G.R. No. 92871 - Vda. de Jomoc vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners – the heirs of the late Pantaleon Jomoc, represented by Maria P. Vda. de Jomoc as administratrix.
Private respondent – Maura So, who is alleged to have entered into a contract for the purchase of a lot.
Intervenors – Spouses Lim Leong Kang and Lim Pue King, purchasers in a subsequent extrajudicial settlement.

The disputed property is a lot in Cagayan de Oro City, part of the estate of Pantaleon Jomoc.
The controversy centers on competing sales involving the same lot.

In February 1979, while pending an appeal in the recovery proceeding for the property, Maria P. Jomoc executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of Land (referred to as Exhibit "A") with Maura So for P300,000.00.
Although Exhibit "A" was neither fully signed by all parties nor notarized, partial payments amounting to P49,000.00 were made by Maura So.

In 1983, Mariano So, then the appellant in the recovery case, executed a Deed of Reconveyance in favor of the heirs of Pantaleon Jomoc, complying with the decision in the recovery proceeding.
On February 28, 1983, concurrently with the filing of a notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 8983 by Maura So, the heirs executed another extrajudicial settlement with an absolute sale in favor of spouses Lim for P200,000.00. Part of this amount was allegedly intended to reimburse Maura So.
The registration of the spouses Lim’s sale was effected only on April 27, 1983, notwithstanding an earlier annotation of lis pendens.

Maura So contended that she did not abandon or back out of the purchase agreement.
Her partial payments and evidence of her continued interest (including oral testimonies and actions during negotiations) support her position.

The petitioners argued that Maura So had effectively withdrawn, justifying the subsequent sale to the spouses Lim.
They maintained that the absence of certain signatures on Exhibit "A" and lack of notarization are indicative of a repudiation.
Additionally, petitioners contend that the double sale scenario renders subsequent transactions null and void.

The trial court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Maura So abandoned the transaction.
It concluded that a double sale had taken place.
The court determined that the spouses Lim registered their deed in bad faith, registering their settlement after the lis pendens was filed.

The decision of the trial court, apart from certain awards for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The petitioners’ contention regarding the unenforceability of the contract under the Statute of Frauds was dismissed, especially as both parties admitted the contract’s validity.
The factual findings regarding the non-abandonment of the purchase by Maura So were upheld by substantial evidence on record.

Whether private respondent Maura So abandoned her intention to purchase the lot, thus justifying the subsequent sale to spouses Lim.
Whether the extrajudicial settlement and sale (Exhibit "A"), even if not complete in form, constituted a valid and binding contract enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

The legal effect of partial performance in validating a real property sale.
Whether the registration of the subsequent sale by spouses Lim, made after a notice of lis pendens was recorded, qualifies as a good faith acquisition.
The impact of double sale on conflicting transactional rights over the subject property.