Title
Clemeno, Jr. vs. Lobregat
Case
G.R. No. 137845
Decision Date
Sep 9, 2004
Spouses Sacramento sold property to Clemeno, who verbally agreed to sell it to Lobregat. Lobregat paid partially, but Clemeno refused to execute the deed. SC upheld the verbal contract as a perfected sale, enforceable despite being verbal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 137845)

Antecedents of the Case

The underlying dispute originates from a parcel of land in Novaliches, Quezon City, owned by spouses Nilus and Teresita Sacramento, which was mortgaged to the Social Security System (SSS) for a housing loan. The property was sold to Angel and Malyn Clemeno with the approval of the SSS. Following the sale, a verbal agreement of sale was allegedly made between the petitioners and the respondent, whereby the respondent would pay a total purchase price of P 270,000.00. This included the assumption of the Mumbai mortgage loan, with the claim that upon complete payment, a formal deed of sale would be executed.

Actions and Consolidation of Cases

In 1992, the respondent Lobregat filed a complaint in the RTC against the Clemenos for breach of contract, which was initially dismissed but later reinstated. The petitioners subsequently filed their own complaint against the respondent for recovery of possession, resulting in the consolidation of the two cases.

Respondent's Evidence

Lobregat asserted that he entered into a verbal contract of sale with the petitioners, making several payments toward the stipulated purchase price and assuming loan payments. A range of receipts was provided as evidence for these payments. The respondent claimed that he was authorized by the petitioners to remit such payments to SSS. The respondent eventually attempted to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price but was met with resistance from the petitioners, who claimed a verbal lease arrangement rather than a sale had been established.

Petitioners’ Evidence and Claims

The petitioners countered by stating the terms of the verbal agreement were incorrectly portrayed. They argued that even if an agreement were made, it would constitute a mere "contract to sell," which would require a written document per Article 1403 of the New Civil Code. They maintained that the receipts were merely acknowledgments of payments and did not constitute a contract of sale. Furthermore, they asserted the respondent had not fulfilled his payment obligations.

Trial Court Judgment

The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating the absence of a written agreement rendered the contracts unenforceable as per Article 1403 of the Civil Code. It declared that the supposed sale was invalid, since the required writing was lacking, and thus, mandated the respondent and any claiming under him to vacate the property.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the contract was a valid contract of sale since partial performance had occurred. The appellate court stated that the contract was perfected when the payments were made, despite the lack of a written document. It ordered the petitioners to accept the remaining balance on the property and execute a deed of sale in favor of the respondent.

Petitioners' Arguments to the Supreme Court

The petitioners challenged the appellate court’s ruling, arguing that it mischaracterized the agreement as a contract of sale rather than a contract to sell. They contended the receipts alone did not meet the legal requirements for a contract of sale and highlighted the fact that they had not received full payment within the agreed terms. They also invoked the defense of the Statute of Frauds in arguing against the enforceability of the contract.

Supreme Co

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms