 when Atty. Salud, then President
of NHMFC, initially agreed to the moratorium on the collection period for
the balance of the purchase price. 17 It found nothing in the records to
indicate that the NHMFC Board of Directors approved the undertaking made
by Atty. Salud. Thus, since it was unilaterally granted without board
approval, the CA denied Vive's motion for reconsideration. 18

On May 22, 2017, Vive filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari

before the Court assailing the Decision of the CA. It invoked the following
arguments:

13
Id. at 314.
14
Id. at 121-122.
15
Section 7. TITLE OF PROPERTY
Upon full payment by the VENDEE of the sales price of the rights, interests, and participations in
the property and other sums due, the VENDOR shall execute a Certificate of full payment and deliver the
Duplicate Original Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 86340 and 86341 to the VENDEE. Expenses for the
Transfer of the title to VEND EE shall be for the VENDEE's account.
16

17
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 127.
Id. at I 35.
{JY
18
Id. at 135-137.
Decision -6- G.R. No. 230817

I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR AND
DEVIATED FROM ESTABLISHED LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE DEED OF SALE OF RIGHTS,
INTERESTS, AND PARTICIPATION OVER FORECLOSED ASSETS
DA TED 17 NOVEMBER 1999 EXECUTED BETWEEN PETITIONER
AND RESPONDENT [NHMFC] WAS A CONTRACT TO SELL AND
NOT A CONTRACT OF SALE CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS
AN ABSOLUTE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE SALE TO PETITIONER UPON EXECUTION
THEREOF.

II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR AND
DEVIATED FROM ESTABLISHED LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
WHEN IT FOUND PETITIONER IN DEFAULT CONSIDERING THAT
THERE WAS A MORATORIUM ON THE COLLECTION ON THE
BALANCE OF THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE AMAKO
PROPERTY.

III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR AND
DEVIATED FROM ESTABLISHED LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
WHEN IT UPHELD THE RESCISSION OF THE DEED OF SALE OF
RIGHTS, INTERESTS, AND PARTICIPATION OVER FORECLOSED
ASSETS DATED 17 NOVEMBER 1999 CONSIDERING THAT
THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL BREACH THEREOF.

IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR AND
DEVIATED FROM EST AB LI SHED LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DA TED 07 AUGUST 2008
ENTERED INTO BY RESPONDENT [NHMFC] AND [RESPONDENT]
CAV ACON CORPORATION AND WAS NOT ENTERED INTO IN
BAD FAITH.

V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED MANIFEST ERROR AND
DEVIATED FROM ESTABLISHED LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
WHEN IT EFFECTIVELY UPHELD THE DISMISSAL OF
PETITIONER'S CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES. 19

First, Vive alleged that the Deed of Sale is a valid contract of sale
which absolutely transferred to Vive all of NHMFC's rights, interests, and
participation over the property. The fact that the contract is bereft of any
provision requiring NHMFC to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in order to
transfer ownership to Vive indicates that there was no intention to retain
ownership by NHMFC. Had the parties intended on a contract to sell, there
would not have been a necessity to annul/cancel a Deed of Sale to allow
NHMFC to dispose the property upon default for basic is the rule that
contracts to sell need not be annulled for non-payment since such payment is

/)Y
19
Id. at 66-68. (/
Decision -7- G.R. No. 230817

a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not really a breach, but

an event that prevents the obligation ofNHMFC to convey title from arising.

Second, even assuming that the Deed of Sale is a contract to sell, Vive
was never in default to pay the balance of the purchase price. It was an
essential consideration of the contract for Vive to be able to use the property
as collateral for a loan to develop the same into a residential subdivision. But
Vive discovered issues, such as the coverage of the CARP, affecting the
property after the execution of the Deed of Sale rendering it impossible for
Vive to use the same as intended. Thus, further payments are suspended
pending resolution of the DARAB of the issues affecting the property. Vive
added that since NHMFC itself, in failing to assist Vivi;! with the litigation
on the subject property, prevented Vive from obtaining the loan to pay the
balance of the purchase price, Vive should be considered as having
constructively fulfilled its obligation in view of Article 1186 of the Civil
Code which provides that the condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the
obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfilment. 20

Third, Vive further argued that it could not have been in default as it
was validly granted a moratorium. Contrary to the CA's finding that there is
nothing in the June 17, 2004 letter that would indicate NHMFC's
acquiescence to said moratorium, Vive cited the portion of said letter which
states that "In line with our discussion, we initially agreed for a moratorium
on the collection period, we cannot, however, favorably consider your
request for discount on purchase price and waiver of interest and penalties
without prior approval from our Board." According to Vive, the matter that
would be referred for board approval was the request for discount and
waiver of interests. There was no mention, however, of the necessity to
secure approval for the moratorium. Moreover, Vive added that even
NHMFC's actuations showed that it consented to the moratorium since it
only demanded payment in its letter dated February 10, 2006, under its new
President, Sison, despite the fact that the second installment was scheduled
as early as January 4, 2000 and the first 10 semi-annual installments was
scheduled on July 4, 2000. 21 Thus, such inaction was an affirmation that
there was a valid moratorium.

Fourth, Vive maintained that since there was a valid and subsisting
moratorium suspending payment of the purchase price until resolution of the
DARAB cases, it did not commit any breach of contract that supposedly
entitled NHMFC to unilaterally rescind the Deed of Sale. In fact, Vive
points out that in its letter to NHMFC, dated July 4, 2005, it categorically
thanked NHMFC for the moratorium it granted. Despite this, NHMFC never
replied to said letter. Clearly, NHMFC had full and actual knowledge of the

20
21
Id. at 75-80.
Id. 80-83.
rJI
Decision -8- G.R. No. 230817

moratorium and did not deny nor repudiate the same. It is, therefore, now
estopped from denying its existence and validity. 22

Fifth, Vive asseverated that the subsequent MOA between NHMFC

and Cavacon whereby NHMFC sold the subject property to Cavacon was
entered into in bad faith because of the fact that they entered into said
contract despite their full knowledge of the instant case. In fact, they even
conveniently entered into the MOA on August 7, 2008, after the issues over
the property have been removed, as when the CLOAs over the property have
been decreed cancelled with finality by the Court on March 17, 2008. 23

In a Resolution24 dated June 7, 2017, the Court denied Vive's Petition

for Review on Certiorari for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error
in the assailed judgment of the CA to warrant the exercise of discretionary
appellate jurisdiction.

On July 19, 2017, Vive filed a Motion for Reconsideration praying

that the Court take a second look at the circumstances of the case, especially
considering that the lower courts themselves are at odds with one another as
to how the issues should be resolved. 25 Aside from reiterating its arguments
in the Petition, Vive alleged for the first time that since the Deed of Sale
contemplates the sale of two (2) parcels of land which are not classified as
commercial or industrial, the payment for which is to be made in
installments, the Court should take judicial notice of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6552, known as the Realty Installment Buyer Act or the Maceda Law. Thus,
in view of the fact that NHMFC's cancellation failed to comply with the
Act's mandatmy twin requirements of a notarized notice of cancellation and
a refund of the cash surrender value, the Deed of Sale remains valid and
subsisting. 26 Vive added that even assuming that the rescission effected by
NHMFC was valid, the lower courts should have ordered mutual restitution
and that the parties surrender that which they received, and to place each
other in their original position. NHMFC has no basis to lay claim on and
reap the benefits of Vive's labor to cleanse the title of the property from any
and all adverse claims. 27

On October 25, 2017, respondents NHMFC and Cavacon filed their

Comment refuting the arguments raised by Vive in its Motion for
Reconsideration. First, they maintained that the Deed of Sale is a
conditional sale or contract to sell for as expressly stipulated by Vive in its
Offer to Purchase, the downpayment shall be payable within a few days
from the signing of a "Deed of Conditional Sale. " 28 This is also shown by
22
Id. at 83-88.

(JI
23 Id. at 88-90.
24
Id. at 553-554.
25
Rollo, Vol. II, p. 558.
26
Id. at 579.
27
Id. at 585.
28
Id. at 602.
Decision -9- G.R. No. 230817

the fact that the original duplicate copies of the titles were not delivered to
Vive.

Second, respondents insist that there was no valid moratorium on the

collection period. Since Atty. Salud, in initially agreeing to a moratorium,
did not secure prior board approval, said moratorium is unenforceable
against NHMFC. Moreover, citing the ruling of the RTC, Branch 138,
respondents assert that while it may be true that Atty. Salud granted a
moratorium on the schedule of payments, but such grant cannot extend
beyond the end of the term on January 4, 2005, or until the resolution of the
legal issues affecting the property, because this would make the terms of the
payment indefinite, in contravention of Article 1182 of the Civil Code which
states that "when the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the sole will
of the debtor, the conditional obligation shall be void." 29 In addition,
respondents reject Vive's invocation of apparent authority, equitable
estoppel, and laches in the absence of supporting evidence presented during
trial. The government is not bound by unauthorized acts of its agent, even
though within the apparent scope of their authority. 30 Also, Vive failed to
adduce evidence during trial to show that NHMFC had, indeed, clothed
Atty. Salud with apparent power to grant the moratorium by presenting
evidence that Atty. Salud, had, in the past, granted similar moratoriums in
Vive's or other parties' favor. Furthermore, NHMFC's silence and lack of
effort in collecting installments does not amount to implied ratification of
Atty. Salud's unauthorized grant of moratorium because for an act of the
principal to be considered as ratification, such act must be inconsistent with
any other hypothesis than that he approved and intended to adopt what has
been done in his name. 31

Third, respondents asseverate that the Deed of Sale was validly

rescinded on the ground of substantial violation of the terms thereof by
failing to pay the purchase price within the stipulated period. Vive cannot
unilaterally make its principal obligation to pay conditional on the resolution
of the issues affecting the properties. 32 Moreover, respondents point to the
absence of evidence that Vive had asked NHMFC for some documents
needed for the resolution of the DARAB cases nor was there evidence
showing that Vive ever attempted to apply for a loan after the execution of
the Deed of Sale. In addition, contrary to Vive' s contention, respondents
allege that the Maceda Law is inapplicable to the instant case for the same
covers transactions involving the sale of real estate on installment payments
where the buyer has paid at least 2 years of installments. Here, Vive has
only paid the first installment of P4 million. Because of Vive' s failure to pay
and NHMFC 's valid rescission of the contract, Vive had forfeited whatever
rights it might have acquired over the properties and has no right to ask for
the refund of the P4 million pursuant to Section 5.2 of the Deed of Sale
29
30
31
32
Id. at 607.
Id. at 606.
Id.at 611.
Id. at 613.
t7
Decision - 10 - G.R. No. 230817

which provides that "the sums of money paid shall be considered and treated
as rentals for the occupancy and use of the property and VEND EE waives all
rights to ask or demand the return thereof." 33 Respondents add that as
stipulated in the Offer to Purchase and the Deed of Sale, Vive was fully
aware of the limiting conditions inherent in the properties and the legal
problems affecting the same. Thus, it is not entitled to the reimbursement for
expenses it incurred in the litigation of the same. 34

Fourth, respondents argue that the MOA was entered into in good
faith, citing the ruling of the RTC, Branch 139, which held that Cavacon
disclosed to Vive the fact that it entered into the MOA in its Answer to
Vive's Amended Complaint, while NHMFC disclosed the same in its
Opposition to the Motion to Admit the Amended Complaint. As to Vive's
assertion that NHMFC conveniently sold the property to Cavacon only after
the legal issues affecting it had been resolved, respondents allege that Vive
failed to present any supporting evidence to show when respondents became
aware to the said decision of the Court. 35

On October 20, 2017, respondent Sison filed its own, separate

Comment36 essentially refuting the arguments raised by Vive in its Motion
for Reconsideration and declaring that the Court should not allow Vive to
make allegations that are a mere rehash of the ones taken up in the
proceedings below and to raise entirely new issues not agreed to a pre-trial
nor taken up during trial. On October 25, 2017, Vive filed its Reply 37
refuting the allegations in respondents' Comment. Thereafter, on November
8, 201 7, NHMFC and Cavacon filed a Manifestation and Motion seeking to
have the Comment filed by respondent Sison and the Reply filed by Vive in
response thereto be expunged from the records of the case because they tend
to mislead, confuse, and waste the time of the Court. NHMFC and Cavacon
assert that Sison's Comment came as a surprise for neither they, nor their
counsel, who was also Sison's counsel, were informed that he was getting a
separate counsel to file his own Comment. On November 24, 2017, Vive
filed its Reply to the Comment of NHMFC and Cavacon. In response,
NHMFC and Cavacon filed their Rejoinder on November 29, 2017.
Likewise, Sison filed his Rejoinder on December 1, 2017. Thereafter, in a
Counter-Manifestation filed also on December 1, 2017, Sison rejects the
allegations of NHMFC and Cavacon stating that he has all the right to
choose, engage, and be represented by a primary or collaborating counsel
either in his personal or private capacity, having been resigned from
NHMFC as President thereof. In its Reply filed on December 27, 2017,
Vive alleged that since Sison's co-respondents as well as his original
counsels were blindsided by the sudden appearance of new collaborating

33
34
Id. at 615.
Id.at 616.
{,. I
35
Id. at617-619.
36
Id. at 705-750.
37
Id. at 626-652.
Decision - 11 - G.R. No. 230817

counsel, the same is irregular, illegal, and unauthorized, and should be

expunged from the records.

In a Resolution38 dated April 18, 2018, the Court resolved to grant

Vive's Motion for Reconsideration, giving due course to the Petition for
Review on Certiorari, and to require respondents to file their comments on
said petition. After an exchange of pleadings wherein the parties essentially
reiterated their arguments in their respective Comments and Rejoinders, the
Court shall now resolve the conflicting issues presented by the parties.

We rule in favor of the respondents.

At the outset, the Court sustains the appellate court's finding that the
nature of the agreement between the parties herein is one akin to a contract
to sell. A contract to sell is defined as a bilateral contract whereby the
prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject
property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to
sell the said property exclusively to the latter upon his fulfillment of the
conditions agreed upon, i.e., the full payment of the purchase price and/or
compliance with the other obligations stated in the contract to sell. Given its
contingent nature, the failure of the prospective buyer to make full payment
and/or abide by his commitments stated in the contract to sell prevents the
obligation of the prospective seller to execute the corresponding deed of sale
to effect the transfer of ownership to the buyer from arising. A contract to
sell is akin to a conditional sale where the efficacy or obligatory force of the
vendor's obligation to transfer title is subordinated to the happening of a
future and uncertain event, so that if the suspensive condition does not take
place, the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never
existed. In a contract to sell, the fulfillment of the suspensive condition will
not automatically transfer ownership to the buyer although the property may
have been previously delivered to him. The prospective seller still has to
convey title to the prospective buyer by entering into a contract of absolute
sale. Conversely, in a conditional contract of sale, the fulfillment of the
suspensive condition renders the sale absolute and the previous delivery of
the property has the effect of automatically transferring the seller's
ownership or title to the property to the buyer. 39

A plain and simple reading of the contract executed by the parties

readily reveals that the same is a contract to sell and not a contract of sale.
Section 7 thereof provides:

Section 7. TITLE OF PROPERTY

{I
38
Id. at 901-905.
39
Villamil v. Spouses Erguiza, G.R. No. 195999, June 20, 2018.
Decision - 12 - G.R. No. 230817

Upon full payment by the VEND EE of the sa.Ies price of the

rights, interest and participations in the property and other sums due, the
VENDOR shall execute a Certificate of [full payment] and deliver the
Duplicate Original Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 86340 and 86341
to the VENDEE. Expenses for the transfer of the title to VENDEE shall
be for VENDEE's account. 40

As clearly stipulated above, it is only upon Vive's full payment of the

purchase price shall NHMFC be obligated to deliver the title to the property.
Otherwise put, by virtue of the aforequoted provision, NHMFC expressly
reserved title and ownership of the subject property in its name pending
Vive' s payment of the full amount even though possession thereof was
already granted in favor of Vive. It is, therefore, c1ear that the parties
intended their agreement to be merely a contract to sell, conditioned upon
the full payment of the purchase price. Time and again, the Court has ruled
that in a contract of sale, the title to the property passes to the vendee upon
the delivery of the thing sold whereas in a contract to sell, the ownership is,
by agreement, retained by the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until
full payment of the purchase price. In a contract of sale, the vendee's non-
payment of the price is a negative resolutory condition, while in a contract to
sell, the vendee's full payment of the price is a positive suspensive condition
to the coming into effect of the agreement. In the first case, the vendor has
lost and cannot recover the ownership of the property unless he takes action
to set aside the contract of sale. In the second case, the title simply remains
in the vendor if the vendee does not comply with the condition precedent of
making payment at the time specified in the contract. Verily, in a contract to
sell, the prospective vendor binds himself to sell the property subject of the
agreement exclusively to the prospective vendee upon fulfilment of the
condition agreed upon which is the full payment of the purchase price but
reserving to himself the ownership of the subject property despite delivery
thereof to the prospective buyer. 41

On this matter, Vive insists that the subject contract is a contract of

sale because of the following paragraph therein:

NOW THEREFORE, for in consideration of the foregoing

premises and the sum of FORTY MILLION PESOS (P40,000,000.00)
Philippine currency x x x VENDOR hereby SELLS, TRANSFERS and
CONVEYS to the VENDEE, whatever rights, interest, and participation
the VENDOR has over the above-described parcel of land and all the
improvements found thereon by way of negotiated sale x x x.

The contention is not completely accurate. A cursory reading of the

above excerpt in its entirety would show that the phrase "subject to the
following terms and conditions:" was left out from the citation. As such,

40
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 143. (Emphases ours)
//;y
41
Danan v. Spouses Serrano, 792 Phil. 37, 46-47 (2016). L/
Decision - 13 - G.R. No. 230817

Vive cannot argue that by virtue of the foregoing incomplete text, NHMFC
absolutely, unconditionally, and without reservation, sold its ownership over
the subject property because the same was categorically made "subject to the
following terms and conditions," one of which is Section 7 of the agreement.
It is well to remember that contracts must always be read and interpreted in
its totality, never in isolation only to serve one's claims and interests.
Certainly, a more cohesive reading of the parties' agreement herein would
lead to no other conclusion than that NHMFC transferred to Vive its rights
over the property subject to the condition that the latter fully pays the
balance of the purchase price.

It is of no moment that what Section 7 requires from NHMFC is the

execution of a "Certificate of Full Payment" and not a "Deed of Absolute
Sale." The mere fact that it expressly states that NHMFC shall deliver the
titles to the property upon full payment of the purchase price suffices to
evince the intent of NHMFC to reserve ownership in its name. As pointed
out by the CA, this intention was sufficiently established by, and may
reasonably inferred from, the fact that title to the subject property was not
immediately transferred, through a formal deed of conveyance, in the name
of Vive prior to or at the time of Vive's first payment of P4,000,000.00. 42
To the Court, moreover, if Vive truly believed that by virtue of the subject
contract, it was already acquiring absolute ownership of the property, it
should have already demanded the delivery of the Duplicate Original
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 86340 and 86341 right from the execution
of the same. What is more is that the parties even stipulated in their contract
that it shall be considered as an event of default should Vive subdivide,
lease, sell, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of the property without prior
written consent of NHMFC. If, indeed, NHMFC absolutely parted with the
ownership of the property, it should no longer have any business insofar as
Vive's decisions relating to the property is concerned. Settled is the rule that
ownership of a property includes the right to enjoy and dispose of the thing
owned without other limitations than those established by law. 43

It is, likewise, of no moment that the contract grants NHMFC the right
to rescind the same as a consequence of an event of default. Vive asserts
that if the parties truly intended on a contract to sell, there would not have
been a necessity to annul or cancel the contract upon default in view of the
rule that contracts to sell need not be annulled for non-payment since such
payment is a positive suspensive condition, failure of which is not really a
breach, but an event that prevents the obligation of NHMFC to convey title
from arising. The argument deserves scant consideration. Instead, We
concur with the appellate court in finding that it is immaterial that the parties
described the cancellation of the agreement as one of rescission, which is not
available in contracts to sell. The parties, as laymen, are understandably not
adept in the legal terms and their implications. At any rate, courts are not

42
43
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 123.
Civil Code, Article 428.
(7
Decision - 14 - G.R. No. 230817

held captive by the conclusions of the parties in their contracts. It is an

established principle in law that a contract is what the law defines it to be
and not what the contracting parties call it. 44

In its Petition, Vive further claims that even assuming that the Deed of
Sale is a contract to sell, it was never in default to pay the balance of the
purchase price because further payments are suspended pending resolution
of the issues affecting the property. According to Vive., it was an essential
consideration of the contract for Vive to be able to use the property as
collateral for a loan to develop the same into a residential subdivision. But
the issues surrounding the property rendered it impossible for Vive to do so.
In fact, NHMFC further prevented Vive from obtaining the loan when it
failed to assist with the litigation on the property. The assertion, however,
fails to persuade. On the contrary, a cursory reading of the agreement would
reveal that Vive was in truth aware of the nature of the property it was
purchasing. The pertinent provisions explicitly state:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the disposition policies under Board

Resolution No. 2391, dated June 23, 1994, VENDOR was authorized to
sell and convey whatever rights, interests, and participation it has on "as is
where is basis" the property of AL YANSA NG MGA MAKA-
MARALIT ANG ASOSASYON AT KAPA TIRANG ORGANISASYON,
INC. (AMAKO), XX x.

WHEREAS, VENDEE has full knowledge of tlhe nature and

extent of the VENDOR's rights, interests, and participation over the
foreclosed property subject of this contract incllllding pending
litigation involving claims of alleged tenants to the property.

xxxx

Section 9. EJECTMENT

VENDEE at his own expense assumes responsibility of

ejecting squatters and/or occupants of the property, if any. 45

In view of the foregoing, Vive cannot be permitted to place the blame

on NHMFC or the issues affecting the property for its failure to comply with
its obligation to pay when it explicitly admitted in the contract its awareness
thereof. Besides, as aptly pointed out by respondents, there is nothing in the
contract giving NHMFC the obligation to assist in the litigation of the issues
surrounding the property. Neither was there any evidence presented
supporting the allegation that NHMFC even prevented Vive from obtaining
the developmental loan.

As for Vive's argument that it could not have been in default as it was
validly granted a moratorium, the same must necessarily fail. Vive
44
45
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 126.
Id. at 140-144. (Emphases ours)
1lV
Decision - 15 - G.R. No. 230817

consistently maintains that NHMFC, through its then President, Atty. Salud,
agreed on a moratorium on the collection period as evidenced by Salud's
June 17, 2004 letter. Vive cannot deny, however, that the alleged
moratorium did not have board approval. It is a fundamental principle in
corporate law that a juridical entity cannot act or give its consent except
through its board of directors as a collective body, which is vested with the
power and responsibility to decide whether the corporation should enter into
a contract that will bind the corporation, subject to the Articles of
Incorporation, By-Laws, or relevant provisions of law. 46 Section 23 of the
Corporation Code provides:

SEC. 23. The board of directors or trustees. - Unless otherwise

provided in this Code, the corporate powers of all corporations formed
under this Code shall be exercised, all business conducted and all property
of such corporations controlled and held by the board of directors or
trustees to be elected from among the holders of stocks, or where there is
no stock, from among the members of the corporation, who shall hold
office for one (1) year and until their successors are elected and qualified.

Thus, NHMFC, being a juridical person, cannot conduct its business,

make decisions, or act in any manner without action from its board of
directors. Said board must act as a body in order to exercise corporate
powers. 47 As such, no person, not even its officers, can validly bind a
corporation without the authority of the corporation's board of directors.
Nevertheless, the corporation may delegate through a board resolution its
corporate powers or functions to a representative, subject to limitations
under the law and the corporation's articles of incorporation. 48 Accordingly,
without delegation by the board of directors or trustees, acts of a person -
including those of the corporation's directors, trustees, shareholders, or
officers - executed on behalf of the corporation are generally not binding
on the corporation. 49 In view of the absence of a resolution from NHMFC 's
Board of Directors authorizing Atty. Salud to grant any kind of moratorium,
We adopt with approval the CA's finding that NHMFC is not liable under
the same.

This notwithstanding, Vive argues that even granting that Atty. Salud
did not have power to grant a moratorium, his act can nevertheless bind
NHMFC under the doctrine of apparent authority. According to Vive, it
cannot be faulted for relying on Atty. Salud's letter because NHMFC made
it appear that Salud was empowered to negotiate, administer, and execute the
subject Deed of Sale. Vive added that contrary to the findings of the trial
court, NHMFC even had knowledge of the moratorium granted in Vive's
favor. This is shown by a July 4, 2005 letter written by Vive thanking
NHMFC for the moratorium on the collection period. Vive asserts that said

46
Ayala Land, Inc. v. ASB Realty Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 210043, September 26, 2018ct
47 University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 776 Phil. 40 l, 440 (2016).
48
Id. at 441.
49
Id.
Decision - 16 - G.R. No. 230817

letter was addressed to Atty. Rustico P. Cacal, in his capacity as Senior

Vice-President, Corporate Legal Counsel, and Board Secretary. Thus, the
knowledge gained by Atty. Cacal in said capacity constitutes knowledge of
NHMFC for basic is the rule that notice to the agent is notice to the
principal. In support of this contention, Vive cites Our ruling in Francisco
v. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), 50 where We held that
"knowledge of facts acquired by an officer or agent of a corporation in
relation to matters within the scope of his authority is notice to the
corporation whether he communicates such knowledge or not." Moreover,
even assuming that Atty. Salud was not vested with apparent authority to
grant a moratorium, NHMFC is effectively estopped from denying the same
in view of its silence following the grant thereof. As shown by the records,
NHMFC made no efforts to collect the installments after the moratorium
was granted.

The contention is devoid of merit.

The doctrine of apparent authority is a species of the doctrine of

estoppel. Article 1431 of the Civil Code provides that through estoppel, an
admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making
it and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.
Estoppel rests on the rule that when a party has, by his own declaration, act,
or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular
thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out
of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it. 51 In certain
instances, therefore, the Court has recognized presumed or apparent
authority or capacity to bind corporate representatives in cases when the
corporation, through its silence or other acts of recognition, allowed others
to believe that persons, through their usual exercise of corporate powers,
were conferred with authority to deal on the corporation's behalf. 52

The present case, however, does not involve any of those instances.
First of all, there is no proof to show that Atty. Salud was, in truth,
represented to be "the face" of NHMFC. As NHMFC correctly maintained,
Vive failed to adduce evidence during trial to establish that NHMFC had,
indeed, clothed Atty. Salud with apparent power to grant the moratorium or
that Atty. Salud, had, in the past, granted similar moratoriums in Vive's
favor. It bears stressing, moreover, that even the mere execution of the
subject deed of sale was accomplished not by Atty. Salud, but by NHMFC's
then President Augusto A. Legasto, Jr. 53 Second, just because Vive sent a
letter to Atty. Rustico P. Cacal, in his capacity as Senior Vice-President,
Corporate Legal Counsel, and Board Secretary, does not mean that NHMFC
already had knowledge of the moratorium. While it may be true that
50
117 Phil. 586,595 (1963).
51
Ayala Land, Inc. v. ASB Realty Corporation, et al., supra note 46, citing Nogales v. Capitol
Medical Center, 540 Phil. 225,246 (2006). / · )/
52
53
University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, supra note 47, at 449.
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 140.
L· //f
1
.·
Decision - 17 - G.R. No. 230817

knowledge of an officer is considered knowledge of the corporation, this

rule applies only when the officer is acting within the authority given to him
or her by the corporation. 54 In University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, We ratiocinated:

The public should be able to rely on and be protected from the

representations of a corporate representative acting within the scope of his or her
authority. This is why an authorized officer's knowledge is considered knowledge
of corporation. However, just as the public should be able to rely on and be
protected from corporate representations, corporations should also be able
to expect that they will not be bound by unauthorized actions made on their
account.

Thus, knowledge should be actually communicated to the

corporation through its authorized representatives. A corporation cannot be
expected to act or not act on a knowledge that had not been communicated
to it through an authorized representative. There can be no implied
ratification without actual communication. Knowledge of the existence of
contract must be brought to the corporation's representative who has
authority to ratify it. Further, "the circumstances must be shown from
which such knowledge may be presumed."

The Spouses Guillermo and Dolores Torres' knowledge cannot be

interpreted as knowledge of petitioner. Their knowledge was not obtained as
petitioner's representatives. It was not shown that they were acting for and within
the authority given by petitioner when they acquired knowledge of the loan
transactions and the mortgages. The knowledge was obtained in the interest of
and as representatives of the thrift banks. 55

On the basis of the foregoing pronouncement, Atty. Cacal's alleged

knowledge acquired through a letter addressed to him cannot instantly be
assumed as knowledge of NHMFC itself. This is especially so in view of the
fact that apart from its mere allegation, Vive failed to present any evidence
to establish that Atty. Cacal was actually appointed by the corporation as its
authorized representative. Neither did it present any explanation as to why it
chose to send its "thank you" letter to Atty. Cacal instead of the board of
directors itself considering the fact that Atty. Salud, in his June 17, 2004
letter, stated that he "will submit the request to the Board for consideration
and guidance" and that he "will seek authority to negotiate" with Vive. Said
statements should have already alerted Vive, an established business entity
engaged in real estate, of the need for board approval.

Unfortunately for Vive, moreover, it cannot rely on our ruling in

Francisco. There, Francisco sought the redemption of a property that GSIS
acquired in a foreclosure proceeding due to the failure of the former's
daughter to pay the loan she obtained from the latter. Thus, he sent a
telegram of his proposal to the general manager of GSIS who, in tum, stated
in another telegram that the GSIS approved the proposal. In fulfillment of
his proposed redemption scheme, Francisco began remitting several amounts
to GSIS, which received the same and issued corresponding official receipts
54
55
University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, supra note 47, at 448.
Id. at 448-449. (Emphases ours) cf
Decision - 18 - G.R. No. 230817

therefor. After a few months, however, GSIS sent Francisco a letter

demanding for the payment of the loan and informing the latter that the one-
year redemption period had already expired. It also consolidated the title to
the property in its name. Aggrieved, Francisco filed a complaint alleging
that the GSIS must honor their agreement in the telegram he sent. In ruling
in Francisco's favor, the Court held that first, the GSIS did not disown its
general manager's telegram of acceptance but only alleged mistake in the
wording thereof. Second, when Francisco made his first remittance to GSIS,
he accompanied the same with a telegram wherein he referred to the
acceptance made by GSIS's general manager. This notwithstanding, GSIS
made no effort to correct the telegram of acceptance as it later on claimed to
be erroneous. More importantly, it even received the payments made by
Francisco. Thus, the Court ruled that this silence, taken together with the
unconditional acceptance of three other subsequent remittances from
[Francisco], constitutes in itself a binding ratification of the original
agreement. 56

The same cannot be said in this case, however, under the obtaining
undisputed facts. Unlike GSIS, NHMFC never accepted any form of
payment from Vive in furtherance of their alleged amended contract. Also,
unlike GSIS, NHMFC made no representation making Atty. Cacal as its
representative authorized to receive notice of a supposed moratorium on
NHMFC's behalf. In view of this absence of evidence pointing to similar
acts that can be interpreted as NHMFC holding Atty. Cacal to receive
information or even Atty. Salud to grant a moratorium in its behalf, there can
be no apparent authority that would render NHMFC as estopped from
denying the binding effect of the unauthorized acts of these officers.
Certainly, consent of NHMFC cannot simply be presumed from
representations of its individual officers without authority from the board,
especially if obligations will be incurred as a result. 57

Neither can NHMFC be deemed to have ratified the unauthorized acts

of its officers. Time and again, the Court has held that "ratification is a
voluntary and deliberate confirmation or adoption of a previous
unauthorized act. It converts the unauthorized act of an agent into an act of
the principal. It cures the lack of consent at the time of the execution of the
contract entered into by the representative, making the contract valid and
enforceable. It is, in essence, consent belatedly given through express or
implied acts that are deemed a confirmation or waiver of the right to impugn
the unauthorized act." 58 But as already mentioned, not only was it proven
that the grant of the moratorium was unauthorized by the board, it was also
shown that NHMFC was not duly informed about the same. It is rather
impossible for NHMFC to ratify, whether expressly or impliedly by its
silence, an unauthorized act of its agent which it had no knowledge of.

56
57

58
Francisco v. Government Service Insurance System, supra note 50.
University of Mindanao, Inc. v. Bangko Sentra/ ng Pilipinas, supra note 47, at 442. { I:/
/
JI
Id. at 445-446.
Decision - 19 - G.R. No. 230817

Indeed, silence, acquiescence, retention of benefits, and acts that may be

interpreted as approval of the act do not by themselves constitute implied
ratification. For an act' to constitute an implied ratification, there must be no
acceptable explanation for the act other than that there is an intention to
adopt the act as his or her own. It cannot be inferred from acts that a
principal has a right to do independently of the unauthorized act of the agent.

In an attempt to save its plight, Vive raised for the first time in its
Motion for Reconsideration before the Court the argument that the Deed of
Sale must remain valid and subsisting in view of NHMFC's failure to
comply with the mandatory twin requirements of a notarized notice of
cancellation and a refund of the cash surrender value under the Maceda Law.
Specifically, Vive argues that since the instant transaction involves the sale
of real estate payable in installments, and that the subject property is not one
that is excluded in Section 359 of the Maceda Law, the provisions under
Section 460 thereof should apply. Thus, NHMFC may only cancel their
contract after giving Vive a grace period of not less than sixty days from the
date the installment became due and upon the expiration of said grace
period, only after thirty days from receipt by Vive of a notice of cancellation
or demand for rescission by a notarial act. But since NHMFC failed to
comply with the requirements of Section 4, its notice to rescind not being a
notarized document, their contract must be deemed valid and subsisting.

The contention is untenable.

In the first place, it has not escaped the Court's attention that the
argument was raised for the first time before the Court, not in Vive' s
Petition for Review on Certiorari, but only in its Motion for
Reconsideration. It is a rudimentary principle of law that matters neither
alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below cannot be
ventilated for the first time on appeal before the Supreme Court. It would be
offensive to the basic rules of fair play and justice to allow Vive to raise an
issue that was not brought up before the trial court and appellate court.
While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true
that elementary considerations of due process require that a party be duly
apprised of a claim against him before judgment may be rendered. 61

59
SECTION 3. In all transactions or contracts involving the sale or financing of real estate on
installment payments, including residential condominium apartments but excluding industrial lots,
commercial buildings and sales to tenants under Republic Act Numbered Thirty-eight hundred forty-four,
as amended by Republic Act Numbered Sixty-three hundred eighty-nine, where the buyer has paid at least
two years of installments, the buyer is entitled to the following rights in case he defaults in the payment of
succeeding installments: x x x.
60
SECTION 4. In case where less than two years of installments were paid, the seller shall give the
buyer a grace period of not less than sixty days from the date the installment became due. If the buyer fails
to pay the installments due at the expiration of the grace period, the seller may cancel the contract after
thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the
contract by a notarial act.

/t
61
Ejercito v. Hon. Commission on Elections, et al., 748 Phil. 205, 257-258 (2014).
Decision - 20 - G.R. No. 230817

But even if We make an exception and give due course to the belated
assertion, Vive's argument still would not alter the outcome of the case.
Contrary to Vive's claims, the Maceda Law does not apply to the instant
contract to sell.

In Active Realty Development Corporation v. Daroya, 62 the Court

unequivocally pronounced that the declared policy of the Maceda Law is to
protect the innocent, low-income buyers of real estate who are eager to
acquire property upon which to build their homes from the exploitative and
onerous installment schemes of private housing developers who get to forfeit
all payments upon default by the buyer and resell the same property under
the same exigent conditions. We elucidated in the following wise:

The contract to sell in the case at bar is governed by Republic Act

No. 6552 - "The Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act," or more
popularly known as the Maceda Law - which came into effect in
September 1972. Its declared public policy is to protect buyers of real
estate on installment basis against onerous and oppressive conditions. The
law seeks to address the acute housing shortage problem in our country
that has prompted thousands of middle- and lower-class buyers of houses,
lots and condominium units to enter into all sorts of contracts with private
housing developers involving installment schemes. Lot buyers, mostly
low-income earners eager to acquire a lot upon which to build their
homes, readily affix their signatures on these contracts, without an
opportunity to question the onerous provisions therein as the contract is
offered to them on a "take it or leave it" basis. Most of these contracts of
adhesion, drawn exclusively by the developers, entrap innocent buyers by
requiring cash deposits for reservation agreements which oftentimes
include, in fine print, onerous default clauses where all the installment
payments made will be forfeited upon failure to pay any installment due
even if the buyers' had made payments for several years. Real estate
developers thus enjoy an unnecessary advantage over lot buyers who they
often exploit with iniquitous results. They get to forfeit all the installment
payments of defaulting buyers and resell the same lot to another buyer
with the same exigent conditions. To help especially the low-income lot
buyers, the legislature enacted R.A. No. 6552 delineating the rights and
remedies of lot buyers and protect them from one-sided and pernicious
contract stipulations. 63

Seen in the foregoing light, the Court, in Spouses Garcia v. Court of

Appeals, refused to apply the Maceda Law to the contract to sell between
buyers, the Spouses Garcia, and seller, Emerlita Dela Cruz, covering five (5)
parcels of land in Cavite. There, the spouses refused to pay the last
installment claiming to have discovered an infirmity on the subject lots.
Consequently, Dela Cruz rescinded their contract and sold the property to
another buyer. When the spouses questioned Dela Cruz' rescission, the
Court ruled that their contract was clear in the sense that Dela Cruz had the 1

62
Active Realty & Development Corp. v. Daroya, 431 Phil. 753 (2002).
'
//;f'
/
63
Id. at 760-761. (/
Decision - 21 - G.R. No. 230817

right to cancel the contract upon the failure of the spouses to pay the
purchase price on the stipulated dates. In particular, We held that while the
Maceda Law applies to contracts of sale of real estate on installment
payments, including residential condominium apartments but excluding
industrial lots, commercial buildings and sales to tenants, the subject lands,
comprising five (5) parcels and aggregating 69,028 square meters, do not
comprise residential real estate within the contemplation of the Maceda
Law. 64

By the same token, the Court, in Spouses Dela Cruz v. Court of

Appeals, ruled that the Maceda Law does not govern the contract to sell
entered into by sellers, the Spouses Dela Cruz and buyers, the Spouses
Aguila, of a house located in Town and Country Executive Village,
Antipolo, Rizal, because it is not a contract involving a subdivision owner or
developer but only between two couples, i.e., the original house-owners and
the subsequent buyers of the house and lot. 65

Guided by the foregoing precepts, the Court cannot apply the

provisions of the Maceda Law to the present case. The contract to sell
herein is between Vive, a corporation engaged in the realty business, and
NHMFC, a government corporation mandated to increase the availability of
loans for Filipinos who seek to acquire their own homes by operating a
secondary market for home mortgages. 66 As such, it is rather obvious that
the contract before Us is not the kind of onerous contract of adhesion under
the Maceda Law drawn up by private real estate developers designed to
entrap innocent low-income earners by requiring installment payments for
several years only to be forfeited by the former upon failure to make a single
payment. In fact, Vive, the buyer of the subject property, has been insisting
that it was an essential consideration of the contract for Vive to be able to
use the property as collateral for a loan to develop the same into a residential
subdivision. It cannot be denied, therefore, that Vive is not the "innocent,
low-income buyer" that the Maceda Law was enacted to protect. Neither is
NHMFC the "real estate developer" that said law intends to regulate in order
to prevent the enjoyment of any unnecessary exploitation. To repeat, the
Maceda law was enacted to remedy the plight of low and middle-income lot
buyers, save them from the exacting default clauses in real estate sales, and
assure them of a home they can call their own. 67

In a last-ditch effort to protect its interests, Vive similarly raised for

the first time in its Motion for Reconsideration that even assuming that the
rescission effected by NHMFC was valid, the lower courts should have
ordered mutual restitution and that the parties surrender that which they
received and to place each other in their original position. Referring to its

64
65
Spouses Garcia, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 633 Phil. 294, 303 (2010).
Spouses Dela Cruz v. Court ofAppeals, 485 Phil. 168, 180 (2004).
{11'
66 https://www.nhmfc.gov.ph/index.php/corporate-profile/history (last visited August 2, 2019).
67 Active Realty & Development Corp. v. Daroya, supra note 62, at 763.
Decision - 22 - G.R. No. 230817

efforts in cleansing the title of the property from adverse claims, Vive added
that NHMFC should not be permitted to benefit therefrom especially when it
conveniently sold the property to Cavacon only after the legal issues
affecting it had been resolved. The Court remains unconvinced. For one,
there is no proof of NHMFC's bad faith in allegedly waiting for the
resolution of the legal issues before it decided to sell the property to
Cavacon. As NHMFC asserted, Vive did not present any evidence to show
when it became aware of the said resolution. For another, We go back to the
provisions of the contract itself, the pertinent portions of which state:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the disposition policies under Board

Resolution No. 2391, dated June 23, 1994, VENDOR was authorized to
sell and convey whatever rights, interests, and participation it has on "as is
where is basis" the property of ALYANSA NG MGA MAKA-
MARALIT ANG ASOSASYON AT KAPATIRANG ORGANISASYON,
INC. (AMAKO), XX x.

WHEREAS, VENDEE has full knowledge of the nature and

extent of the VENDOR's rights, interests, and participation over the
foreclosed property subject of this contract including pending
litigation involving claims of alleged tenants to the property.

xxxx

Section 5: EFFECTS OF DEFAULT

Upon the occurrence of an event of default, NHMFC shall

have the right to:

xxxx

5.2 VENDOR shall then be at liberty to dispose of the same as

if this Deed of Sale of Rights, Interest and participation over
Foreclosed Assets has never been made, and in the event of
such annulment, the sums of money paid shall be
considered and treated as rentals for the occupancy and use
of the property and VENDEE waives all rights to ask or
demand the return hereof. VENDEE further agrees to
peacefully and quickly vacate the property. All permanent/
fixed improvements found in the premises shall belong to
the VENDOR without liability on the part of VENDOR to
reimburse VEND EE of the cost of said improvements;

xxxx

Section 9. EJECTMENT

VENDEE at his own expense assumes responsibility of

ejecting squatters and/or occupants of the property, if any. 68 _,- -,( /

/ /}1
! I/
(,,
/

68
Rollo, pp. 140-144. (Emphases ours)
Decision - 23 - G.R. No. 230817

It is a cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts that if the terms of

a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting
parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. A court's purpose
in examining a contract is to interpret the intent of the contracting parties, as
objectively manifested by them. Where the written terms of the contract are
not ambiguous and can only be read one way, the court will interpret the
contract as a matter of law. 69 The contract to sell executed by the parties
herein could not be any clearer. In a language too clear to be mistaken, Vive
entered into the agreement fully aware of the nature and condition of the
subject property and expressly assumed responsibility over the pending legal
issues affecting the same. It also deliberately waived all its rights to demand
for the return of any and all amounts it had paid NHMFC prior to its
commission of an event of default. As such, and as We have declared
above, Vive cannot now be permitted to put the blame on NHMFC or the
issues affecting the property for its failure to adhere to the clear provisions
of the contract.

Stripped of all complexities, the simple fact remains that Vive failed
to comply with its obligation to pay the stipulated amounts for the purchase
of the property subject of the agreement. This comprises as an event of
default which, under the contract, produces the following effects:

Section 5: EFFECTS OF DEFAULT

Upon the occun-ence of an event of default, NHMFC shall

have the right to:

5.1 Declare the contract annulled / cancelled. VENDEE

shall forfeit and waive whatever rights he might have
acquired over the property.

5.2 VENDOR shall then be at liberty to dispose of the same

as if this Deed of Sale of Rights, Interest and
participation over Foreclosed Assets has never been
made, and in the event of such annulment, the sums of
money paid shall be considered and treated as rentals
for the occupancy and use of the property and VEND EE
waives all rights to ask or demand the return hereof.
VENDEE further agrees to peacefully and quickly vacate
the property. All permanent I fixed improvements found in
the premises shall belong to the VENDOR without liability
on the part of VENDOR to reimburse VEND EE of the cost
of said improvements; x x x. 70

69
The We/lex Group, Inc. v. U-Land Airlines, Co., Ltd., 750 Phil. 530, 568 (2015), citing Norton
Resources and Development Corporation v. All Asia Bank Corporation, 620 Phil. 381,388 (2009) [Ppr J.
Nachura, Third Division].
70
Rollo, Vol. I, p. 143. (Emphases ours)
Decision - 24 - G.R. No. 230817

Indubitably, by the clear and express provisions of the agreement, the

default on the part of Vive unequivocally gave NHMFC the right to: (1)
annul and cancel the contract; (2) dispose of the property as if the contract
was never executed; and (3) treat the sums of money paid by Vive as rentals
for the latter's use and occupancy thereof. As a matter of fact, Vive even
consciously and categorically waived any and all rights to demand for the
return of the sums of money it paid to NHMFC. It is for this reason that the
Court cannot give credence to Vive's argument that the subsequent sale
between NHMFC and Cavacon was entered into in bad faith. As far as
NHMFC was concerned, it was merely acting in accordance with the
provisions of the contract to sell, having every right to dispose of the
property as if the sale of the same to Vive was never executed. As the Court
similarly held in Spouses Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 71 Dela Cruz, the seller
of the property, was within her rights to sell the subject lands to another
buyer as a result of the Spouses Garcia's failure to pay the balance of the
purchase price on the stipulated date of their contract to sell.

All told, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the conclusions
reached by the appellate court. At the risk of being repetitive, Vive
consistently failed to pay the balance of the purchase price on the date and in
the manner prescribed by the contract to sell. Unfortunately for Vive,
moreover, this failure could not be justified by its contentions that ownership
was already transferred to it in the absolute sense, that it was granted a
moratorium or that the issues inherent in the subject property suspended all
subsequent payments. The provisions of the contract are clear. To begin
with, the agreement executed by the parties is a contract to sell as shown by
the fact that NHMFC expressly reserved its title to the subject property. As
such, Vive's non-payment constituted an event of default that granted
NHMFC the right to cancel their contract. The argument that Vive was
granted a moratorium on the collection period hardly persuades in the
absence of proof that NHMFC 's board of directors approved the same or
that NHMFC authorized its officers to grant the suspension on its behalf.

At the end of the day, there is no denying that Vive was well aware of
the complications surrounding the property. Yet, despite knowledge of the
pending issues, Vive still endeavored to acquire the lots and even assumed
all responsibility for the resolution thereof. It cannot, therefore, take refuge
on this condition of the property as an excuse for its breach of contract.
Thus, in view of Vive's failure to comply with its obligations under the
agreement, We rule that NHMFC validly cancelled the same. That the
cancellation was not executed in compliance with the Maceda Law is of
little relevance for said law is inapplicable to the present contract.
Ultimately, as a legal consequence of Vive's default, and by the express
authority of the agreement, NHMFC cannot be faulted for selling the

71
Supra note 64.
1111
Decision - 25 - G.R. No. 230817

property to Cavacon. The subsequent transaction entered into between

NHMFC and Cavacon is, therefore, valid.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is

DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August 23, 2016 and the Resolution
dated March 30, 2017'ofthe Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105312
are AFFIRMED. '

SO ORDERED.
Decision - 26 - G.R. No. 230817

WE CONCUR:

~ MARVIC ~~
/ Associate Justice

ANDRE~'iYES, JR.
Assoli:~Jj ustice Associate Justice
.,-----

HEN~INTING
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

' ~
1 ·~

Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.