Case Digest (G.R. No. 166790)
Facts:
In Cabrera v. Ysaac, G.R. No. 166790, decided November 19, 2014, the heirs of Luis and Matilde Ysaac owned in common a 5,517-sqm parcel in Sabang, Naga City (OCT No. 506). One co-owner, Henry Ysaac, leased a 95-sqm portion to Juan P. Cabrera beginning in 1986. On May 6, 1990, Ysaac offered that 95-sqm lot for sale at ₱250/sqm, later extending the offer to two adjoining tracts (totaling 439 sqm) on condition that the Borbe and Espiritu families agreed—a condition never fulfilled. Cabrera paid an initial ₱1,500 and, in June 1990, ₱6,100 (₱3,100 reimbursing Espiritu’s deposit and obtaining her receipts). He also advanced ₱3,000 for resurveying when Ysaac proposed reducing the area to 321 sqm, but attempts to pay the balance on June 15, 1992 and again in 1993–1994 were rebuffed by Ysaac’s wife. On September 21, 1994, Ysaac’s counsel extrajudicially rescinded the agreement via letter, applying Cabrera’s payments against rent and denying any resurvey-cost obligation. Cabrera then fileCase Digest (G.R. No. 166790)
Facts:
- Co-ownership and Lease Arrangement
- The heirs of Luis and Matilde Ysaac co-owned a 5,517 sqm parcel in Sabang, Naga City (OCT No. 506). Henry Ysaac was one of the co-owners.
- Since 1986, petitioner Juan P. Cabrera leased a 95 sqm portion from Henry Ysaac.
- Negotiation and Partial Payments
- May 6, 1990: Ysaac offered to sell the 95 sqm to Cabrera at ₱250/m²; Cabrera requested a larger area. Ysaac extended the offer to the adjoining 344 sqm (leased to the Borbe and Espiritu families), subject to their consent. Cabrera paid an initial ₱1,500.
- June 9, 1990: Cabrera paid an additional ₱6,100 to reimburse Mamerta Espiritu’s deposit; Ysaac issued receipts, and ₱3,100 was reimbursed to Espiritu, who turned over her receipts to Cabrera.
- Attempts to Tender Balance and Resurvey
- June 15, 1992: Cabrera attempted to pay the remainder but was refused by Ysaac’s wife acting without authority.
- September 1993: Ysaac proposed reducing the area to 321 sqm (due to a barangay walkway and occupant issues); Cabrera advanced ₱3,000 for resurvey. The new sketch plan showed 321 sqm, but Cabrera again could not tender payment.
- Rescission and Judicial Proceedings
- September 21, 1994: Ysaac’s counsel formally rescinded the contract by letter, applied prior payments to rent, and denied any obligation for survey costs.
- September 20, 1995: Cabrera filed a suit for specific performance, tendered ₱69,650 for the balance, and caused a lis pendens on OCT 506. Ysaac answered with a counterclaim.
- February 12, 1997: The Ysaac heirs (under Franklin Ysaac’s administration) sold the property to the City of Naga.
- September 22, 1999: RTC dismissed Cabrera’s complaint, holding the sale rescinded for nonpayment and absent consent of other co-owners.
- June 19, 2003: CA held the sale validly perfected, rescission invalid (letter insufficient under Art. 1592), but specific performance barred by sale to an innocent purchaser (City of Naga); awarded actual damages (₱10,600), attorney’s fees (₱30,000), and costs.
- Subsequent motions for reconsideration and appeals culminated in Cabrera’s petition to the Supreme Court, which was eventually reinstated for merits.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional/Procedural
- Can the Supreme Court consider issues raised by respondent not assigned by petitioner?
- Substantive
- Was there a valid contract of sale between Cabrera and Ysaac?
- If perfected, did the contract subsist or was it validly rescinded?
- Did the supervening sale to the City of Naga bar specific performance?
- Is Cabrera entitled to execution of a deed of sale?
- Is Cabrera entitled to actual damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)