7/19/2016

G.R.No.L59266

TodayisTuesday,July19,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.L59266February29,1988
SILVESTREDIGNOSandISABELLUMUNGSOD,petitioners,
vs.
HON.COURTOFAPPEALSandATILANOG.JABIL,respondents.

BIDIN,J.:
Thisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariseekingthereversalofthe:(1)Decision*ofthe9thDivision,CourtofAppealsdated
July31,1981,affirmingwithmodificationtheDecision,datedAugust25,1972oftheCourtofFirstInstance**ofCebuincivilCaseNo.23LentitledAtilano
G.Jabilvs.SilvestreT.DignosandIsabelaLumungsoddeDignosandPanfiloJabalde,asAttorneyinFactofLucianoCabigasandJovitaL.deCabigas
and(2)itsResolutiondatedDecember16,1981,denyingdefendantappellant's(Petitioner's)motionforreconsideration,forlackofmerit.

TheundisputedfactsasfoundbytheCourtofAppealsareasfollows:
TheDignosspouseswereownersofaparcelofland,knownasLotNo.3453,ofthecadastralsurvey
of Opon, LapuLapu City. On June 7, 1965, appellants (petitioners) Dignos spouses sold the said
parceloflandtoplaintiffappellant(respondentAtilanoJ.Jabil)forthesumofP28,000.00,payablein
twoinstallments,withanassumptionofindebtednesswiththeFirstInsularBankofCebuinthesum
of P12,000.00, which was paid and acknowledged by the vendors in the deed of sale (Exh. C)
executedinfavorofplaintiffappellant,andthenextinstallmentinthesumofP4,000.00tobepaidon
orbeforeSeptember15,1965.
On November 25, 1965, the Dignos spouses sold the same land in favor of defendants spouses,
LucianoCabigasandJovitaL.DeCabigas,whowerethenU.S.citizens,forthepriceofP35,000.00.
Adeedofabsolutesale(Exh.J,alsomarkedExh.3)wasexecutedbytheDignosspousesinfavorof
theCabigasspouses,andwhichwasregisteredintheOfficeoftheRegisterofDeedspursuanttothe
provisionsofActNo.3344.
AstheDignosspousesrefusedtoacceptfromplaintiffappellantthebalanceofthepurchasepriceof
theland,andasplaintiffappellantdiscoveredthesecondsalemadebydefendantsappellantstothe
Cabigasspouses,plaintiffappellantbroughtthepresentsuit.(Rollo,pp.2728)
Afterduetrial,theCourtoffirstInstanceofCeburendereditsDecisiononAugust25,1972,thedecretalportionof
whichreads:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby declares the deed of sale executed on November 25, 1965 by
defendantIsabelaL.deDignosinfavorofdefendantLucianoCabigas,acitizenoftheUnitedStates
ofAmerica,nullandvoidabinitio,andthedeedofsaleexecutedbydefendantsSilvestreT.Dignos
and Isabela Lumungsod de Dignos not rescinded. Consequently, the plaintiff Atilano G. Jabil is
herebyorderedtopaythesum,ofSixteenThousandPesos(P16,000.00)tothedefendantsspouses
upon the execution of the Deed of absolute Sale of Lot No. 3453, Opon Cadastre and when the
decisionofthiscasebecomesfinalandexecutory.
TheplaintiffAtilanoG.JabilisorderedtoreimbursethedefendantsLucianoCabigasandJovitaL.de
Cabigas, through their attorneyinfact, Panfilo Jabalde, reasonable amount corresponding to the
expensesorcostsofthehollowblockfence,sofarconstructed.
ItisfurtherorderedthatdefendantsspousesSilvestreT.DignosandIsabelaLumungsoddeDignos
should return to defendantsspouses Luciano Cabigas and Jovita L. de Cabigas the sum of
P35,000.00,asequitydemandsthatnobodyshallenrichhimselfattheexpenseofanother.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/feb1988/gr_l_59266_1988.html

1/4

7/19/2016

G.R.No.L59266

ThewritofpreliminaryinjunctionissuedonSeptember23,1966,automaticallybecomespermanent
invirtueofthisdecision.
Withcostsagainstthedefendants.
Fromtheforegoing,theplaintiff(respondentherein)anddefendantsspouss(petitionersherein)appealedtothe
Court ofAppeals, which appeal was docketed therein as CAG.R. No. 54393R, "Atilano G. Jabil v. Silvestre T.
Dignos,etal."
OnJuly31,1981,theCourtofAppealsaffirmedthedecisionofthelowercourtexceptastotheportionordering
Jabil to pay for the expenses incurred by the Cabigas spouses for the building of a fence upon the land in
question.ThedisposiveportionofsaiddecisionoftheCourtofAppealsreads:
INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOINGCONSIDERATIONS,exceptastothemodificationofthejudgmentas
pertains to plaintiffappellant above indicated, the judgment appealed from is herebyAFFIRMED in
allotherrespects.
Withcostsagainstdefendantsappellants.
SOORDERED.
JudgmentMODIFIED.
A motion for reconsideration of said decision was filed by the defendants appellants (petitioners) Dignos
spouses,butonDecember16,1981,aresolutionwasissuedbytheCourtofAppealsdenyingthemotionforlack
ofmerit.
Hence,thispetition.
In the resolution of February 10, 1982, the Second Division of this Court denied the petition for lack of merit.A
motionforreconsiderationofsaidresolutionwasfiledonMarch16,1982.IntheresolutiondatedApril26,1982,
respondentswererequiredtocommentthereon,whichcommentwasfiledonMay11,1982andareplythereto
wasfiledonJuly26,1982incompliancewiththeresolutionofJune16,1982.OnAugust9,1982,actingonthe
motionforreconsiderationandonallsubsequentpleadingsfiled,thisCourtresolvedtoreconsideritsresolutionof
February 10, 1982 and to give due course to the instant petition. On September 6, 1982, respondents filed a
rejoindertoreplyofpetitionerswhichwasnotedontheresolutionofSeptember20,1982.
Petitionersraisedthefollowingassignmentoferrors:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN GROSSLY, INCORRECTLY
INTERPRETING THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, EXHIBIT C, HOLDING IT AS AN ABSOLUTE SALE,
EFFECTIVETOTRANSFEROWNERSHIPOVERTHEPROPERTYINQUESTIONTOTHERESPONDENTAND
NOT MERELYA CONTRACTTO SELL OR PROMISETO SELLTHE COURTALSO ERRED IN MISAPPLYING
ARTICLE1371ASWARRANTINGREADINGOFTHEAGREEMENT,EXHIBITC,ASONEOFABSOLUTESALE,
DESPITETHECLARITYOFTHETERMSTHEREOFSHOWINGITISACONTRACTOFPROMISETOSELL.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN INCORRECTLY APPLYING AND OR IN
MISAPPLYINGARTICLE1592OFTHENEWCIVILCODEASWARRANTINGTHEERRONEOUSCONCLUSION
THAT THE NOTICE OF RESCISSION, EXHIBIT G, IS INEFFECTIVE SINCE IT HAS NOT BEEN JUDICIALLY
DEMANDEDNORISITANOTARIALACT.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN REJECTING THE APPLICABILITY OF
ARTICLES 2208,2217 and 2219 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE AND ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE AS TO
WARRANTTHEAWARDOFDAMAGESANDATTORNEY'SFEESTOPETITIONERS.
IV
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, HE HAVING
COMETOCOURTWITHUNCLEANHANDS.
V
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/feb1988/gr_l_59266_1988.html

2/4

7/19/2016

G.R.No.L59266

BYAND LARGE, THE COURT OFAPPEALS COMMITTEDAN ERROR INAFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION
THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DUE TO GRAVE MISINTERPRETATION, MISAPPLICATION AND
MISAPPREHENSION OF THE TERMS OF THE QUESTIONED CONTRACT AND THE LAW APPLICABLE
THERETO.
Theforegoingassignmentoferrorsmaybesynthesizedintotwomainissues,towit:
I.WhetherornotsubjectcontractisadeedofabsolutesaleoracontractLotsell.
II.Whetherornottherewasavalidrescissionthereof.
Thereisnomeritinthispetition.
It is significant to note that this petition was denied by the Second Division of this Court in its Resolution dated
February 1 0, 1 982 for lack of merit, but on motion for reconsideration and on the basis of all subsequent
pleadingsfiled,thepetitionwasgivenduecourse.
I.
Thecontractinquestion(ExhibitC)isaDeedofSale,withthefollowingconditions:
1.ThatAtilanoG..JabilistopaytheamountofTwelveThousandPesosP12,000.00)Phil.Philippine
Currencyasadvancepayment
2.ThatAtilanoG.JabilistoassumethebalanceofTwelveThousandPesos(P12,000.00)Loanfrom
theFirstInsularBankofCebu
3.ThatAtilanoG.JabilistopaythesaidspousesthebalanceofFour.ThousandPesos(P4,000.00)
onorbeforeSeptember15,1965
4. That the said spouses agrees to defend the saidAtilano G. Jabil from other claims on the said
property
5.ThatthespousesagreestosignafinaldeedofabsolutesaleinfavorofAtilanoG.Jabiloverthe
abovementioned property upon the payment of the balance of Four Thousand Pesos. (Original
Record,pp.1011)
Intheirmotionforreconsideration,petitionersreiteratedtheircontentionthattheDeedofSale(Exhibit"C")isa
merecontracttosellandnotanabsolutesalethatthesameissubjecttotwo(2)positivesuspensiveconditions,
namely: the payment of the balance of P4,000.00 on or before September 15,1965 and the immediate
assumptionofthemortgageofP12,000.00withtheFirstInsularBankofCebu.Itisfurthercontendedthatinsaid
contract,titleorownershipoverthepropertywasexpresslyreservedinthevendor,theDignosspousesuntilthe
suspensiveconditionoffullandpunctualpaymentofthebalanceofthepurchasepriceshallhavebeenmet.So
thatthereisnoactualsaleuntilfullpaymentismade(Rollo,pp.5152).
InbolsteringtheircontentionthatExhibit"C"ismerelyacontracttosell,petitionersaverthatthereisabsolutely
nothinginExhibit"C"thatindicatesthatthevendorstherebysell,conveyortransfertheirownershiptothealleged
vendee. Petitioners insist that Exhibit "C" (or 6) is a private instrument and the absence of a formal deed of
conveyance is a very strong indication that the parties did not intend "transfer of ownership and title but only a
transferafterfullpayment"(Rollo,p.52).Moreover,petitionersanchoredtheircontentionontheverytermsand
conditionsofthecontract,moreparticularlyparagraphfourwhichreads,"thatsaidspouseshasagreedtosellthe
hereinmentionedpropertytoAtilanoG.Jabil..."andconditionnumberfivewhichreads,"thatthespousesagrees
to sign a final deed of absolute sale over the mentioned property upon the payment of the balance of four
thousandpesos."
Suchcontentionisuntenable.
Byandlarge,theissuesinthiscasehavealreadybeensettledbythisCourtinanalogouscases.
Thus,ithasbeenheldthatadeedofsaleisabsoluteinnaturealthoughdenominatedasa"DeedofConditional
Sale" where nowhere in the contract in question is a proviso or stipulation to the effect that title to the property
soldisreservedinthevendoruntilfullpaymentofthepurchaseprice,noristhereastipulationgivingthevendor
the right to unilaterally rescind the contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed periodTaguba v.
Vda.deLeon,132SCRA722LuzonBrokerageCo.,Inc.v.MaritimeBuildingCo.,Inc.,86SCRA305).
Acarefulexaminationofthecontractshowsthatthereisnosuchstipulationreservingthetitleofthepropertyon
thevendorsnordoesitgivethemtherighttounilaterallyrescindthecontractuponnonpaymentofthebalance
thereofwithinafixedperiod.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/feb1988/gr_l_59266_1988.html

3/4

7/19/2016

G.R.No.L59266

Onthecontrary,alltheelementsofavalidcontractofsaleunderArticle1458oftheCivilCode,arepresent,such
as: (1) consent or meeting of the minds (2) determinate subject matter and (3) price certain in money or its
equivalent. In addition,Article 1477 of the same Code provides that "The ownership of the thing sold shall be
transferredtothevendeeuponactualorconstructivedeliverythereof."AsappliedinthecaseofFroilanv.Pan
OrientalShippingCo.,etal.(12SCRA276),thisCourtheldthatintheabsenceofstipulationtothecontrary,the
ownershipofthethingsoldpassestothevendeeuponactualorconstructivedeliverythereof.
Whileitmaybeconcededthattherewasnoconstructivedeliveryofthelandsoldinthecaseatbar,assubject
DeedofSaleisaprivateinstrument,itisbeyondquestionthattherewasactualdeliverythereof.Asfoundbythe
trialcourt,theDignosspousesdeliveredthepossessionofthelandinquestiontoJabilasearlyasMarch27,1965
so that the latter constructed thereon Sally's Beach Resort also known as Jabil's Beach Resort in March, 1965
MactanWhiteBeachResortonJanuary15,1966andBevirlyn'sBeachResortonSeptember1,1965.Suchfacts
wereadmittedbypetitionerspouses(Decision,CivilCaseNo.23LRecordonAppeal,p.108).
Moreover, the Court of Appeals in its resolution dated December 16,1981 found that the acts of petitioners,
contemporaneouswiththecontract,clearlyshowthatanabsolutedeedofsalewasintendedbythepartiesand
notacontracttosell.
Bethatasitmay,itisevidentthatwhenpetitionerssoldsaidlandtotheCabigasspouses,theywerenolonger
ownersofthesameandthesaleisnullandvoid.
II.
PetitionersclaimthatwhentheysoldthelandtotheCabigasspouses,thecontractofsalewasalreadyrescinded.
ApplyingtherationaleofthecaseofTagubav.Vda.deLeon(supra)whichisonallfourswiththecaseatbar,the
contract of sale being absolute in nature is governed by Article 1592 of the Civil Code. It is undisputed that
petitioners never notified private respondents Jabil by notarial act that they were rescinding the contract, and
neitherdidtheyfileasuitincourttorescindthesale.ThemostthattheywereabletoshowisaletterofCipriano
Amistad who, claiming to be an emissary of Jabil, informed the Dignos spouses not to go to the house of Jabil
because the latter had no money and further advised petitioners to sell the land in litigation to another party
(Record onAppeal, p. 23).As correctly found by the Court ofAppeals, there is no showing thatAmistad was
properlyauthorizedbyJabiltomakesuchextrajudicialrescissionforthelatterwho,onthecontrary,vigorously
deniedhavingsentAmistadtotellpetitionersthathewasalreadywaivinghisrightstothelandinquestion.Under
Article1358oftheCivilCode,itisrequiredthatactsandcontractswhichhavefortheirobjecttheextinguishment
ofrealrightsoverimmovablepropertymustappearinapublicdocument.
PetitionerslaidconsiderableemphasisonthefactthatprivaterespondentJabilhadnomoneyonthestipulated
dateofpaymentonSeptember15,1965andwasabletoraisethenecessaryamountonlybymidOctober1965.
Ithasbeenruled,however,that"wheretimeisnotoftheessenceoftheagreement,aslightdelayonthepartof
one party in the performance of his obligation is not a sufficient ground for the rescission of the agreement"
(Tagubav.Vda.deLeon,supra).ConsideringthatprivaterespondenthasonlyabalanceofP4,000.00andwas
delayedinpaymentonlyforonemonth,equityandjusticemandateasintheaforecitedcasethatJabilbegiven
anadditionalperiodwithinwhichtocompletepaymentofthepurchaseprice.
WHEREFORE, the petition filed is hereby Dismissed for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the Court of
AppealsisAffirmedintoto.
SOORDERED.
Fernan(Chairman),Gutierrez,Jr.,FelicianoandCortes,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
*PennedbyJusticeEliasB.AsuncionandconcurredbyJusticesPorfirioV.SisonandVicenteV.
Mendoza.
**PennedbyJudgeRamonE.Nazareno.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/feb1988/gr_l_59266_1988.html

4/4