Title
Heirs of Villeza vs. Aliangan
Case
G.R. No. 244667-69
Decision Date
Dec 2, 2020
Heirs compelled to execute land sale deeds after Supreme Court upheld oral and written agreements with respondents, affirming obligations bind heirs.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 244667-69)

Facts:

  • Parties and properties involved
    • Petitioners: Heirs of Corazon Villeza (Imelda V. dela Cruz, Stella Imelda II Villeza, Imelda Villeza III, Robyll O. Villeza, Abigail Wehr) and other heirs of Rosario Agpaoa.
    • Respondents: Elizabeth S. Aliangan and Rosalina S. Aliangan as buyers of three parcels of land in Angadanan, Isabela.
  • Transactions and conflicts
    • Centro I property (540.5 sq.m.)
      • Deed of Conditional Sale (DCS) dated January 10, 2006 between sellers Corazon and Rosario, buyers Elizabeth and Rosalina; purchase price ₱450,000 with ₱50,000 down payment and ₱10,000 monthly installments.
      • Respondents remitted a total of ₱454,233 by April 2008; sellers died on August 3 and September 1, 2009 without executing Deeds of Absolute Sale (DAS); petitioners later discovered allegedly forged absolute-sale contracts and repudiated the DCS.
    • Bunay property (36,834 sq.m.)
      • Oral sale in 2005 by Corazon to Elizabeth for ₱250,000; two remittances of ₱125,000 each; no conveyance upon Corazon’s death.
      • Petitioners denied existence of any contract; remittance receipts deemed self-serving.
    • Poblacion property (225 sq.m.)
      • Oral sale from 2000 to 2003 by Corazon to Rosalina; remittances totalling ₱307,020.52; Acknowledgment Receipt of ₱85,000 on February 11, 2005 as full payment.
      • No transfer at death; petitioners disputed the authenticity of the oral sale.
  • Procedural history
    • RTC (Branch 20, Cauayan City) consolidated the three cases, rendered separate Decisions (August 30, 2016) granting specific performance, ordering execution of deeds, awarding moral (₱100,000), exemplary (₱50,000) damages, and attorney’s fees (₱150,000).
    • CA (First Division) Decision (December 17, 2018) denied petitioners’ appeals, affirmed RTC with deletion of moral and exemplary damages, maintained attorney’s fees and costs.
    • Supreme Court: Petition for Review under Rule 45 filed by petitioners; respondents filed Comment; petitioners filed Reply.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in ruling there is a perfected agreement of sale between respondents and Corazon.
  • Whether the CA erred in not dismissing the cases for specific performance for lack of cause of action because respondents should have filed against Corazon’s estate under probate rules (Rules 86, 87; Rule 89).
  • Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC ordering petitioners to execute deeds of conveyance in favor of respondents.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.