nalzaro digest

CATALINO LEABRES v. CA
G.R. No. L-41847

December 12, 1986

Facts:

Plaintiff  Catalino Leabres purchased a portion of  a subdivision from the surviving husband of the deceased owner, evidenced by a receipt. The Philippine Trust Co relieved the surviving husband as administrator and advertised the sale of the subdivision. Since no adverse claim or interest over the subdivision or any portion thereof was ever presented by any person, the Philippine Trust Co. executed the Deed of Absolute Sale of the subdivision in favor of the Manotok Realty, Inc.. The deed was judicially approved and recorded immediately in the Register of Deeds which issued the corresponding Certificates of Title.

Issue:
Is a receipt  a valid basis of a contract of sale?
Held:

No. An examination of the receipt reveals that the same can neither be regarded as a contract of sale or a promise to sell. There was merely an acknowledgment of the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). The requisites of a valid Contract of Sale, namely 1) consent or meeting of the minds of the parties; 2) determinate subject matter; 3) price certain in money or its equivalent, are lacking in the said receipt.

 ILUMINADO HANOPOL vs. PERFECTO PILAPIL

G.R. No. L-19248

February 28, 1963

Facts:

Ilumindao Hanopol claims ownership of the land by virtue of a series of purchases effected in 1938 by means of private instruments, executed by the former owners Teodora, Lucia, Generosa, Sinforosa and Isabelo, all surnamed Siapo. Perfecto Pilapil. asserts title to the property on the strength of a duly notarized deed of sale executed in his favor by the same owners on December 3, 1945, which deed of sale was registered in the Registry of Deeds.

Issue:

Is the registration of the second sale in favor of Pilapil affects Hanopol’s  rights as the first vendee?

Held:

Yes. The better right referred to in Act No. 3344 is more than a mere prior deed. It involves facts and circumstances which combined, would make it clear that the first buyer has a better right than the second purchaser. However, there seems to be no clear evidence of Hanopol’s possession of the land. Hanopol cannot have a better right than Pilapil who, according to the Trial Court was not a purchaser in bad faith.

CONCHITA NOOL and GAUDENCIO ALMOJERA vs.CA
GR No. 116635

July 24, 1997

Facts:

One lot formerly owned by Victorio Nool has an area of 1 hectare. Another lot previously owned by Francisco Nool has an area of 3.0880 hectares. Spouses (plaintiffs)  Conchita Nool and Gaudencio Almojera alleged that they are the owners of the subject lands. They are in dire need of money, they obtained a loan DBP , secured by a real estate mortgage on said parcels of land, which were still registered in the names of Victorino and Francisco Nool, at the time, Since the plaintiffs failed to pay the said loan, the mortgage was foreclosed; that within the period of redemption, the plaintiffs contacted Anacleto Nool for the latter to redeem the foreclosed properties from DBP, which the latter did; and as a result, the titles of the 2 parcels of land in question were transferred to Anacleto; that as part of their arrangement or understanding, Anacleto agreed to buy from Conchita the 2 parcels of land , for a total price of P100,000.00, P30,000.00 of which price was paid to Conchita, and upon payment of the balance of P14,000.00, the plaintiffs were to regain possession of the 2 hectares of land, which amounts spouses Anacleto Nool and Emilia Nebre failed to pay.  Anacleto Nool signed the private writing, agreeing to return subject lands when plaintiffs have the money to redeem the same; defendant Anacleto having been made to believe, then, that his sister, Conchita, still had the right to redeem the said properties.

Issue: Is the purchase of the subject lands to Anacleto valid?

Held:

Nono dat quod non habet, No one can give what he does not have; Contract of repurchase inoperative thus void.

Article 1505 of the Civil Code provides that “where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who does not sell them under authority or with consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.”  Jurisprudence, on the other hand, teaches us that “a person can sell only what he owns or is authorized to sell; the buyer can as a consequence acquire no more than what the seller can legally transfer.” No one can give what he does not have — nono dat quod non habet. In the present case, there is no allegation at all that petitioners were authorized by DBP to sell the property to the private respondents. Further, the contract of repurchase that the parties entered into presupposes that petitioners could repurchase the property that they “sold” to private respondents. As petitioners “sold” nothing, it follows that they can also “repurchase” nothing. In this light, the contract of repurchase is also inoperative and by the same analogy, void.

LUIS PICHEL vs. PRUDENCIO ALONZO

G.R. No. L-36902

 January 30, 1982

Facts:

Prudencio Alonzo was awarded by the Government that parcel of land designated as Lot 21 of Subdivision Plan Psd-32465 of Balactasan, Lamitan, Basilan City in accordance with RA 477. The award was cancelled by the Board of Liquidators on 27January 1965 on the ground that, previous thereto, Alonzo was proved to have alienated the land to another, in violation of law. In 1972, Alonzo’s rights to the land were reinstated. On 14 August 1968, Alonzo and his wife sold to Pichel through a “deed of sale” all the fruits of the coconut trees which may be harvested in the land for the period, from 15 September 1968 to 1 January 1976, in consideration of P4,200.00. Itwas further stipulated that the vendor’s right, title, interest and participation herein conveyed is of his own exclusive and absolute property, free from any liens and encumbrances and he warrants to the Vendee good title thereto and to defend the same against any and all claims of all persons whomsoever. Even as of the date of sale, however, the land was still under lease to one Ramon Sua, and it was the agreement that part of the consideration of the sale, in the sum of P3,650.00, was to be paid by Pichel directly to Ramon Sua so as to release the land from the clutches of the latter. Pending said payment Alonzo refused to allow the Pichel to make any harvest. In July1972, Pichel for the first time since the execution of the deed of sale in his favor, caused the harvest of the fruit of the coconut trees in the land. Alonzo filed an action for the annulment of a “Deed of Sale” before the CFI Basilan City. On 5 January 1973, the lower court rendered its decision holding that although the agreement in question is denominated by the parties as a deed of sale of fruits of the coconut trees found in the vendor’s land, it actually is, for all legal intents and purposes, a contract of lease of the land itself; an encumbrance prohibited under RA 477. The court thus held that the deed of sale is null and void, and ordered Alonzo to pay back Pichel the consideration of the sale in the sum of P4,200 with interests from the date of the filing of the complaint until paid, and Pichel to pay the sum of P500.00 as attorney’s fees; with costs against Pichel. Hence, the petition to review on certiorari was raised before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the lower court and entered another dismissing the complaint; without costs.

Issue: Is the contract of sale valid?

Held: Contract of sale valid, essential elements valid

The document in question expresses a valid contract of sale as it has the essential elements of a contract of sale as defined under Article 1458 of the New Civil Code. Article1458 provides that “by the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefore a price certain in money or its equivalent,” and that “a contract of sale maybe absolute or conditional.” The subject matter of the contract of sale are the fruits of the coconut trees on the land during the years from 15 September 1968 up to 1 January1976, which subject matter is a determinate thing.

Things having potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale

Under Article 1461 of the New Civil Code, things having a potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale. A valid sale may be made of a thing, which though not yet actually in existence, is reasonably certain to come into existence as the natural increment or usual incident of something already in existence, and then belonging to the vendor, and the title will vest in the buyer the moment the thing comes into existence.  A man may sell property of which he is potentially and not actually possessed.

 

ROMERO vs.  CA

G.R. No. 107207 November 23, 1995

Facts:

Romero, a civil engineer, was engaged in the business of production, manufacture and exportation of perlite filter aids, permalite insulation and processed perlite ore. In 1988, he decided to put up a central warehouse in Metro Manila. Flores and his wife offered a parcel of land measuring 1,952 square meters. The lot was covered in a TCT in the name of private respondent Enriqueta Chua vda. de Ongsiong. Petitioner visited the property and, except for the presence of squatters in the area, he found the place suitable for a central warehouse. Flores called on petitioner with a proposal that should he advance the amount of P50,000.00 which could be used in taking up an ejectment case against the squatters, private respondent would agree to sell the property for only P800/square meter. Romero agreed. Later, a "Deed of Conditional Sale" was executed between Flores and Ongsiong.Purchase price = P1,561,600.00; Downpayment = P50K; Balance = to be paid 45 days after the removal of all the squatters; upon full payment, Ongsiong shall execute deed of absolute sale in favor of Romero.Ongsiong sought to return the P50,000.00 she received from petitioner since, she said, she could not "get rid of the squatters" on the lot. She opted to rescind the sale in view of her failure to get rid of the squatters. Regional Trial Court of Makati rendered decision holding that private respondent had no right to rescind the contract since it was she who "violated her obligation to eject the squatters from the subject property" and that petitioner, being the injured party, was the party who could, under Article 1191 of the Civil Code, rescind the agreement.

Issue:

Is  there a perfected contract of sale?

Held:

YES. A sale is at once perfected when a person (the seller) obligates himself, for a price certain, to deliver and to transfer ownership of a specified thing or right to another (the buyer) over which the latter agrees. (BILATERAL and RECIPROCAL CHARACTERISTIC OF SALE).

In determining the real character of the contract, the title given to it by the parties is not as much significant as its substance. For example, a deed of sale, although denominated as a deed of conditional sale, may be treated as absolute in nature, if title to the property sold is not reserved in the vendor or if the vendor is not granted the right to unilaterally rescind the contract predicated on the fulfillment or non-fulfillment, as the case may be, of the prescribed condition. From the moment the contract is perfected, the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. Under the agreement, private respondent is obligated to evict the squatters on the property. The ejectment of the squatters is a condition the operative act of which sets into motion the period of compliance by petitioner of his own obligation, i .e to pay the balance of the purchase price. Private respondent’s failure "to remove the squatters from the property" within the stipulated period gives petitioner the right to either refuse to proceed with the agreement or waive that condition in consonance with Article 1545 of the Civil Code.

This option clearly belongs to petitioner and not to private respondent. There was no potestative condition on the part of Ongsiong but a "mixed" condition "dependent not on the will of the vendor alone but also of third persons like the squatters and government agencies and personnel concerned."