Scribd
Upload
33 views1 page

1315-1319 - Stages and Essential Requisites of Contracts

The Spouses Pangan owned a lot and apartment in Manila. Consuelo Pangan agreed to sell the properties to the Perreras for P540K, later increased to P580K. The Perreras paid Consuelo P20K as earnest money. However, Consuelo's children who were co-owners did not consent to the sale. The RTC and CA ruled that there was a perfected contract based on the earnest money payment. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Consuelo could sell her own share, and the earnest money evidenced consent to form a perfected contract, even if the other co-owners did not consent.

Uploaded by

Sarah Jane Usop
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
33 views1 page

1315-1319 - Stages and Essential Requisites of Contracts

The Spouses Pangan owned a lot and apartment in Manila. Consuelo Pangan agreed to sell the properties to the Perreras for P540K, later increased to P580K. The Perreras paid Consuelo P20K as earnest money. However, Consuelo's children who were co-owners did not consent to the sale. The RTC and CA ruled that there was a perfected contract based on the earnest money payment. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Consuelo could sell her own share, and the earnest money evidenced consent to form a perfected contract, even if the other co-owners did not consent.

Uploaded by

Sarah Jane Usop
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PANGAN V. PERRERAS G.R. No. 157374 AUG.

27, 2009
1315-1319 – Stages and Essential Requisites of Contracts

FACTS: The Spouses Pangan were the owners of a lot and twodoor apartment in Sampaloc, Manila. Consuelo Pangan agreed to sell to
the Perreras the subject properties for the price of P540K. Three days later they agreed to increase to P580K.

Perreras issued tow checks payable to Consuelo in the amount of P200K and P250K on June 15, 1989. Consuelo refused to accept the
checks because the children who are co-owners to the property did not want to sell the subject properties. Thus, she offered to return the
P20,000 earnest money she received from the Perreras, but rejected, but filed for consignation.

RTC ruled in Perreras favor stating that there was a perfected contract of sale, at least insofar the share of Consuelo and that the receipt of
P20K earnest money was manifestation of perfection. CA found that the payment and receipt of earnest money was the operative act that
gave rise to a perfected contract and that there was nothing wrong in agreement.

Petition They alleged that there was no perfected contract. No other evidence than the finding of receipt of P20K as earnest money, there
is no other evidence to show that there was perfection.

They insist the Consuelo specifically informed Perreras that the sale still required the consent of the heirs as co-owners. The refusal of the
petitioner- heirs to sell the subject properties purportedly amount to the absence of the requisite element of the consent.

ISSUE: Was there a perfected contract? If there is, what is then the nature and what is effect of belated payment?

HELD: Yes. A thing sold without the consent of all the co-owners does not invalidate the sale or render it void. The Civil Code
recognizes the absolute right of a co-owner to freely dispose of his pro indiviso share as well as the fruits and benefits from that share,
independently of the other co-owners.

Thus, when Consuelo agreed to sell to the Perreras the subject properties, what she sold in fact was her undivided interest which consisted
of one-half interest of her conjugal share, and one-sixth interest as her hereditary share.

The presence of consent was evidenced by the payment and receipt of the P20,000 which was an earnest money. Article 1482 of the Civil
Code, provides that whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and proof of the
perfection of the contract.

All essential elements were present in this case. While the respondents required that the occupants vacate the subject properties prior to
the payment of the second installment, the stipulation does not affect the perfection of the contract, but only its execution.

You might also like