26 Cabrera vs. Ysaac
G.R. No. 166790 | November 19 2014
Leonen, J. | Digest by: Lopez, A.
Topic: Art. 484 - 501 – Co-Ownership
Doctrine: Prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common property
requires the consent of all co-owners because it operates to partition the land
with respect to the co-owner selling his or her share.
Facts:
1. Heirs of Luis and Matilde Ysaac co-owned a 5,517-square-meter
parcel of land in Naga. One of the heirs was respondent Henry
Ysaac.
2. One of the portions of the land was leased out to Juan Cabrera.
When Henry needed money, he offered to sell a parcel of land, a
portion of which was leased by Henry to the Borbe and Espiritu
family.
3. They settled on a price, but Cabrera only paid Php 1,500 and the
balance will be paid after Cabrera’s retirement. Henry agreed. When
Cabrera was informed that the Borbe and Espiritu family was not
interested anymore to purchase the property, Cabrera paid another
Phpp 6,100 as he agreed to reimburse both families’ initial deposit.
4. Cabrera offered to already pay the balance, but since Henry was in
the US, he paid to the wife; but the wife of Henry refused. After
almost a year, Henry offered a smaller portion of the property since
one part was going to be a barangay walkwat, and another part had
a family that was difficult to eject. Cabrera agreed. (This was done
verbally only, with no documentation)
5. Since Henry was in Manila, Cabrera tried to pay to Henry’s wife, but
she refused..
6. Subsequently, Henry;s counsel informed Cabrera’s counsel that
Henry wanted to rescind the contract of sale for failure of Cabrera to
pay the balance. The money already paid by Cabrera was to be
applied to overdue rent. Henry also stated that he could no longer
sell the property as it was Franklin Ysaac who was the new
administrator.
7. Hence, Cabrera filed a case for specific performance for the
execution of a deed of sale and transfer of title, while tendering the
balance of the payment.
8. Henry prayed for the dismissal of the case, and a counterclaim for
damages.
9. RTC dismissed the complaint of Cabrera and Henry’s counterclaim.
CA affirmed, stating that there was a perfected contract of sale. CA
held that even if the subject of the sale is part of Henry’s undivided
property, a co-owner may sell a definite portion of the property. CA
ordered Henry to return the payments made by Cabrera.
10. Hence, this petition.
Issue: W/N there was a valid cocntarct of sale between Cabrera and Henry
Held: No! There was no valid contract.
1. A "contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of
minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the
price." The seller and buyer must agree as to the certain thing that
will be subject of the sale as well as the price in which the thing will
be sold. The thing to be sold is the object of the contract, while the
price is the cause or consideration. The object of a valid sales
contract must be owned by the seller. If the seller is not the owner,
the seller must be authorized by the owner to sell the object.
2. Specific rules attach when the seller co-owns the object of the
contract. Sale of a portion of the property is considered an alteration
of the thing owned in common. Under the Civil Code, such
disposition requires the unanimous consent of the other co-owners.
However, the rules also allow a co-owner to alienate his or her part
in the co-ownership. (So ano mag-govern? See next number)
3. These two rules are reconciled through jurisprudence. In the case of
Lopez vs. Ilustre, the SC held that if the alienation precedes the
partition, the co-owner cannot sell a definite portion of the land
without consent from his or her co-owners. He or she could
only sell the undivided interest of the co-owned property. If he is
the owner of an undivided half of a tract of land, he has a right to sell
and convey an undivided half, but he has no right to divide the lot
into two parts, and convey the whole of one part by metes and
bounds.
4. Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common
property requires the consent of all co-owners because it operates to
partition the land with respect to the co-owner selling his or her
share. The co-owner or seller is already marking which portion
should redound to his or her autonomous ownership upon future
partition.
5. The object of the sales contract between petitioner and respondent
was a definite portion of a co-owned parcel of land. At the time of the
alleged sale between petitioner and respondent, the entire property
was still held in common. Hence, Henry has "no right to sell or
 alienate a concrete, specific or determinate part of the thing owned in
common, because his right over the thing is represented by quota or
ideal portion without any physical adjudication."
6. There was no showing that respondent was authorized by his co-
owners to sell the portion of land occupied by Juan Cabrera, the
Espiritu family, or the Borbe family. Without the consent of his co-
owners, respondent could not sell a definite portion of the co-owned
property.
7. At best, the agreement between petitioner and respondent is a
contract to sell, not a contract of sale. A contract to sell is a promise
to sell an object, subject to suspensive conditions. Without the
fulfillment of these suspensive conditions, the sale does not operate
to determine the obligation of the seller to deliver the object.

Other Held:
1. Since there was no contract, such non-existence cannot be a source
of obligations and cannot be enforced by the courts. Since there was
no contract, there was nothing to rescind.
2. Petitioner argued that he was willing to comply with the suspensive
condition on the contract to sell because he was ready to pay the
balance of the purchase price on June 15, 1992. However, his
argument is unmeritorious. As ruled by the Regional Trial Court,
petitioner should have resorted to the various modes of consignment
when respondent’s wife refused to accept the payment on
respondent’s behalf.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.