Case Digest (G.R. No. 166790)
Facts:
Juan P. Cabrera v. Henry Ysaac, G.R. No. 166790, November 19, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Juan P. Cabrera sued respondent Henry Ysaac for specific performance and the execution of a deed of sale over a portion of a co-owned parcel in Sabang, Naga City (OCT No. 506), which was owned in common by the heirs of Luis and Matilde Ysaac.The factual background is that Cabrera had leased a 95-square-meter portion of the land beginning in 1986. In May 1990 Henry offered to sell that 95-sq.m. tract to Cabrera, and later expanded the offer to include two adjoining leased portions (combined initially 439 sq.m., later resurveyed to 321 sq.m.) upon an agreed price of P250.00 per sq.m. Cabrera paid P1,500 as an initial amount and later P6,100 (partly reimbursing a prior deposit made by Mamerta Espiritu), and he advanced P3,000 for resurvey costs; he stated he would pay the balance after his retirement on June 15, 1992. On attempts to tender the balance in 1992 and again after resurvey, Henry’s wife refused to accept payment for lack of Henry’s authority.
On June 9, 1990 and in subsequent exchanges Cabrera received receipts; on September 21, 1994 Henry’s counsel sent a letter to Cabrera’s counsel asserting formal rescission for non-payment and treating earlier sums as rent. Cabrera again sought to settle in 1995 but was told Henry no longer could sell because Franklin Ysaac was now administrator. Cabrera filed Civil Case No. 95-3443 for specific performance on September 20, 1995 and tendered P69,650 to the clerk; a lis pendens was annotated.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Naga City, rendered judgment on September 22, 1999 dismissing Cabrera’s complaint and Henry’s counterclaim, finding that while there was an agreement on price and land, there was no evidence the adjoining occupants (Borbe, Espiritu) consented to sell and doubting Cabrera’s willingness and ability to pay in 1992. The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CV No. 65869, June 19, 2003, reversed in part: it held there was a perfected contract of sale and that extrajudicial rescission by letter was ineffective under Article 1592, but specific performance was not available because the Ysaac heirs (administrator Franklin) later sold the entire property to the City of Naga as an innocent purchaser; the CA ordered Henry to return P10,600 plus interest and awarded P30,000 attorney’s fees.
Henry moved for reconsideration; Cabrera filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court initially docketed as G.R. No. 159094, which was denied as premature on October 15, 2003 because the CA motion for reconsideration was pending. After procedural litigation (including a d...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Court consider issues raised by respondent in his comment that petitioner did not assign as error?
- Was there a valid contract of sale between petitioner and respondent?
- If there was an agreement, did it subsist or was it effectively rescinded?
- Did the supervening sale to the City of Naga preclude specific performance in favor of petitioner?
- Is petitioner entitled to execution of a deed of sale and transfer of title?
- Is petitioner entitled to actual d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)