*Pingol v.

CA (1993)
Facts:
1. Vicente Pingol owner of a parcel of land of the Cadastral Survey of Caloocan located in Bagong
Barrio, Caloocan City
2. He executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of of an undivided portion of his land in favor of Francisco
Donasco
- Consideration: P20, 530
- Received P2,000 as partial payment
- Balance of P18,530 paid in several equal installments within 6 years. Beginning Jan. 1970
- Default in payment, installment shall earn legal rate of interest
- In case of partition, land will be divided into two equal parts, Vendor gets the corner facing J. De
Jesus and Malolos Ave. and Vendee gets portion with 15 meters frontage facing J. De Jesus
Street only
3. Portion sold was segregated from mother lot and parties prepared a subdivision plan
4. Donasco immediately took possession and constructed a house thereon
5. In Jan. 1970, started paying monthly installments; was able to pay only up to 1972
6. July 1984 Donasco died.
7. He had paid P8,369 plus the 2,000 advance payment, leaving balance of P10,161
8. Lot remained in the possession of Donascos heirs
9. Donascos heirs tried to pay balance plus interest, but Pingol rebuffed their offer, and has been
demanding for a bigger and unreasonable amount
10. Pingols were committing acts of forcible entry and encroachment
11. Heirs of Donasco filed an action for Specific Perfomance and Damages with a prayer for a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction before RTC Caloocan against sps. Pingol
12. Pingols answer with counterclaim:
- Cause of action prescribed
- Donasco had not paid full consideration
- He was in breach since 1976
- Sale is deemed to have been cancelled and continuous occupancy after 1976 was by mere
tolerance of Pingols
- Prayed that Donascos heirs be ordered to vacate the premises and pay them reasonable
compensation for use of land
13. Donascos heirs andwer:
- No provision in the deed of sale for its cancellation in case of default in the payment of the
monthly installments

RTC
- Dismissed complaint and ordered Donascos heirs to pay Pingols P350 as reasonable monthly
rental for use of the premises from filing of complaint; P10,000 attorneys fees
- Deed of Sale Contract to Sell, not a Contract of Sale
- Pingol had no intention to part with the ownership of lot unless full amount of agreed price had
been paid
- Title and ownership did not pass, contract to sell never consummated
- Contract deemed to have been called upon default in payment
- Assuming arguendo that their cause of action is specific performance, such action had already
prescribed; complaint filed more than 10 years from time they could have lawfully demanded
performance

CA
- Reversed RTC decision
- Ordered Pingol to accept balance plus legal interest
- Upheld validity of Deed of Absolute Sale
- It reveals clear intention of Pingol to party with the ownership of the portion by way of an
absolute sale
- Failure to pay agreed price was not a ground for cancellation
- Donascos heirs action is imprescriptible since it is akin to an ACTION TO QUIET TITLE to
property in ones possession

14. Pingols file Petition for Certiorari

Issue:
1. WON contract between parties is a contract of sale or a contract to sell (CONTRACT OF SALE)
2. WON Donascos heirs cause of action had already prescribed (NO)

Ratio:
1. Contract of Sale
- Clear intention was to sell and convey portion of land by way of absolute sale in favor of
Donasco
- No reservation of title was made until full payment
- No stipulation giving Pingol the right to unilaterally resolve contract upon default of payment
- Only provided for the earning of legal rate of interest
- Acts of parties contemporaneous and subsequent: since the sale, Donasco continuously
possessed and occupied property as owner up to his death; heirs continued occupancy an
dpossession
- Pingol recognized Donasco as absolute owner of property sold
- Constructive delivery execution of deed of sale
- Actual delivery Donasco took possession and constructed house
- Delivery divested Pingol of ownership; cannot recover title unless contract is resolved or
rescinded
- No record that a notarial or judicial rescission had been made
2. Action for specific performance is in effect an ACTION TO QUIET TITLE, and Donascos heirs being in
possession, cause of action is imprescriptible
- Rationale of imprescriptibility:
o Owner of real property who is in possession may wait until possession is invaded or title
attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right
o Person claiming title to real property but not in possession, must act affirmatively within
the time provided by the statute
o Possession is a continuing right as the is right to defend such possession
o There is a continuing right to invoke qourt of equity to remove cloud that is a continuing
menace to his title
Such a menace is compared to a continuing act of trespass not barred by statute until
continued without interruption for a length of time sufficient to affect a change of
title as a matter of law
- Bucton v. Gabar
o The real basis of action is ownership of of lot coupled with their possession which
entitles them to conveyance of the property
o No enforcement is needed, since delivery of possession had consummated the sale
o Action for conveyance is one to quiet title: remove cloud upon ownership by refusal of
Gabars to recognize sale made
- Cloud has been case on title of Donascos heirs
- Pingols adamantly refused to accept tender of payment and insisted that their obligation to
transfer title had been rendered ineffective
- A vendee who had made part payment and took possession and made improvements, is entitled
to bring suit to clear his title against vendor who had refused to transfer title to him
o It is not necessary that vendee has an absolute title, an equitable title is sufficient to clothe
him with personality to bring action

DISPOSITIVE: Decision AFFIRMED. Donascos heirs are liable to pay legal rate of interest on unpaid
alance from date of default or when the entire balance should have been paid


*Sps. Portic v. Cristobal (2005)
Facts:
1. Sps. Alcantara and Edrosalam original registered owners of a parcel of land with three-door
apartment located at Marulas, Valenzuela City
2. Said Spouses sold property to Sps. Portic with condition that latter shall assume the mortgage
executed over subject property in favor of SSS
3. Sps. Portic defaulted in payment of monthly amortizations due on the mortgage
4. SSS foreclosed the mortgage and sold property at public auction SSS highest bidder
5. May 1984, Before expiration of redemption period, Sps. Portic sold property to Cristobal for P200k
- Parties agreed that Cristobal shall pay the sum of P45k as down payment and balance of P155k
shall be paid on or before May 22, 1985
- If Cristobal fails to comply, sale shall be considered void and amounts already paid will be
reimbursed
- Executed a DEED OF SALE WITH ASSUMPTION OF MORTGAGE
o Sps. Portic sold property in favor of Cristobal in consideration of P80k, P45k thereof shall be
paid to the SSS
6. July 1984, Spouses Alcantara and Edrosalam (original owners) sold property in favor of Cristobal for
P50k
7. Cristobal executed a DEED OF MORTGAGE over property to secure a P150k indebtedness in favor of
Sps. Portic
8. Cristobal paid indebtedness due over subject property to SSS
9. Aug. 1984, TCT in the names of Sps. Alcantara and Edrosalam was cancelled; TCT issued in the name
of Cristobal
10. Sps. Portic demanded from Cristobal the unpaid balance of P55k
11. Cristobal refused to pay
12. Sps. Portic filed ACTION TO QUIET TITLE to remove cloud created by issuance of TCT in favor of
Cristobal
- Contract between them and Cristobal has been cancelled for latters failure to pay full purchase
price void
- In spite of failure, Cristobal required Sps. Portic to sign a lease contract over apartment which
petitioners occupy
- Cristobal should be required to reconvey title to property
13. Cristobal:
- Title over subject party is already indefeasible
- Agreement was an Absolute Sale
- She had fully paid purchase price
- Sps. Portics claim is already barred by laches

RTC:
- Ruled in favor of Sps. Portic
- Orders quieting of title or removal of cloud over Sps. Portics parcel of land and three-door
apartment
- Orders Cristobal to reconvey parcel of land and three-door apartment after reimbursement

CA:
- First MOA embodied the rel agreement between the parties
- Subsequent Deeds were executed merely to secure their respective rights over property
- MOA stated that Cristobal had not fully paid purchase price cause of action
- Prescription already set in because case had been filed beyond 10-year reglementary period
- But ordered Cristobal to pay remaining balance of purchase price

14. Motion of Partial Reconsideration by Sps. Portic
- Their action was not one for the enforcement of a written contract but one for thr quieting of
title imprescriptible as long as they remained in possession

CA:
- Agreement between the parties was valid and Cristobals title to the property was amply
supported by evidence
- Action for quieting of title would not prosper because they failed to show invalidity of cloud on
their title

15. Sps. Portic filed Petition for Review

Issues:
1. WON Sps. Portics cause of action is for quieting of title (YES)
2. WON Sps. Portic had personality to bring action for quieting of title
3. WON Cristobals title to the property is valid
4. WON Sps. Portic are in possession of the premises, a fact that would render action for quieting of
title imprescriptible
5. WON Sps. Portics cause of action has prescribed

Ratio:
1. Yes. Action is for quieting of title as Sps. Portic seeks to protect their title to property which they
retained
2. Yes. They retained title to the property by virtue of the Contract to Sell they executed in favor of
Cristobal
- Ownership over the property was never transferred; it will only pass upon full payment of
purchase price positive suspensive condition
- Failure to comply is not a breach of obligation but merely an event that prevents effectivity of
the obligation of the vendor to convey the title
- Mere issuance of Certificate of Title in favor of Cristobal did not vest ownership in her
o Registration does not vest, but merely serves as evidence of title
o Land registration laws do not give the holders any better title than that which they
actually have prior to registration
o Not enough to acquire a new title; good faith must concur Cristobal has not fully paid
purchase price hence, she cannot feign good faith
3. Cristobal has no title over the property as title was expressly reserved by Sps. Portic in the
Contract to Sell
4. Yes, they have been in continuous possession (court didnt explain why)
5. Imprescriptible