G.R. No. 137677 - Francisco vs. Boiser

In January 1973, Consolacion Duque Salonga, assisted by her husband, filed a complaint against Julita B. Farrales and the Sheriff of Olongapo City before the Court of First Instance of Zambales and Olongapo City, Third Judicial District, Branch III.
The relief sought included:

Ordering defendant Farrales to sell a 156-square-meter parcel of land on which the plaintiff’s house stood.
Issuing an order to restrain the defendants from disturbing the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the land until a final decision was rendered.
Payment of costs and other relief as required by law, justice, and equity.

On January 9, 1973, an urgent petition for a writ of preliminary injunction was filed to forestall the enforcement of an execution order issued in connection with an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 650), which was later amended on January 16, 1973.

On January 22, 1973, the court a quo issued a temporary restraining order against the execution of the writ related to the ejectment case.
Defendant Farrales filed a motion on January 23, 1973, to challenge the petition for the preliminary injunction and filed an answer with a counterclaim, alleging vagueness in the petition.
The court a quo, in an order dated January 20, 1973, denied the petition for a preliminary injunction and subsequently lifted the temporary restraining order.
The appellant then moved for reconsideration on January 5, 1973, which was denied on February 21, 1973.
After a trial on the merits of Civil Case No. 1144-0, the court rendered a judgment dismissing the complaint and the defendants’ counterclaim, with costs against the plaintiff.

On August 13, 1973, the plaintiff-appellant appealed the dismissal of the complaint to the Court of Appeals.
In February 1974, a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was filed in aid of the appeal, which was later denied on March 6, 1974, by the Court of Appeals.
Defendant Farrales filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on January 13, 1975, arguing that the house had been demolished and the land delivered to her, rendering the appeal moot.
The Court of Appeals submitted the case for decision without allowing the benefit of the appellant’s reply brief, and ultimately, on September 15, 1977, the case was certified to the Supreme Court, given the purely legal nature of the issues presented.

The parties stipulated that defendant Farrales is the titled owner of a parcel of residential land in Sta. Rita, Olongapo City.
The plaintiff, prior to defendant Farrales’ acquisition of the land, was in possession as a lessee of 156 square meters on which she built her house and for which rentals had been duly paid initially to the original owners and later to the defendant.

Defendant Farrales previously initiated an ejectment suit (Civil Case No. 650) for non-payment of rentals against the plaintiff and other lessees, resulting in a judgment ordering them to vacate the properties they occupied.
The ejectment decision was affirmed on appeal with modifications regarding the amount of rentals arrears.

Despite the plaintiff’s offer to purchase the specific parcel of 156 square meters, defendant Farrales persistently refused such offer, preferring to execute the ejectment judgment.
Other portions of the land were sold or subject to compromise agreements with other lessees, but no such perfected contract existed with the plaintiff-appellants.

Whether or not the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for specific performance to compel the sale of the disputed 156-square-meter parcel of land.

The central factual query is whether a legally enforceable contract of sale was ever perfected between the parties.
Related to this is whether the appellant’s claim invoking Section 6, Article II of the New Constitution, which concerns property rights and private gains, could alter the result of the case.