Title
Gonzales vs. Heirs of Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 131784
Decision Date
Sep 16, 1999
A lease-purchase dispute arose when the Cruz heirs failed to obtain a separate TCT, a condition precedent, preventing Gonzales' obligation to buy the property. SC ruled in Gonzales' favor, reinstating the trial court's decision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131784)

Petitioner

Felix L. Gonzales, proprietor of Felgon Farms, who entered into a one-year lease with an option to purchase the specified portion for ₱1,000,000, payable over two years with 12% annual interest and annual rentals of ₱2,500 per hectare.

Respondents

Heirs of Thomas and Paula Cruz (Ricardo A. Cruz, Carmelita M. Cruz, Salome A. Cruz, Irenea C. Victoria, Leticia C. Salvador, and Elena C. Talens) who agreed to secure a separate TCT over the leased portion within four years and then execute a new contract mirroring the original terms.

Key Dates

• Contract execution: December 1, 1983 (one‐year lease; purchase option thereafter)
• Expiration of lease: November 30, 1984
• Initial rescission demand: early 1986
• Extra-judicial partition proceedings: initiated July 1989
• Trial court decision: November 16, 1990 (in favor of Gonzales)
• Court of Appeals decision: August 13, 1997 (in favor of Cruz heirs)
• Supreme Court decision: September 16, 1999

Applicable Law

• Article 1373, Civil Code (contract interpretation)
• Article 1181, Civil Code (conditional obligations)
• Principles of nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot transfer better title than one has)
• Rules on conditions precedent and rescission under the Civil Code

Factual Background

Under the lease/purchase contract, Gonzales paid annual rentals (₱15,000) and a ₱50,000 down payment toward the ₱1,000,000 purchase price. He did not exercise the purchase option at the end of the lease year and ceased rent payments thereafter. The lessors never obtained a separate TCT in their names, as required by clause nine, because the property remained undivided among predecessors.

Procedural History

Gonzales remained in possession despite the lessors’ rescission demand. The heirs filed for recovery of possession, damages, and attorney’s fees. The trial court dismissed the complaint, awarded Gonzales moral damages (₱20,000) and attorney’s fees (₱10,000). The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering Gonzales to vacate and pay rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs. Gonzales petitioned for certiorari.

Issue

Whether clause nine of the contract, obligating lessors to secure a separate TCT within four years, constituted a condition precedent to Gonzales’s obligation to purchase and thus barred enforcement of the sale obligation or rescission by the lessors.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. Awards of moral damages and attorney’s fees were deleted for lack of basis.

Analysis of Clause Nine

Clause nine required the lessors to obtain a distinct TCT over the leased portion “within a reasonable period of time which shall not in any case exceed four years,” after which a new contract replicating the lease/purchase terms would be executed. Given that the land remained registered to predecessors and no partition existed, clause nine was meant to secure legal title in the lessors’ names before any sale closing.

Conditions Precedent

The obligation to purchase under the first paragraph depended on the prior fulfillment of clause nine

...continue reading

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