Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale is valid?
HELD:
Yes. The provision of Art. 1358 on the necessity of a
public document is only for convenience, not for validity
or enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of
a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be
embodied in a public instrument. A contract of sale is a
consensual contract, which means that the sale is
perfected by mere consent. No particular form is
required for its validity. Upon perfection of the contract,
the parties may reciprocally demand performance (Art.
1475, NCC), i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of
ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor may
require the vendee to pay the thing sold (Art. 1458,
NCC). The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered
Dalion to deliver to Sabesaje the parcel of land and to
execute corresponding formal deed of conveyance in a
public document. Under Art. 1498, NCC, when the sale
is made through a public instrument, the execution
thereof is equivalent to the delivery of the thing. Delivery
may either be actual (real) or constructive. Thus delivery
of a parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee in
control and possession of the land (real) or by
embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive).
HEIRS OF BIONA VS. CA
FACTS:
On October 23, 1953, the late Ernesto Biona, married to
plaintiff-appellee Soledad Biona, was awarded
Homestead Patent over the property subject of this suit,
a parcel of agricultural land, located in Bo. 3, Banga,
Cotabato,
On June 3, 1954, Ernesto and Soledad Biona obtained a
loan from the then Rehabilitation Finance Corporation
(now the Development Bank of the Philippines) and put
up as collateral the subject property. On June 12, 1956,
Ernesto Biona died leaving as his heirs herein plaintiffsappellees, namely, his wife, Soledad Estrobillo Vda. De
Biona, and five daughters, Editha B. Blancaflor,
Marianita B. de Jesus, Vilma B. Blancaflor, Elsie B.
Ramos and Perlita B. Carmen.
On March 1, 1960, plaintiff-appellee Soledad Biona
obtained a loan from defendant-appellant in the amount
of P1,000 and as security therefore, the subject property
was mortgaged. It was further agreed upon by the
contracting parties that for a period of two years until the
debt is paid, defendant-appellant shall occupy the land in
dispute and enjoy the usufruct thereof.
The two-year period elapsed but Soledad Biona was not
able to pay her indebtedness. Defendant-appellant
continued occupying and cultivating the subject property
without protest from plaintiffs-appellees.
HELD:
YES but with regard only to Soledads share (7/12). But
since the daughters of Biona failed to assert their rights
and allowed defendant Hilajos to occupy the land in
peace for more than 30 years, they are now stopped due
to laches.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the deed of sale was valid and if it
effectively conveyed to the private respondents the
subject property