Lorenzo and Socorro Velasco v. CA and Magdalena Estate Inc.
[June
29, 1973] (digest)
Facts:
This is a suit for specific performance filed by Lorenzo Velasco against
the Magdalena Estate, Inc.
On Nov 29, 1962 the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a
CONTRACT OF SALE of land (2,059 sq m) at for P100,000.00. the terms
of payment were as follows: down payment: P10,000.00 and P20,000.00
and the remaining P70,000.00 would be paid in instalments, an equal
monthly amortization will be determined as soon as the P30,000.00 DP
had been completed.
Plaintiff paid P10,000.00 on November 29, 1962. On Jan 8, 1964 he
tendered the payment of P20,000.00 however defendant refused to
accept and refused to execute a formal deed of sale.
Socorro Velasco is his sister-in-law and that he had requested her to
make the necessary contacts referring to the purchase of the property
because he does not understand English well.
The receipt states: "Earnest money for the purchase of Lot 15, Block 7,
Psd-6129, Area 2,059 square meters including improvements thereon —
P10,000.00." At the bottom of Exhibit A the following appears: "Agreed
price: P100,000.00, P30,000.00 down payment, bal. in 10 years."
On the other hand, defendant alleged that there was no contract of sale
that was perfected because the minds of the parties did not meet "in
regard to the manner of payment.” Contract is unenforceable under the
Statute of Frauds.
The property was leased by Socorro Velasco and that the defendant
indicated its willingness to sell the property for P100,000.00, with the
following terms of payment: downpayment of P30,000.00, P20,000.00
of which was to be paid on November 31, 1962 and the P70,000.00
including interest a 9% per annum was to be paid on installments for a
period of ten years at the rate of P5,381.32 on June 30 and December of
every year until the same shall have been fully paid;
On November 29, 1962 Socorro Velasco offered to pay P10,000.00 as
initial payment instead of the agreed P20,000.00 but because the
amount was short of the alleged P20,000.00 the same was accepted
merely as deposited and upon request of Socorro Velasco the receipt
was made in the name of her brother-in-law the plaintiff herein;
Socorro Velasco failed to complete the down payment of P30,000.00 and
neither has she paid any installments on the balance of P70,000.00 up to
the present time;
On January 8, 1964 that Socorro Velasco tendered payment of
P20,000.00, which offer the defendant refused to accept because it had
considered the offer to sell rescinded on account of her failure to
complete the down payment on or before December 31, 1962.
Issue:
Whether the talks between the Magdalena Estate, Inc. and Lorenzo
Velasco ever ripened into a consummated sale?
Petitioner, Formaran filed an action for the annulment of the deed of
Held: NO
Ratio:
The material averments contained in the petitioners' complaint disclose
a lack of complete "agreement in regard to the manner of payment" of
the lot in question. The complaint states pertinently:
That plaintiff and defendant further agreed that the total down payment
shall by P30,000.00, including the P10,000.00 partial payment
mentioned in paragraph 3 hereof, and that upon completion of the said
down payment of P30,000.00, the balance of P70,000.00 shall be said by
the plaintiff to the defendant in 10 years from November 29, 1962;
That the time within the full down payment of the P30,000.00 was to be
completed was not specified by the parties but the defendant was duly
compensated during the said time prior to completion of the down
payment of P30,000.00 by way of lease rentals on the house existing
thereon which was earlier leased by defendant to the plaintiff's sister-in-
law, Socorro J. Velasco, and which were duly paid to the defendant by
checks drawn by plaintiff.
Petitioners admit that they still had to meet and agree on how and when
the down-payment and the installment payments were to be paid.
Such being the situation, it cannot be said that a definite and firm sales
agreement between the parties had been perfected over the lot in
question.
Indeed, this Court has already ruled before that a definite agreement on
the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element in
the formation of a binding and enforceable contract of sale.
G.R. No. 186264 July 8, 2013
DR. LORNA C. FORMARAN, Petitioner, vs. DR. GLENDA B. ONG AND
SOLOMON S. ONG, Respondents.
Facts:
Formaran received by way of donation by his uncle and aunt, Sps.
Melquiades Barraca and Praxedes Casidsid a parcel of land situated in
Nabas, Aklan.
From the time of donation until present, Formaran was in actual
possession of the land
Subsequent to the said donation, Ong and father, Melquiades Barraca
approached Formaran to borrow one-half of the land donated to her so
the Ong could obtain a loan from a bank to buy a dental chair. An
absolute deed of sale was executed without monetary consideration.
More or less 30 years after the said deed of sale was executed, Ong filed
a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court of Ibajay-Nabas, IBajay, Aklan against Formaran ordering the
latter to vacate the land sold to the former. The court rendered a
decision in favor of Ong and ordered Formaran to vacate the land in
question.
absolute sale against Respondent, Ong in the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan. And
rendered a decision in favor of Formaran.
Respondent coursed an appeal to the CA and CA reversed and set aside
the decision of the RTC and ordered petitioner to vacate the land.
Hence this present petiotion
Issue:
WON the absolute deed of sale is valid
Held: NO
Ruling:
The Court believes and so holds that the subject Deed of Sale is indeed
simulated,2 as it is: (1) totally devoid of consideration; (2) it was
executed on August 12, 1967, less than two months from the time the
subject land was donated to petitioner on June 25, 1967 by no less than
the parents of respondent Glenda Ong; (3) on May 18, 1978, petitioner
mortgaged the land to the Aklan Development Bank for a ₱23,000.00
loan; (4) from the time of the alleged sale, petitioner has been in actual
possession of the subject land; (5) the alleged sale was registered on
May 25, 1991 or about twenty four (24) years after execution; (6)
respondent Glenda Ong never introduced any improvement on the
subject land; and (7) petitioner’s house stood on a part of the subject
land. These are facts and circumstances which may be considered
badges of bad faith that tip the balance in favor of petitioner.
"The amplitude of foregoing undisputed facts and circumstances clearly
shows that the sale of the land in question was purely simulated. It is
void from the very beginning (Article 1346, New Civil Code). If the sale
was legitimate, defendant Glenda should have immediately taken
possession of the land, declared in her name for taxation purposes,
registered the sale, paid realty taxes, introduced improvements therein
and should not have allowed plaintiff to mortgage the land. These
omissions properly militated against defendant Glenda’s submission that
the sale was legitimate and the consideration was paid.
While the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized, it cannot justify the
conclusion that the sale is a true conveyance to which the parties are
irrevocably and undeniably bound. Although the notarization of Deed of
Absolute Sale, vests in its favor the presumption of regularity, it does not
validate nor make binding an instrument never intended, in the first
place, to have any binding legal effect upon the parties thereto (Suntay
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114950, December 19, 1995; cited in
Ruperto Viloria vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119974, June 30,
1999)."