.ESTRELLADO vs. THE PRESIDING JUDGE against the Estrellados in 1998.

The Estrellados, as the defendants in the

G.R. No. 164482, November 08, 2017 three cases, denied selling the bigger lots to Dr. Francisco.
BERSAMIN, J.
·         The MTCC rendered judgment in favor of the Franciscos, and
 FACTS: ordered the Estrellados, their successors-in-interest and other persons
acting on their behalf to vacate the properties; to pay the Franciscos the
·         The Spouses Eugenio and Lourdes Estrellado were the former fruits of the properties appropriated by the Estrellados; and to further
owners of a 15,465 sqm lot; Spouses and Nicolas and NarcisaEstrellado pay the rent for the use of the properties, as well as attorney's fees,
were the former owners of the parcel of land also located in Barangay litigation expenses, and the costs of suit.
Matina-Aplaya, Davao City with an area of 15,466 sqm. The late Spouses
Alipio and VivinaBarredo were the former owners of the parcel of land ·         On appeal, the RTC, Branch 12, in Davao City affirmed the
containing an area of 15,465 sqm located in the same area. All were MTCC's judgment.
covered by TCTs of the Registry of Deeds of Davao City. The landowners
herein mentioned were related to one another either by consanguinity or ·         The CA dismissed the appeals and affirmed the decision of the
by affinity (shall be collectively referred as the Estrellados). RTC. Considering that the Estrellados did not thereafter appeal, the
decisions of the CA became final and executory. Upon motion, the MTCC
·         Each of the three parcels of land herein mentioned was issued the writ of execution to enforce the judgment.
subdivided into two portions - the smaller portion containing 5,000
square meters, and the bigger portion with an area of about 10,465 ·         Two separate appeals namely G.R. No. 164482 and G.R. No.
square meters. 211320 which were filed before the SC and consolidated, originated from
special civil actions for forcible entry involving three adjacent parcels of
·         In September 1967, the three aforementioned owners sold each land.
of their 5,000 sqm lot to Dr. Jovito S. Francisco, the owner of J.S.
Francisco & Sons, Inc. The sales were evidenced by a deed of absolute  
sale.
G.R. No. 164482 (NOT Related to Sales???)
·         After selling the smaller lots to Dr. Francisco, the Estrellados
separately sold the bigger portions of their respective lots to the latter on ·         The Estrellados and their successors-in-interest filed a petition for
different dates in the years 1969 and 1970. annulment of the judgments of the MTCC in the RTC in Davao City
alleging that they were victims of extrinsic fraud that had deprived them
·         Dr. Francisco and his successors-in-interest (collectively referred of the opportunity to fully present their defense in the MTCC that
to as the Franciscos) immediately started their uninterrupted possession eventually cost them the case; that the MTCC had no jurisdiction over
of the entire landholdings of the Estrellados in 1967. However, the the forcible entry cases filed against them; and that they had valid, clear
Franciscos could not produce the formal deeds of sale relevant to the and current possessory rights over the disputed parcels of land.
subsequent sales. They only had a book of accounts evidencing their
installments to the Estrellados.  RTC Ruling:

·         The three bigger lots covered by TCTs of the Register of Deeds of ·         The RTC dismissed the petition for annulment of judgment and
Davao City became the subject of the three forcible entry cases held that it had no jurisdiction over the petition for annulment inasmuch
commenced in the MTCC in Davao City by J.S. Francisco & Sons, Inc. as the decision sought to be annulled had been affirmed on appeal by
the RTC and the CA; that the petition for annulment was already barred RTC did not thereby determine who among the parties owned the
by res judicata; and that the petitioners were guilty of forum-shopping. parcels of land, and relied primordially on the principle of conclusiveness
of judgment.
SC Ruling:
 ISSUES:
·         The SC held that petition for annulment of judgment is available
only when the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief  1.    Whether or not there is a perfected contract of sale between Dr.
or other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of Francisco and Spouses Barredo.
the petitioner. Given that the Estrellados (or their predecessors-in-
interest) had earlier availed themselves of the remedy of appeal, they 2.    Whether or not the sale between Dr. Francisco and Spouses Barredo
could no longer resort to the remedy of annulment of judgment. is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

G.R. No. 211320 HELD:

·         The children of the late Spouses Alipio and VivinaBarredo alleged  1.    Yes. Under Article 1475 of the Civil Code, the contract of sale is
their ownership of the parcel of land covered that had been the subject perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds not only upon the
of one of the forcible entry cases decided against the Estrellados. They thing that is the object of the contract but also upon the price. From that
contended that the execution of the judgment rendered in the forcible moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to
entry case would violate their rights as the owners of the property; that the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. The elements
they sought to recover all the attributes of their ownership and to erase of a contract of sale are consent, object and price in money or its
the cloud over their title; and that, accordingly, they had brought the equivalent. The absence of any of these essential elements negates the
accionreinvindicatoria and action for quieting of title in the RTC (Branch existence of a perfected contract of sale. Sale is a consensual contract,
16) in Davao City. and the party who alleges the sale must show its existence by competent
proof.
 RTC Ruling:
 The Franciscos could not produce the deeds of sale between them and
·          RTC dismissed the complaints filed by the Barredo children. the Estrellados. Nonetheless, they presented the certification by the late
Spouses Alipio and VivinaBarredo, acknowledging the sale and receipt of
 CA Ruling: partial payments made as well as the receipt for the final payment of the
sale of the subject land. These documents pointed to nothing else but
·         The CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, and that the late Spouses Alipio and VivinaBarredo had sold their parcel of
declared the Barredo children as the rightful owners and possessors of land to Dr. Francisco.
the property.
 
·         The CA opined that the adjudication of the issue of ownership in
ejectment cases was merely provisional and did not bar an action The Barredo children’s possession of the owner's duplicate copy of the
between the same parties involving title to the same property; that the TCT obtained in 1998 did not justify the conclusion of the CA that they
RTC had only referred to the decision of the CA regarding the forcible were the owners of the parcel of land. Indeed, possession of the owner's
entry case as well as the petitions to cancel the adverse claims of Dr. duplicate copy of the TCT was not necessarily equivalent to ownership of
Francisco annotated on the TCTs of the disputed properties; and that the the land therein described. For one, the TCT was merely evidence of
title.  And, moreover, registration of real property under the Torrens In January 1989, the Santoses repossessed the property
System does not create or vest title because it is not a mode of acquiring because the Cadesas lacked the means to pay the remaining installments
ownership. so instead collected rentals. In February 1989, Carmen Caseda sold her
fishpond in Batangas. She then offered to pay the balance of the
 2. Yes. It is required under Article 1403(2) of the Civil Code that the sale purchase. However, could not agree, and the deal could not push
of real property, to be enforceable, should be in a writing subscribed by through because the Santoses wanted a higher price. On August 11,
the party charged for it. This requirement was met herein by the 1989, the Casedas filed with the RTC of Makati, to have the Santoses
Franciscos even in the absence of any formal deed of sale. Considering execute the final deed of conveyance over the property, or in default
that the agreement between the parties on the sale was reduced in thereof, to reimburse the amount of P180,000.00 paid in cash and
writing: and signed by the late Spouses Alipio and VivinaBarredo as the P249,900.00 paid to the rural bank, plus interest, as well as rentals for
sellers, the sale was enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Despite eight months amounting to P32,000.00, plus damages and costs of
the document embodying the agreement on the sale not being suit.1âwphi1.nêt
acknowledged before a notary public, the non observance of the form The RTC dismissed Caseda’s complaint and rescinded the agreement.
prescribed by Article 1358(1) of the Civil Code did not render the sale And that the Casedas were not entitled to reimbursement because of
invalid. Indeed, the form required by Article 1358 was only for failure of plaintiffs to liquidate the mortgage loan on time. It had
convenience of the parties, and was not essential to the validity or ballooned from Php135,384.18 as of June 1984 to Php337,280.78 as of
enforceability of the sale. December 31, 1988. The Santoses had to pay the last amount to the
bank preventing foreclosure.
26. Santos vs CA The CA reversed the RTCs ruling holding that rescission was not justified
Gr. No. 120820 Aug 1, 2000 and allowed the Casedas to pay the balance within 90days to pay.

Facts: The Santoses were the owners of a house and lot, 350 Issue: Was there a contract of sale of a mere contract to sell?
sqm located in Parañaque Metro Manila, informally sold, with conditions, Was the CA correct in holding that a judicial rescission was necessary?
to the Casedas. The land together with the house, was mortgaged with
the Rural Bank of Salinas, Inc., to secure a loan of P150,000.00. Ruling: Their agreement was one of a contract to sell and that the CA
Rosalinda Santos met Carmen Caseda in a market because both were erred when it decreed that a judicial rescission was necessary.
market vendors and eventually became friends. On June 16, 1984, the The Santoses argued that the transaction was a mere
bank sent the Santos a letter demanding payment of P16,915.84 in contract to sell since they clearly showed that they did not transfer
unpaid interest and other charges. Having no fund, Rosalinda offered to ownership of the property in question simultaneous with its delivery and
sell the house and lot to Carmen wherein the latter agreed after her hence they remained owners. The Caseda’s, however, insist that it is a
husband agreed. On June, both parties agreed that (1) Carmen would perfected contract of sale since upon partial payment, they immediately
pay Php 54,100 as partial payment of the total amount of Php 300,000. took possession and subsequently leased it exercising rights of
(2) That the balance of the mortgage loan be paid by the Casedas; along ownership.
with (3) real estate taxes; (4) electric and water bills; and (5) the It must be emphasized from the outset that a contract is
balance of the CP to be paid not later than the maturity date of the loan. what the law defines it to be and not what the contracting parties call it.
When the Casedad gave the initial payment, the Article 1458of the Civil Code defines a contract of sale and it expressly
immediately took possession of the property then leased them out. The obliges the vendor to transfer the ownership of the thing sold as an
Casedas, however, failed to pay the remaining balance of the loan for essential element of a contract of sale. And we are farm from persuaded
suffering a bankruptcy in 1987. Nonetheless, Carmen managed to pay that there was a transfer of ownership. Notwithstanding the fact that
real estate taxes and bill, in the name of Rosalinda Satnos. Casedas took possession, the title to the property has remained always
in the name of Rosalinda Santos and all amortization payments made by
Carmen to the bank were in the name of Rosalinda Santos. It clearly
shows that no valid transfer of ownership was made. Absent the
essential element, there can be no contract of sale. In a contracts to sell,
ownership is reserved by the vendor and is not to pass until full payment
is made. Because it is a contract to sell, no rescission can take place
because payment of the purchase price is a positive suspensive condition
in a contract of sale. While in a contract of sale, vendor has lost
ownership and cannot recover it, unless the contract is rescinded. If the
vendor should eject the vendee for failure to meet the condition
precedent, he is enforcing the contract and not rescinding it. When the
petitioners in the instant case repossessed the disputed house and lot for
failure of private respondents to pay the purchase price in full, they were
merely enforcing the contract and not rescinding it. It is correct that the
Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that Santoses should have judicially
rescinded the contract pursuant to Articles 1592 and 1191 of the Civil
Code. Article 1592 speaks of non-payment of the purchase price as a
resolutory condition. It does not apply to a contract to sell.As to Article
1191, it is subordinated to the provisions of Article 1592 when applied to
sales of immovable property.Neither provision is applicable in the present
case.