Case Digest (G.R. No. 121200)
Facts:
Gloria A. S. Lacanilao and Plutarco Cadurnigara v. Court of Appeals, Eusebio C. Encarnacion and Sps. Ramon and Teresita A. Acebo, G.R. No. 121200, September 26, 1996, First Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Eusebio C. Encarnacion owned a 160-square-meter residential lot in La Loma, Quezon City. In the 1950s a house was built on 100 square meters of the lot with Encarnacion’s consent; that house was later occupied by Gloria A. S. Lacanilao and her common-law husband Pablo. Encarnacion leased the 100 sq. m. portion to Pablo Lacanilao (monthly rent P24.00) on 12 September 1963, and the remaining 60 sq. m. was leased to petitioner Plutarco Cadurnigara. Petitioners paid rentals until November 1988.
In November 1987 Encarnacion offered to sell the lot to petitioners; by mid-May 1988 he allegedly agreed to sell for P120,000 with payment due 15 June 1988. Petitioners requested an extension to that date. On 11 June 1988 a fire severely damaged the Register of Deeds, destroying many original titles including Encarnacion’s.
Petitioners failed to pay the P120,000 on 15 June 1988. Thereafter Encarnacion offered the property to private respondents Ramon and Teresita Acebo, who agreed to buy for P145,000, paid P20,000 earnest money on 18 August 1988 and the balance on 15 November 1988. Encarnacion executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the Acebos, which was provisionally recorded and noted on the owner’s duplicate of TCT No. 204536. On 19 November 1988 the Acebos served petitioners a notice to vacate.
Petitioners first sought barangay settlement under P.D. 1517 (tenant’s right to purchase) and then filed suit in the Regional Trial Court (Branch 66, Quezon City) to annul the sale to the Acebos and to compel Encarnacion to execute a deed of sale in their favor. The trial court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and, on counterclaim, ordered petitioners to pay damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court found that Encarnacion denied any agreement to sell and that petitioners relied on parol evidence to prove a verbal sale, which the trial court ruled unenforceable under Articles 1358 and 1403 No. 2(e) of the Civil Code.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s dismissal but deleted the awards of damages and attorney’s fees in favor of the Acebos. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari un...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the spouses Acebo were purchasers in good faith and entitled to the property?
- Did petitioners establish an enforceable contract of sale with Encarnacion by proving payment (or readiness to pay) such that the sale to the Acebos...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)