Jomoc vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 92871, August 02, 1991
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
The
lot in Cagayan de Oro City of the late Pantaleon Jomoc was fictitiously sold
and transferred to third persons. Maria P. Vda. Jomoc, as administratrix of the
estate filed suit to recover the property. The case was decided in favor of
Jomoc and was accordingly appealed by Mariano So and Gaw Sur Cheng. Pending the
appeal, Jomoc executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement aid Sale of Land with
private respondent for P300,000. The document was not yet signed by all the
parties nor authorized but in the meantime, Maura So had made partial payments
amounting to P49,000. In 1983, Mariano So, agreed to settle the case by
executing a Deed of Reconveyance of the land in favor of Pantaleon Jomoc.
On
February 28, 1983, the heirs of Jomoc executed another extrajudicial settlement
with absolute sale in favor of Lim Leong Kang and Lim Pue king. Later, Maura So
demanded from the Jomoc family the execution of the final deed of conveyance.
They ignored the demand. Thus, Maria So sued the Jomoc heirs for specific
performance to execute and deliver the proper registrable deed of sale over the
lot. So then filed a notice of lis pendens.
According
to the Jomocs, they believed that Maura So had backed out from the transaction
as evidenced by an oral testimony that she did where she expressed frustration
in evicting squatters who demanded large sums as a condition for vacating.
Hence, they executed the other extrajudicial settlement with sale of registered
land in favor of the spouses Lim. The spouses Lim, however, registered their
settlement and sale only on April 27, 1983. The lower court found that (1) the
case is one of double sale; and (2) the spouses Lim are registrants in bad
faith. On appeal, the trial court’s decision was affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether
the contract of sale by Maria P. Jomoc with private respondent is unenforceable
under the Statute of Frauds.
RULING
No.
Under
the law (Art. 1357, NCC), if the law requires a document or other special form,
as in the acts and contracts enumerated in the following article, the
contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the
contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with
the action upon the contract.
The
two courts correctly ruled that the spouses Lim do not have a better right.
They purchased the land with full knowledge of a previous sale to private
respondent and without requiring from the vendor-heirs any proof of the prior
vendee’s revocation of her purchase. They did so in bad faith or on the belief
that a registration may improve their position being subsequent buyers of the
same lot.
The
contract is enforceable. The meeting of the minds and the delivery of sums as
partial payment is admitted by both parties to the agreement. Hence, there was
already a valid and existing contract, not merely perfected as the trial court
saw it, but partly executed. It is of no moment whether or not it is
enforceable under the Statute of Frauds, which rule we do not find to be
applicable because of partial payment of the vendee’s obligation and its
acceptance by the vendors-heirs. The contract of sale of real property even if
not complete in form, so long as the essential requisites of consent of the
contracting parties, object, and cause of the obligation concur and they were
clearly established to be present, is valid and effective as between the
parties. Under Art 1357 of the Civil Code, its enforceability is recognized as
each contracting party is granted the right to compel the other to execute the
proper public instrument so that the valid contract of sale of registered land
can be duly registered and can bind third persons.
No comments:
Post a Comment