Romulo Coronel v CA

8/17/2019 Romulo Coronel v CA

1/9

Page 1 of 9

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 103577 October 7, 1996

ROMULO A. CORONEL, ALARICO A. CORONEL, ANNETTE A. CORONEL, ANNABELLE C. GONALES !"or #er$e%"

&'( o' be#&%" o" )%or*(& C. T+er, &$ &ttor'e-*'"&ct/, CIELITO A. CORONEL, )LORAIA A. ALMONTE, &'(

CATALINA BALAIS MABANAG, petitioners,

vs.

TE COURT O) APPEALS, CONCEPCION . ALCARA, &'( RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARA, &$$*$te( b- GLORIA ).

NOEL &$ &ttor'e-*'"&ct, respondents.

MELO, J.: p

The petition before us has its roots in a coplaint for specific perforance to copel herein petitioners !e"cept the last naed,

#atalina $alais Mabana%& to consuate the sale of a parcel of land 'ith its iproveents located alon% Roosevelt (venue in

)ue*on #it+ entered into b+ the parties soetie in anuar+ -/0 for the price of P-,123,333.33.

The undisputed facts of the case 'ere suari*ed b+ respondent court in this 'ise4

On anuar+ -, -/0, defendants5appellants Roulo #oronel, et al. !hereinafter referred to as #oronels& e"ecuted a

docuent entitled 6Receipt of Do'n Pa+ent6 !7"h. 6(6& in favor of plaintiff Raona Patricia (lcara* !hereinafter

referred to as Raona& 'hich is reproduced hereunder4

R7#7IPT O8 DO9N P(:M7NT

P-,123,333.33 ; Total aount

03,333 ; Do'n pa+ent

;;;;;;;;;;;

P-,-3,333.33 ; $alance

Received fro Miss Raona Patricia (lcara* of -2< Tio%, )ue*on #it+, the su of 8ift+ Thousand Pesos

purchase price of our inherited house and lot, covered b+ T#T No. --


2/9

Page 2 of 9

On 8ebruar+ in%s. Apon otion of the parties, the trial court %ave the thirt+ !@3& da+s 'ithin 'hich tosiultaneousl+ subit their respective eoranda, and an additional -0 da+s 'ithin 'hich to subit their correspondin% coent or

repl+ thereof, after 'hich, the case 'ould be deeed subitted for resolution.

On (pril -2, -//, the case 'as subitted for resolution before ud%e Re+naldo Roura, 'ho 'as then teporaril+ detailed to preside

over $ranch /1 of the RT# of )ue*on #it+. On March -, -/, Bud%ent 'as handed do'n b+ ud%e Roura fro his re%ular bench at

Macabebe, Papan%a for the )ue*on #it+ branch, disposin% as follo's4

9H7R78OR7, Bud%ent for specific perforance is hereb+ rendered orderin% defendant to e"ecute in favor of

plaintiffs a deed of absolute sale coverin% that parcel of land ebraced in and covered b+ Transfer #ertificate of

Title No. @1=23@ !no' T#T No. @@-0/1& of the Re%istr+ of Deeds for )ue*on #it+, to%ether 'ith all the

iproveents e"istin% thereon free fro all liens and encubrances, and once accoplished, to iediatel+

deliver the said docuent of sale to plaintiffs and upon receipt thereof, the said docuent of sale to plaintiffs and

upon receipt thereof, the plaintiffs are ordered to pa+ defendants the 'hole balance of the purchase price aountin%

to P-,-3,333.33 in cash. Transfer #ertificate of Title No. @@-0/1 of the Re%istr+ of Deeds for )ue*on #it+ in the

nae of intervenor is hereb+ canceled and declared to be 'ithout force and effect. Defendants and intervenor and all

other persons claiin% under the are hereb+ ordered to vacate the subBect propert+ and deliver possession thereof

to plaintiffs. PlaintiffsC clai for daa%es and attorne+Cs fees, as 'ell as the counterclais of defendants and

intervenors are hereb+ disissed.

No pronounceent as to costs.

So Ordered.

Macabebe, Papan%a for )ue*on #it+, March -, -/.

! Rollo, p. -3


3/9

Page 3 of 9

decision as of (pril -2, -// 'hen the parties terinated the presentation of their respective docuentar+ evidence

and 'hen the Presidin% ud%e at that tie 'as ud%e Re+naldo Roura. The fact that the+ 'ere allo'ed to file

eoranda at soe future date did not chan%e the fact that the hearin% of the case 'as terinated before ud%e

Roura and therefore the sae should be subitted to hi for decision? !1& 9hen the defendants and intervenor did

not obBect to the authorit+ of ud%e Re+naldo Roura to decide the case prior to the rendition of the decision, 'hen

the+ et for the first tie before the undersi%ned Presidin% ud%e at the hearin% of a pendin% incident in #ivil #ase

No. )52 'ith the undersi%ned Presidin% ud%e. The standin% rule and

supported b+ Burisprudence is that a ud%e to 'ho a case is subitted for decision has the authorit+ to decide the

case not'ithstandin% his transfer to another branch or re%ion of the sae court !Sec. , Rule -@0, Rule of #ourt&.

#oin% no' to the t'in pra+er for reconsideration of the Decision dated March -, -/ rendered in the instant case,

resolution of 'hich no' pertains to the undersi%ned Presidin% ud%e, after a eticulous e"aination of the

docuentar+ evidence presented b+ the parties, she is convinced that the Decision of March -, -/ is supported b+evidence and, therefore, should not be disturbed.

IN VI79 O8 TH7 8OR7OIN, the 6Motion for Reconsideration andFor to (nnul Decision and Render (ne'

Decision b+ the Incubent Presidin% ud%e6 dated March 13, -/ is hereb+ D7NI7D.

SO ORD7R7D.

)ue*on #it+, Philippines, ul+ -1, -/.

! Rollo, pp. -3/5-3&

Petitioners thereupon interposed an appeal, but on Deceber -


4/9

Page 4 of 9

(rt. -20/. $+ the contract of sale one of the contractin% parties obli%ates hiself to transfer the o'nership of and to

deliver a deterinate thin%, and the other to pa+ therefor a price certain in one+ or its eEuivalent.

Sale, b+ its ver+ nature, is a consensual contract because it is perfected b+ ere consent. The essential eleents of a contract of sale

are the follo'in%4

a& #onsent or eetin% of the inds, that is, consent to transfer o'nership in e"chan%e for the price?

b& Deterinate subBect atter? and

c& Price certain in one+ or its eEuivalent.

Ander this definition, a #ontract to Sell a+ not be considered as a #ontract of

Sale because the first essential eleent is lac>in%. In a

contract to sell, the prospective seller e"plicit+ reserves the transfer of title to the prospective bu+er, eanin%, the prospective seller

does not as +et a%ree or consent to transfer o'nership of the propert+ subBect of the contract to sell until the happenin% of an event,

'hich for present purposes 'e shall ta>e as the full pa+ent of the purchase price. 9hat the seller a%rees or obli%es hiself to do is to

fulfill is proise to sell the subBect propert+ 'hen the entire aount of the purchase price is delivered to hi. In other 'ords the full

pa+ent of the purchase price parta>es of a suspensive condition, the non5fulfillent of 'hich prevents the obli%ation to sell fro

arisin% and thus, o'nership is retained b+ the prospective seller 'ithout further reedies b+ the prospective bu+er. In Roque

vs. Lapuz !< S#R( =2- G-/3&, this #ourt had occasion to rule4

Hence, 9e hold that the contract bet'een the petitioner and the respondent 'as a contract to sell 'here the

o'nership or title is retained b+ the seller and is not to pass until the full pa+ent of the price, such pa+ent bein% a

positive suspensive condition and failure of 'hich is not a breach, casual or serious, but sipl+ an event that

prevented the obli%ation of the vendor to conve+ title fro acEuirin% bindin% force.

Stated positivel+, upon the fulfillent of the suspensive condition 'hich is the full pa+ent of the purchase price, the prospective

sellerCs obli%ation to sell the subBect propert+ b+ enterin% into a contract of sale 'ith the prospective bu+er becoes deandable as

provided in (rticle -2= of the #ivil #ode 'hich states4

(rt. -2=. ( proise to bu+ and sell a deterinate thin% for a price certain is reciprocall+ deandable.

(n accepted unilateral proise to bu+ or to sell a deterinate thin% for a price certain is bindin% upon the proissor

if the proise is supported b+ a consideration distinct fro the price.

( contract to sell a+ thus be defined as a bilateral contract 'hereb+ the prospective seller, 'hile e"pressl+ reservin% the o'nership

of the subBect propert+ despite deliver+ thereof to the prospective bu+er, binds hiself to sell the said propert+ e"clusivel+ to the

prospective bu+er upon fulfillent of the condition a%reed upon, that is, full pa+ent of the purchase price.

( contract to sell as defined hereinabove, a+ not even be considered as a conditional contract of sale 'here the seller a+ li>e'ise

reserve title to the propert+ subBect of the sale until the fulfillent of a suspensive condition, because in a conditional contract of sale,

the first eleent of consent is present, althou%h it is conditioned upon the happenin% of a contin%ent event 'hich a+ or a+ not

occur. If the suspensive condition is not fulfilled, the perfection of the contract of sale is copletel+ abated !cf. Hoesite and housin%

#orp. vs. #ourt of (ppeals, -@@ S#R( === G-/2&. Ho'ever, if the suspensive condition is fulfilled, the contract of sale is thereb+

perfected, such that if there had alread+ been previous deliver+ of the propert+ subBect of the sale to the bu+er, o'nership thereto

autoaticall+ transfers to the bu+er b+ operation of la' 'ithout an+ further act havin% to be perfored b+ the seller.

In a contract to sell, upon the fulfillent of the suspensive condition 'hich is the full pa+ent of the purchase price, o'nership 'ill

not autoaticall+ transfer to the bu+er althou%h the propert+ a+ have been previousl+ delivered to hi. The prospective seller still

has to conve+ title to the prospective bu+er b+ enterin% into a contract of absolute sale.

It is essential to distin%uish bet'een a contract to sell and a conditional contract of sale speciall+ in cases 'here the subBect propert+ is

sold b+ the o'ner not to the part+ the seller contracted 'ith, but to a third person, as in the case at bench. In a contract to sell, there bein% no previous sale of the propert+, a third person bu+in% such propert+ despite the fulfillent of the suspensive condition such as

the full pa+ent of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deeed a bu+er in bad faith and the prospective bu+er cannot see> the

relief of reconve+ance of the propert+. There is no double sale in such case. Title to the propert+ 'ill transfer to the bu+er after

re%istration because there is no defect in the o'ner5sellerCs title per se, but the latter, of course, a+ be used for daa%es b+ the

intendin% bu+er.

In a conditional contract of sale, ho'ever, upon the fulfillent of the suspensive condition, the sale becoes absolute and this 'ill

definitel+ affect the sellerCs title thereto. In fact, if there had been previous deliver+ of the subBect propert+, the sellerCs o'nership or

title to the propert+ is autoaticall+ transferred to the bu+er such that, the seller 'ill no lon%er have an+ title to transfer to an+ third


5/9

Page 5 of 9

person. (ppl+in% (rticle -022 of the #ivil #ode, such second bu+er of the propert+ 'ho a+ have had actual or constructive

>no'led%e of such defect in the sellerCs title, or at least 'as char%ed 'ith the obli%ation to discover such defect, cannot be a re%istrant

in %ood faith. Such second bu+er cannot defeat the first bu+erCs title. In case a title is issued to the second bu+er, the first bu+er a+

see> reconve+ance of the propert+ subBect of the sale.

9ith the above postulates as %uidelines, 'e no' proceed to the tas> of decipherin% the real nature of the contract entered into b+

petitioners and private respondents.

It is a canon in the interpretation of contracts that the 'ords used therein should be %iven their natural and ordinar+ eanin% unless a

technical eanin% 'as intended !Tan vs. #ourt of (ppeals , 1-1 S#R( 0/< G-1&. Thus, 'hen petitioners declared in the said

6Receipt of Do'n Pa+ent6 that the+ ;

Received fro Miss Raona Patricia (lcara* of -2< Tio%, )ue*on #it+, the su of 8ift+ Thousand

Pesos purchase price of our inherited house and lot , covered b+ T#T No. -- upon receipt of the do'n pa+ent fro private respondent Raona P. (lcara*, to cause the issuance of a

ne' certificate of title in their naes fro that of their father, after 'hich, the+ proised to present said title, no' in their naes, to

the latter and to e"ecute the deed of absolute sale 'hereupon, the latter shall, in turn, pa+ the entire balance of the purchase price.

The a%reeent could not have been a contract to sell because the sellers herein ade no express reservation of ownership or title to

the subject parcel of land . 8urtherore, the circustance 'hich prevented the parties fro enterin% into an absolute contract of sale

pertained to the sellers theselves !the certificate of title 'as not in their naes& and not the full pa+ent of the purchase price. Ander

the established facts and circustances of the case, the #ourt a+ safel+ presue that, had the certificate of title been in the naes of petitioners5sellers at that tie, there 'ould have been no reason 'h+ an absolute contract of sale could not have been e"ecuted and

consuated ri%ht there and then.

Moreover, unli>e in a contract to sell, petitioners in the case at bar did not erel+ proise to sell the properl+ to private respondent

upon the fulfillent of the suspensive condition. On the contrar+, havin% alread+ a%reed to sell the subBect propert+, the+ undertoo> to

have the certificate of title chan%ed to their naes and iediatel+ thereafter, to e"ecute the 'ritten deed of absolute sale.

Thus, the parties did not erel+ enter into a contract to sell 'here the sellers, after copliance b+ the bu+er 'ith certain ters and

conditions, proised to sell the propert+ to the latter. 9hat a+ be perceived fro the respective underta>in%s of the parties to the

contract is that petitioners had alread+ a%reed to sell the house and lot the+ inherited fro their father, copletel+ 'illin% to transfer

full o'nership of the subBect house and lot to the bu+er if the docuents 'ere then in order. It Bust happened, ho'ever, that the

transfer certificate of title 'as then still in the nae of their father. It 'as ore e"pedient to first effect the chan%e in the certificate of

title so as to bear their naes. That is 'h+ the+ undertoo> to cause the issuance of a ne' transfer of the certificate of title in their

naes upon receipt of the do'n pa+ent in the aount of P03,333.33. (s soon as the ne' certificate of title is issued in their naes,

petitioners 'ere coitted to iediatel+ e"ecute the deed of absolute sale. Onl+ then 'ill the obli%ation of the bu+er to pa+ the

reainder of the purchase price arise.

There is no doubt that unli>e in a contract to sell 'hich is ost coonl+ entered into so as to protect the seller a%ainst a bu+er 'ho

intends to bu+ the propert+ in installent b+ 'ithholdin% o'nership over the propert+ until the bu+er effects full pa+ent therefor, in

the contract entered into in the case at bar, the sellers 'ere the one 'ho 'ere unable to enter into a contract of absolute sale b+ reason

of the fact that the certificate of title to the propert+ 'as still in the nae of their father. It 'as the sellers in this case 'ho, as it 'ere,

had the ipedient 'hich prevented, so to spea>, the e"ecution of an contract of absolute sale.

9hat is clearl+ established b+ the plain lan%ua%e of the subBect docuent is that 'hen the said 6Receipt of Do'n Pa+ent6 'as

prepared and si%ned b+ petitioners Roeo (. #oronel, et al., the parties had a%reed to a conditional contract of sale, consuation of

'hich is subBect onl+ to the successful transfer of the certificate of title fro the nae of petitionersC father, #onstancio P. #oronel, to

their naes.

The #ourt si%nificantl+ notes this suspensive condition 'as, in fact, fulfilled on 8ebruar+


6/9

Page 6 of 9

(rticle -2=0, in correlation 'ith (rticle --/-, both of the #ivil #ode, plainl+ applies to the case at bench. Thus,

(rt. -2=0. The contract of sale is perfected at the oent there is a eetin% of inds upon the thin% 'hich is the

obBect of the contract and upon the price.

8ro the oent, the parties a+ reciprocall+ deand perforance, subBect to the provisions of the la' %overnin%

the for of contracts.

(rt. --/-. In conditional obli%ations, the acEuisition of ri%hts, as 'ell as the e"tin%uishent or loss of those alread+

acEuired, shall depend upon the happenin% of the event 'hich constitutes the condition.

Since the condition conteplated b+ the parties 'hich is the issuance of a certificate of title in petitionersC naes 'as fulfilled on

8ebruar+


7/9

Page 7 of 9

(rticle ==2 of the #ivil #ode defines Succession as a ode of transferrin% o'nership as follo's4

(rt. ==2. Succession is a ode of acEuisition b+ virtue of 'hich the propert+, ri%hts and obli%ations to be e"tent and

value of the inheritance of a person are transitted throu%h his death to another or others b+ his 'ill or b+ operation

of la'.

Petitioners5sellers in the case at bar bein% the sons and dau%hters of the decedent #onstancio P. #oronel are copulsor+ heirs'ho 'ere called to succession b+ operation of la'. Thus, at the point their father dre' his last breath, petitioners stepped into

his shoes insofar as the subBect propert+ is concerned, such that an+ ri%hts or obli%ations pertainin% thereto becae bindin%

and enforceable upon the. It is e"pressl+ provided that ri%hts to the succession are transitted fro the oent of death of

the decedent !(rticle ===, #ivil #ode? #uison vs. Villanueva, 3 Phil. /03 G-01&.

$e it also noted that petitionersC clai that succession a+ not be declared unless the creditors have been paid is rendered oot b+ the

fact that the+ 'ere able to effect the transfer of the title to the propert+ fro the decedentCs nae to their naes on 8ebruar+ of capacit+ to enter into an a%reeent at that tie and the+

cannot be allo'ed to no' ta>e a posture contrar+ to that 'hich the+ too> 'hen the+ entered into the a%reeent 'ith private

respondent Raona P. (lcara*. The #ivil #ode e"pressl+ states that4

(rt. -2@-. Throu%h estoppel an adission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person a>in% it, and

cannot be denied or disproved as a%ainst the person rel+in% thereon.

Havin% represented theselves as the true o'ners of the subBect propert+ at the tie of sale, petitioners cannot clai no'

that the+ 'ere not +et the absolute o'ners thereof at that tie.

Petitioners also contend that althou%h there 'as in fact a perfected contract of sale bet'een the and Raona P. (lcara*, the latter

breached her reciprocal obli%ation 'hen she rendered ipossible the consuation thereof b+ %oin% to the Anited States of (erica,

'ithout leavin% her address, telephone nuber, and Special Po'er of (ttorne+ !Para%raphs -2 and -0, (ns'er 'ith #opulsor+

#ounterclai to the (ended #oplaint, p. 1? Rollo, p. 2@&, for 'hich reason, so petitioners conclude, the+ 'ere correct in

unilaterall+ rescindin% rescindin% the contract of sale.

9e do not a%ree 'ith petitioners that there 'as a valid rescission of the contract of sale in the instant case. 9e note that these

supposed %rounds for petitionersC rescission, are ere alle%ations found onl+ in their responsive pleadin%s, 'hich b+ e"press provision

of the rules, are deeed controverted even if no repl+ is filed b+ the plaintiffs !Sec. --, Rule


8/9

Page 8 of 9

""" """ """

In reciprocal obli%ations, neither part+ incurs in dela+ if the other does not compl! or is not read! to compl! in a

proper manner with what is incumbent upon him. 8ro the oent one of the parties fulfill his obli%ation, dela+ b+

the other be%ins. !7phasis supplied.&

There is thus neither factual nor le%al basis to rescind the contract of sale bet'een petitioners and respondents.

9ith the fore%oin% conclusions, the sale to the other petitioner, #atalina $. Mabana%, %ave rise to a case of double sale 'here (rticle

-022 of the #ivil #ode 'ill appl+, to 'it4

(rt. -022. If the sae thin% should have been sold to different vendees, the o'nership shall be transferred to the

person 'ho a+ have first ta>en possession thereof in %ood faith, if it should be ovable propert+.

Should if be iovable propert+, the o'nership shall belon% to the person acEuirin% it 'ho in %ood faith first

recorded it in Re%istr+ of Propert+.

Should there be no inscription, the o'nership shall pertain to the person 'ho in %ood faith 'as first in the

possession? and, in the absence thereof to the person 'ho presents the oldest title, provided there is %ood faith.

The record of the case sho's that the Deed of (bsolute Sale dated (pril 10, -/0 as proof of the second contract of sale 'as re%istered

'ith the Re%istr+ of Deeds of )ue*on #it+ %ivin% rise to the issuance of a ne' certificate of title in the nae of #atalina $. Mabana%

on une 0, -/0. Thus, the second para%raph of (rticle -022 shall appl+.

The above5cited provision on double sale presues title or o'nership to pass to the first bu+er, the e"ceptions bein%4 !a& 'hen the

second bu+er, in %ood faith, re%isters the sale ahead of the first bu+er, and !b& should there be no inscription b+ either of the t'o

bu+ers, 'hen the second bu+er, in %ood faith, acEuires possession of the propert+ ahead of the first bu+er. Anless, the second bu+er

satisfies these reEuireents, title or o'nership 'ill not transfer to hi to the preBudice of the first bu+er.

In his coentaries on the #ivil #ode, an accepted authorit+ on the subBect, no' a distin%uished eber of the #ourt, ustice ose #.Vitu%, e"plains4

The %overnin% principle is prius tempore, potior jure !first in tie, stron%er in ri%ht&. Jno'led%e b+ the first bu+er

of the second sale cannot defeat the first bu+erCs ri%hts e"cept 'hen the second bu+er first re%isters in %ood faith the

second sale !Olivares vs. on*ales, -0 S#R( @@&. #onversel+, >no'led%e %ained b+ the second bu+er of the first

sale defeats his ri%hts even if he is first to re%ister, since >no'led%e taints his re%istration 'ith bad faith !see also

(stor%a vs. #ourt of (ppeals, .R. No. 0/0@3, 1< Deceber -/2&. In )ruz vs. )abana !.R. No. 0no'led%e of an+ defect in the title of the

propert+ sold.

(s clearl+ borne out b+ the evidence in this case, petitioner Mabana% could not have in %ood faith, re%istered the sale entered into on

8ebruar+ -/, -/0 because as earl+ as 8ebruar+ 11, -/0, a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on the transfer certificate of title

in the naes of petitioners, 'hereas petitioner Mabana% re%istered the said sale soetie in (pril, -/0. (t the tie of re%istration,

therefore, petitioner Mabana% >ne' that the sae propert+ had alread+ been previousl+ sold to private respondents, or, at least, she

'as char%ed 'ith >no'led%e that a previous bu+er is claiin% title to the sae propert+. Petitioner Mabana% cannot close her e+es to

the defect in petitionersC title to the propert+ at the tie of the re%istration of the propert+.

This #ourt had occasions to rule that4


9/9

Page 9 of 9

If a vendee in a double sale re%isters that sale after he has acEuired >no'led%e that there 'as a previous sale of the

sae propert+ to a third part+ or that another person clais said propert+ in a pervious sale, the re%istration 'ill

constitute a re%istration in bad faith and 'ill not confer upon hi an+ ri%ht. !Salvoro vs. Tane%a, /= S#R( @2

G-=/? citin% Palarca vs. Director of and, 2@ Phil. -2

Romulo Coronel v CA

Documents

Transcript of Romulo Coronel v CA