Title
Supreme Court
Nabus vs. Pacson
Case
G.R. No. 161318
Decision Date
Nov 25, 2009
Spouses Nabus sold land to Pacsons via conditional sale; Pacsons failed full payment. Julie Nabus later sold to Tolero, who acted in good faith. Court ruled for Nabus, citing contract to sell, no breach, and good faith purchase.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 161318)

Property Titles and Transfers

• Original title (TCT 9697) in Nabus names; mortgaged to PNB.
• February 1977 Conditional Sale covering 1,000 sqm.
• February 1984 TCT T-17718 in names of Julie and Michelle Nabus.
• March 1984 Deed of Absolute Sale to Tolero; cancellation of TCT T-17718; issuance of TCTs T-18650 to T-18653 to Tolero.

Essential Terms of the Conditional-Sale Instrument

The contract stipulated:

  1. ₱13,000 to PNB on or before February 21, 1977 (part of purchase price).
  2. Balance of mortgage (~₱17,500) paid by Pacsons to PNB at not less than ₱3,000 per month from March 1977.
  3. Upon mortgage liquidation, Pacsons to pay the Nabus heirs at least ₱2,000 monthly until total ₱170,000 is paid.
  4. Vendor to execute transfer documents upon full payment.
  5. Vendee to cause segregation survey at own expense.
  6. Vendor to return amounts paid if title is lost in pending litigation.
  7. Vendor to assist in removing third-party occupants.

Pacsons’ Performance under the Contract

Respondents Pacson paid PNB ₱12,038.86 (February 22, 1977) and ₱20,744.30 (July 17, 1978), fully retiring the mortgage. From March 1977 to January 1984 they made 364 payments directly to the Nabuses totaling ₱112,455.16, leaving an unpaid balance of ₱57,544.84. They took possession, constructed a repair shop, and displayed “No Trespassing” signs.

Extra-Judicial Settlement and Subsequent Sale to Tolero

After Bate Nabus’s death, Julie and Michelle Nabus executed an extrajudicial settlement (August 17, 1978) leading to TCT T-17718 (February 17, 1984). On March 5, 1984, they sold the entire 1,665 sqm to Betty Tolero for ₱200,000 via Deed of Absolute Sale, duly registered. Tolero, advised by counsel, claimed to be a purchaser in good faith.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (September 30, 1993) held:

  1. The “Deed of Conditional Sale” was a valid contract of sale, not lease, because receipts bore payment-of-lot labels.
  2. Pacsons had fully performed enough to demand specific performance under Art. 1191, New Civil Code.
  3. Tolero was not a buyer in good faith, having actual knowledge of the conditional sale.
  4. Ordered Tolero to execute an absolute sale in favor of Pacsons upon payment of ₱57,544.84 and to surrender TCTs T-18650 and T-18651; awarded Pacsons moral (₱50,000), exemplary (₱20,000) damages and attorney’s fees (₱10,000).

Court of Appeals Decision

On November 28, 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, deleting only the award of attorney’s fees.

Issues before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the Deed of Conditional Sale converted into a contract of lease.
  2. Whether the instrument was a contract of sale or merely a contract to sell.
  3. Whether Betty Tolero qualified as a purchaser in good faith.
  4. Appropriate remedies for the Pacsons if the conditional sale was merely a contract to sell.

Contract of Sale Versus Contract to Sell

Under Art. 1458, New Civil Code, a sale is absolute if title passes upon delivery and conditional if ownership remains with the vendor until fulfillment of a suspensive condition. Jurisprudence (Ramos v. Heruela; Coronel v. CA; Chua v. CA) clarifies that a “contract to sell” reserves title indefinitely until full payment and requires a subsequent absolute-sale deed. A true conditional sale automatically transfers title upon fulfillment of the condition.

Supreme Court’s Findings on the Nature of the Instrument

The instrument expressly provided that title would transfer only after full payment and required the vendor’s execution of transfer documents. This structure rendered it a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. Full payment remained a positive suspensive condition; its non-fulfillment prevented any binding obligation to convey title. Pacsons did not tender the remaining balance formally or seek consignment.

Effect of Suspensive Condition Non-Fulfillment

Because the condition (full payment) neve

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.