Case Digest (G.R. No. 45186)
Facts:
Petitioners Rizalino, Ernesto, Leonora, Bibiano Jr., Librado, and Enriqueta Oesmer, together with their brothers Adolfo and Jesus, inherited undivided shares in two unregistered agricultural lots (Lot 720, 40,507 sqm; Lot 834, 14,769 sqm) in Carmona, Cavite, originally owned by their parents, Bibiano Oesmer and Encarnacion Durumpili. In March 1989, through a broker, petitioner Ernesto met with Sotero Lee, president of Paraiso Development Corporation, leading to the drafting of a Contract to Sell on April 1, 1989, drafted by Lee’s assistant. Ernesto and Enriqueta signed first and received ₱100,000 as option money; five other siblings later signed on the margins, while Adolfo and Jesus never did. On November 1, 1989, petitioners sought to rescind the contract. On May 30, 1991, all eight siblings filed in the RTC of Bacoor (Civil Case No. BCV-91-49) a complaint for nullity or annulment of the contract with damages. After the death of Rizalino, his heirs were substituted. On March 2Case Digest (G.R. No. 45186)
Facts:
- Parties and Property
- Petitioners: Rizalino Oesmer (substituted by heirs Josefina, Rolando and Fernando), and co-owners Ernesto, Leonora, Bibiano Jr., Librado, and Enriqueta Oesmer.
- Respondent: Paraiso Development Corporation, a real estate developer.
- Property: Two unregistered agricultural tenanted lots in Brgy. Ulong Tubig, Carmona, Cavite (Lot 720 – 40,507 sq m.; Lot 834 – 14,769 sq m.; total 55,276 sq m.), inherited by petitioners as co-heirs of Bibiano Oesmer and Encarnacion Durumpili.
- Contract to Sell
- March–April 1989 negotiations brokered by Rogelio Paular with Sotero Lee (PDC President) at Otani Hotel, Manila; drafted by Lee’s assistant, Inocencia Almo.
- Signing: On April 1, 1989, Ernesto and Enriqueta signed and received P100,000 as “option money”; Rizalino, Leonora, Bibiano Jr., and Librado signed thereafter; Adolfo and Jesus Oesmer did not sign.
- The duplicate was notarized April 21, 1989; petitioners later sent a rescission letter (Nov. 1, 1989) offering to return P100,000.
- Litigation History
- May 30, 1991: Civil Case No. BCV-91-49 filed in RTC Bacoor for nullity or rescission of the Contract to Sell; Rizalino died during trial, substituted by heirs.
- March 27, 1996: RTC ruled the contract valid only as to Ernesto’s 1/8 share; ordered him to sell that share, pay attorney’s fees and costs.
- April 26, 2002: CA modified RTC decision, declaring contract binding on the six signatories for their 6/8 shares; ordered Deed of Absolute Sale and payment of P10,000 attorney’s fees.
- March 4, 2003: CA denied petitioners’ reconsideration but added an order for respondent to pay petitioners P3,216,560 balance purchase price.
- May 2007: SC granted PDC’s Rule 45 petition for review.
Issues:
- Whether co-owners who signed on the margins but gave no written authority to Ernesto as agent are bound by the Contract to Sell.
- Whether the Contract to Sell is void for lack of respondent’s signature indicating its consent.
- Whether the instrument is a mere unilateral promise to sell without consideration distinct from the purchase price.
- Whether the signatories’ consent was conditional, subject to unanimous approval by all heirs (suspensive condition).
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)