Title
Province of Cebu vs. Heirs of Morales
Case
G.R. No. 170115
Decision Date
Feb 19, 2008
A 1961 lease led to a disputed property sale; Morales' heirs sought reconveyance after her death. Courts ruled in their favor, affirming the sale's validity despite unpaid balance, binding the Province as successor-in-interest.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 183141)

Facts:

  • Initial lease and donation
    • On September 27, 1961, the Province of Cebu leased a 210-sqm portion of Lot No. 646-A (Banilad Estate) to Rufina Morales.
    • In 1964, the Province donated Lot No. 646-A to the City of Cebu, which subdivided it; the portion occupied by Morales became Lot No. 646-A-3 (TCT No. 30883).
  • Public auction and sale
    • On July 19, 1965, the City auctioned Lot No. 646-A-3; Hever Bascon was the highest bidder.
    • As the actual occupant-lessee, Morales exercised her preferential right by matching the highest bid and paid the required deposit and downpayment.
  • Reversion of donation dispute
    • The Province filed Civil Case No. 238-BC for reversion of donation against the City.
    • On May 7, 1974, the parties compromised; approved July 17, 1974, returning donated lots—including Lot No. 646-A-3—to the Province (now TCT No. 104310).
    • Morales died on February 20, 1969, before completing payments; she had paid only the deposit and downpayment.
  • Heirs’ demands and litigation
    • In 1983 and 1986, Catalina V. Quesada (niece) wrote to successive governors requesting formal conveyance; requests were ignored.
    • Heirs (Panopio, Villanueva, Adriano, Quesada) filed Civil Case No. CEB-11140 in the RTC Cebu City for specific performance and reconveyance, consigned ₱13,450 as balance.
    • They alleged a valid sale contract between the City and Morales, inadvertent reversion under the compromise, and confusion in payment due to a preliminary injunction.

Issues:

  • Whether the sale by public auction to Morales was perfected and binding on the Province as successor-in-interest.
  • Whether the absence of a formal deed and nonpayment of the balance invalidated the sale.
  • Whether laches or prescription barred the heirs’ action for specific performance.
  • Whether the consignation of the balance extinguished respondents’ obligation and entitled them to reconveyance.

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.