Case Digest (G.R. No. 119777)
Facts:
Heirs of Pedro Escanlar, Francisco Holgado and the Spouses Dr. Edwin A. Jayme and Elisa Tan‑Jayme v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Generosa Martinez, Carmen Cari‑an, Rodolfo Cari‑an, Nelly Chua Cari‑an, for Her Self and as Guardian Ad Litem of Her Minor Son, Leonell C. Cari‑an, Fredisminda Cari‑an, the Spouses Paquito Chua and Ney Sarrosa‑Chua and the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental, G.R. Nos. 119777 and 120690, March 22, 1999, Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners Pedro Escanlar and Francisco Holgado (joined later by the Jaymes) were vendees in a September 15, 1978 Deed of Sale of “rights, interests and participation” covering the one‑half (1/2) pro‑indiviso portion of Lots Nos. 1616 and 1617 (fishpond) belonging to the intestate estate of Guillermo Nombre and Victoriana Cari‑an. The sellers were heirs by representation of Victoriana Cari‑an (collectively, the private respondents Cari‑an family). The deed conditioned that “this Contract … shall become effective only upon the approval by the Honorable Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, Branch VI‑Himamaylan.” The vendees paid P50,000 at signing and executed a contemporaneous Deed of Agreement promising to pay the P225,000 balance by May 1979.
The vendees had been lessees of the lots and remained in possession after the 1978 transaction. They failed to complete the balance by May 1979 but made numerous subsequent installment payments (supported by various receipts) and continued to pay rent under their prior lease. The Cari‑ans later sold the estate parcels (including Lots 1616 and 1617) to spouses Paquito and Ney Sarrosa‑Chua on September 21, 1982; the probate court approved that sale and later issued titles in the Chuas’ names.
The Cari‑ans brought an action to cancel the 1978 sale on November 3, 1982, alleging non‑payment of the balance; petitioners countered that the Cari‑ans were paid and could not resell. The probate court (Special Proceeding No. 7‑7279) eventually declared the intestate estate closed because the estate properties had been disposed of. The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 61) on December 18, 1991 annulled the 1978 Deed of Sale and related instruments for lack of probate‑court approval and for non‑payment, upheld the 1982 sale to the Chuas, ordered refund/forfeiture accounting, damages, and eviction/possession and rentals; the trial court also ordered certain sums returned or deposited for the minor heir. The Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. CV No. 39975 affirmed the trial court on February 17, 1995, holding the 1978 instrument to be a contract to sell that required court approval and thus was void for lack thereof; the motion for reconsideration was denied April 3, 1995.
Petitioners filed consolidated p...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the September 15, 1978 Deed of Sale of rights, interests and participation a contract to sell (with ownership retained by the vendors) or an absolute sale transferring ownership to the vendees?
- Did the stipulation that the contract “shall become effective only upon the approval by the … Court of First Instance” make the 1978 sale invalid for want of probate‑court approval?
- Were the sellers (the Cari‑ans) unpaid such that they validly rescinded the 1978 sale, or did their conduct and acceptance of late payments bar rescission?
- Is the subsequent sale to the spouses Chua valid, and what are the respective proprietary and remedy consequen...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)