PEOPLE'S HOMESITE & HOUSING minds on the purchase of Lot 4 with an area of 2,608.

7
CORPORATION vs. COURT OF APPEALS square meters at P21 a square meter.

G.R. No. L-61623 December 26, 1984

ERNESTO DICHOSO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
[G.R. No. 55613 :  December 10, 1990.]
FACTS: 192 SCRA 169

In February 1960, herein petitioner People’s Homesite FACTS:

& Housing Corporation (PHHC) passed a resolution,
subject to the approval of the Court Court Council of the An Extra-judicial Settlement of Estate executed on
PHHC’s consolidation subdivision plan, awarding Lot 4 November 22, 1945, shows that, 4/6 of the entire land
or 11.2477 hectares was adjudicated to Vivencia Prila,
with an area of 4,182.2 square meters located at
1/6 or 2.8119 hectares to Asuncion Pacamara and
Diliman, Court City to respondents Rizalino and another 1/6 or 2.8119 hectares to Custodio Parcia. In
Adelaida Mendoza (spouses Mendoza) at a price of 1955, Vivencia Prila sold her 4/6 portion with an area of
twenty-one pesos (P21.00) per square meter. The Court 11.2477 hectares to the petitioner Ernesto Dichoso. On
Council disapproved the consolidation subdivision plan the other hand, in a Deed of Sale dated June 17, 1948,
in August 1960 but approved in February 1964 its Asuncion Pacamara sold to the wife of private
revised version where Lot 4 was reduced to an area of respondent Teodolfo Ramos her 1/6 share, but the
deed mentions the area of the lot sold as 4.1250
2,608.7 square meters. Then in October 1965, the PHHC
hectares; in excess of Pacamara's 1/6 share in the
withdrew the tentative award of Lot 4 to the spouses property of 2.8119 hectares. Hence, aforesaid 4.1250
Mendoza for the latter’s failure neither to pay its price hectares which Ramos claims to have possessed, is now
nor to make a 20% initial deposit, and re-awarded said the land in question.
lot jointly and in equal shares to Miguela Sto. Domingo,
Enrique Esteban, Virgilio Pinzon, Leonardo Redublo and ISSUE:
Jose Fernandez, all of whom made the initial deposit.
Whether or not, Teodolfo Ramos is the owner of the
The subdivision of Lot 4 into five lots was later approved
4.1250 hectare land in question.
by the Court council and the Bureau of Lands. The
spouses Mendoza asked for reconsideration and for the HELD:
withdrawal of the said 2nd award to Sto. Domingo and
four others, and at the same time filed an action for Teodolfo Ramos is not the owner of the entire 4.1250
specific performance plus damages. The trial court hectare land in question. This Court has held that in
cases of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the
sustained the award but the Court of Appeals reversed
latter which should prevail. In a contract of sale of land
the said decision, declared void the re-award to Sto.
in a mass, it is well established that the specific
Domingo and four others, and ordered the PHHC to sell boundaries stated in the contract must control over any
Lot 4 with an area of 2,608.7 square meters at P21.00 statement with respect to the area contained within its
per square meter to spouses Mendoza. boundaries. Thus, Ramos is hereby LIMITED to 2.8119
hectares in accordance with the boundaries indicated in
ISSUE: Whether or not, there was a perfected sale of the deed of sale in favor of his wife.
Lot 4, with the reduced are, to the Mendozas.

HELD: HEIRS OF CAYETANO PANGAN and CONSUELO

PANGAN vs. SPOUSES ROGELIO PERRERAS and
PRISCILLA PERRERAS
There was no perfected sale of Lot 4. The said lot was
conditionally or contingently awarded to the Mendozas G.R. No. 157374               August 27, 2009
subject to the approval by the city council of the
proposed consolidation subdivision plan and the The spouses Pangan were the owners of the lot and
approval of the award by the valuation committee and two-door apartment (subject properties) located at
higher authorities. When the plan with the area of Lot 4 1142 Casañas St., Sampaloc, Manila.5 On June 2, 1989,
reduced to 2,608.7 square meters was approved, the Consuelo agreed to sell to the respondents the subject
properties for the price of ₱540,000.00. On the same
Mendozas should have manifested in writing their
day, Consuelo received ₱20,000.00 from the
acceptance of the award for the purchase of Lot 4 just respondents as earnest money, evidenced by a receipt
to show that they were still interested in its purchase (June 2, 1989 receipt)6 that also included the terms of
although the area was reduced and to obviate ally the parties’ agreement.
doubt on the matter. Thus, under the facts of this case,
the Supreme Court cannot say there was a meeting of In compliance with the agreement, the respondents
issued checks payable to Consuelo in the amounts of
₱200,000.00 and ₱250,000.00 on June 15, 1989.
Consuelo, however, refused to accept the checks by Whether or not, the contract entered into by the parties
saying that her children (the petitioners-heirs) – co- may be validly rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil
owners of the subject properties – did not want to sell Code.
the subject properties. For the same reason, Consuelo
offered to return the ₱20,000.00 earnest money she
HELD:
received from the respondents, but the latter rejected
it.
No, the contract entered into by the parties may not be
ISSUE: validly rescinded under Article 1191 of the Civil Code.
For in the notice of approval, which embodies the terms
Whether or not, there was a perfected contract and conditions of the agreement, Sacobia signified its
between the parties. intent to retain the ownership of the property until such
time that the respondent has fully paid the purchase
HELD:
price. This condition precedent is characteristic of a
There was a perfected contract between the parties contract to sell. In the present cae, Ty did not pay the
since all the essential requisites of a contract were full purchase price which is his obligation under the
present. The presence of Consuelo’s consent and the contract to sell, therefore, it cannot be said that Sacobia
existence of a perfected contract between the parties breached its obligation. No obligations arose on its part
are further evidenced by the payment and receipt of because respondent’s non-fulfillment of the suspensive
₱20,000.00, an earnest money by the contracting
condition rendered the contract to sell ineffective and
parties’ common usage. The law on sales, specifically
Article 1482 of the Civil Code, provides that whenever unperfected. Indeed, there can be no rescission under
earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be Article 119117 of the Civil Code because until the
considered as part of the price and proof of the happening of the condition, i.e. full payment of the
perfection of the contract. Although the presumption is contract price, Sacobia’s obligation to deliver the title
not conclusive, as the parties may treat the earnest and object of the sale is not yet extant. A non-existent
money differently, the explicit terms of the June 8, 1989 obligation cannot be subject of rescission.
receipt provide no occasion for any reading that the
agreement is subject to the petitioners-heirs’ favorable
consent to the sale. Hence, the case contains no SPOUSES ROQUE vs. AGUADO, et.al.
element, factual or legal, that negates the existence of a G.R. No. 193787 April 7, 2014
perfected contract between the parties.
FACTS:

On July 21, 1977, petitioners-spouses Roque and the

SACOBIA HILLS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.
original owners of the then unregistered Lot 18089 –
ALLAN U. TY namely, Rivero, et al. executed the 1977 Deed of
Conditional Sale over a 1,231-sq. m. portion of Lot
G.R. No. 165889 September 20, 2005 18089 for a consideration of P30,775.00. The parties
agreed that Sps. Roque shall make an initial payment of
FACTS: P15,387.50 upon signing, while the remaining balance
of the purchase price shall be payable upon the
Sacobia Hills Development Corporation (Sacobia) is the registration of Lot 18089, as well as the segregation and
developer of True North Golf and Country Club (True the concomitant issuance of a separate title over the
North) located inside the Clark Special Economic Zone in subject portion in their names. After the deed’s
execution, Sps. Roque took possession and introduced
Pampanga. On February 12, 1997, respondent Allan U.
improvements on the subject portion which they
Ty wrote to Sacobia a letter expressing his intention to utilized as a balut factory.
acquire one (1) Class A share of True North and
accordingly paid the reservation fee. Sacobia approved On August 12, 1991, Sabug, Jr, applied for a free patent
the purchase application and membership of over the entire Lot 18089 and was eventually issued
respondent, subject to certain terms and conditions. OCT No. M-59558 in his name on October 21, 1991.
However, on January 12, 1998, respondent notified
On June 24, 1993, Sabug, Jr. and Rivero, in her personal
Sacobia that he is rescinding the contract and sought capacity and in representation of Rivero, et al.,
refund of the payments already made due to the latter’s executed the 1993 Joint Affidavit, acknowledging that
failure to complete the project on time as represented. the subject portion belongs to Sps. Roque and
expressed their willingness to segregate the same from
ISSUE: the entire area of Lot 18089. On December 8, 1999,
however, Sabug, Jr., through the 1999 Deed of Absolute
Sale, sold Lot 18089 to Aguado for P2,500,000.00, who,
in turn, caused the cancellation of OCT No. M-5955 and
the issuance of TCT No. M-96692 dated December 17,
199911 in her name. Thereafter, Aguado obtained an
P8,000,000.00 loan from the Land Bank secured by a
mortgage over Lot 18089. When she failed to pay her
loan obligation, Land Bank commenced extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings and eventually tendered the
highest bid in the auction sale. Upon Aguado’s failure to
redeem the subject property, Land Bank consolidated
its ownership, and TCT No. M-11589513 was issued in
its name on July 21, 2003. On June 16, 2003, Sps. Roque
filed a complaint for reconveyance, annulment of sale,
deed of real estate mortgage, foreclosure, and
certificate of sale, and damages before the RTC.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, the 1977 Deed of Conditional Sale is a

conditional contract of sale or a contract to sell.

HELD:

It is a CONTRACT TO SELL. in a contract to sell,

ownership is retained by the vendor and is not to pass
to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price.
Here, it is undisputed that Sps. Roque have not paid the
final installment of the purchase price. As such, the
condition which would have triggered the parties’
obligation to enter into and thereby perfect a contract
of sale in order to effectively transfer the ownership of
the subject portion from the sellers (i.e., Rivero et al.) to
the buyers (Sps. Roque) cannot be deemed to have
been fulfilled. Consequently, the latter cannot validly
claim ownership over the subject portion even if they
had made an initial payment and even took possession
of the same. The Court further notes that Sps. Roque
did not even take any active steps to protect their claim
over the disputed portion. . Thus, in view of the
foregoing, Sabug, Jr. – as the registered owner of Lot
18089 borne by the grant of his free patent application
– could validly convey said property in its entirety to
Aguado who, in turn, mortgaged the same to Land Bank