Heirs of del Rosario vs Santos L-46892 (Article 1461)

Facts: Amparo Del Rosario entered into a contract with Atty. Andres Santos and his wife Aurora
Santos whereby the latter sold to the former a 20,000 sq. m. of land which is to be segregated from
Lot 1. Said lot forms part of the several lots belonging to a certain Teofilo Custodio, of which lots,
Attorney Santos, by agreement with the latter, as his attorney’s fees, owns ½ interests thereof.
Parties agreed that spouses Andres shall thereafter execute a Deed of Confirmation of Sale in favor
of Del Rosario as soon as the title has been released and the subdivision plan of said Lot 1 has been
approved by the Land Registration Commissioner.
Due to the failure of the spouses Andres to execute the deed after the fulfilment of the
condition, Del Rosario claims malicious breach of a Deed of Sale. Defendant thereafter filed a
motion to dismiss setting up the defenses of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the
action lack of cause of action as well as the defense of prescription. They further alleged that the
deed of sale was only an accommodation graciously extended, out of close friendship between the
defendants and the plaintiff, hence, tantamount to waiver, abandonment or otherwise
extinguishment of the demand set forth in the complaint.
Finally, defendants alleged that the claim on which the action or suit is founded is
unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that the cause or object of the contract did not exist
at the time of the transaction. The lower court resolved to deny the motion to dismiss. After actions
by respective parties, the lower court ordered the defendants to execute and convey to plaintiff the
200,000 sq. m. of land to be taken either from Lot 4 or from Lot 5-A of Custodio’s lots, which
defendants own ½ interest thereof.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the defendants filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals which certified the records of the case to the Supreme Court for final determination.
Issue:
W/N the sale is valid as to the cause or object of the contract.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the execution of the Deed of Sale is valid
notwithstanding the lack of any title to the lot by appellants at the time of execution of the Deed
of Sale in favor of appellee as there can be a sale of an expected thing in accordance with Article
1461 of the NCC: “Article 1461: Things having a potential existence may be the object of the
contract of sale. The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope of expectancy is deemed subject to the
condition that the thing will come into existence. The sale of a vain hope or expectancy is void.”
The case at bar is not a case of a vain hope or expectancy which is void under the law. The
expectant right came into existence or materialized for the appellants actually derived titles from
Lot 1 which subsequently became the object of subdivision.