FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 246382. July 14, 2021
SPOUSES BRENDA VALENZUELA AND ANACLETO1 VALENZUELA, Petitioner, v. JOSELITO, MARGARITO, JR., AND WILLIAM ALL SURNAMED CAPALA; MARIA LILY CAPALA FLORES, MARGARITA CABANA OLIVER AND SUSAN CAPALA MENDOZA, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARANDANG, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision3 dated June 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals Cebu City (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04363 which denied petitioners Spouses Brenda and Anacleto Valenzuela's (Spouses Valenzuela) appeal and the Resolution4 dated March 6, 2019 denying their' motion for reconsideration for want of merit.
1. Ordering the defendants (Spouses Valenzuela) to turn over and return the property, Lot No. 955-B-2, now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34880 registered in the name of TEODORICA C. CAPALA, in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City to the herein plaintiffs (respondents Capala);cralawlawlibraryIn their Answer with Counterclaim,12 Spouses Valenzuela countered that they have been in open, continuous and public possession of the property since the execution of the Contract to Buy on December 1, 1978, and long before the death of Teodorica. They averred that when Teodorica needed money in 1978, she sought the assistance of petitioner Brenda Valenzuela for the sale of the subject property to interested buyers. As the land has been the subject of litigation between Teodorica and Esmeralda T. Madjus, aside from the fact that the certificate of title thereof was in the name of one Pedro Codilla who mortgaged the land to a bank, no one was interested to buy the land. Badly in need of financial assistance, Teodorica offered to sell the property to petitioner Brenda Valenzuela for P35,000.00 with P10,000.00 to be paid as earnest money and credited as part of the purchase price, and the balance of P25,000.00 to be paid upon delivery of the TCT. Petitioner Brenda Valenzuela accepted the offer out of pity, considering that Teodorica's late husband was her relative. Thus, they executed the Contract to Buy notarized by Atty. Bruno A. Villamor, the lawyer of Teodorica in the civil case against Esmeralda T. Madjus. Petitioner Brenda Valenzuela paid the sum of P10,000.00 as earnest money and advance payment for the purchase of the land.13chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
2. Ordering the defendants to immediately vacate the premises of the lot in question;cralawlawlibrary
3. Condemning the defendants to pay jointly and solidarily to the plaintiffs, the following sums:
x x x x11cralawredlibrary
That the remaining balance of P25,000.00, shall be paid by the Party for the Second Part to the Party for the First Part, as soon as the Transfer Certificate of Title shall be delivered by the Party for the First Part to the Party for the Second Part, and when this is complied [with,] a Final Deed of Sale of this lot shall be executed by the Party for the First Part to the Party for the Second Part.15cralawredlibraryYears passed, Teodorica was unable to deliver the title. Instead she asked petitioner Brenda Valenzuela additional money to pay her loan obligations to the Rural Bank of Ormoc City, the education of her children and her family's daily subsistence. Spouses Valenzuela paid P17,500.00 to the Rural Bank of Ormoc City, and gave to Teodorica the sum of P10,000.00 for the education of the latter's children. It was then understood that these additional amounts were to be credited to Spouses Valenzuela's unpaid balance of the purchase price of the land. For Spouses Valenzuela, they have fully paid the purchase price and what remains is the delivery of the title to them and the execution of the Final Deed of Sale in their favor.16chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) Declaring the defendants (Spouses Valenzuela) the owners of the land in question;cralawlawlibraryDuring the pre-trial on November 29, 1999, the parties admitted to, among others, the following stipulation:
(b) Ordering the plaintiffs (respondents Capala) to deliver to the defendants Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34880 and to execute in favor of the latter a Final Deed of Sale over the land in question;cralawlawlibrary
(c) Granting the defendants' counterclaim fully as alleged herein.18cralawredlibrary
4. The existence of the execution of the Contract to Buy between the late Teodorica Capala and the defendant Brenda Valenzuela executed on December 1, 1978 as notarized by Notary Public Bruno Villamor.19cralawredlibraryOn March 13, 2000, respondents Capala filed, upon motion for leave, an Amended Complaint20 to emphasize that their principal cause of action was to declare the Contract to Buy null and void, Teodorica's signature therein being forged. They alleged that the signature appearing on top of the name of Teodorica could not be hers as it materially differs from the signature of the late Teodorica as appearing on the other documents retrieved by respondents Capala and bearing the signature of the deceased.21 They prayed that after due hearing, judgment be rendered;
1. Declaring the CONTRACT TO BUY allegedly executed by the late teodorica Capala in favor of the defendants dated December 1, 1978 (Annex "C", Complaint) as null and void and without any legal effect whatsoever;Respondents Capala, likewise, filed a motion to correct the pre-trial admission, asserting that the above-quoted admission made by their former counsel during the pre-trial was due to palpable mistake which they have the right to correct.23chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
2. Ordering the defendants (Spouses Valenzuela) to turn over the possession of Lot No. 955-B-2, now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34880 registered in the name of TEODORICA C. CAPALA, in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City to the herein plaintiffs (respondents Capala);cralawlawlibrary
3. Condemning the defendants to pay jointly and solidarily to the plaintiffs, the following sums:
x x x x22 (Underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered ordering that:The RTC gave credence to the testimony of Varona that the signature of Teodorica appearing in the Contract to Buy is not hers. The RTC also made its own comparison of the questioned signatures and the standard signatures, taking into consideration the several inconspicuous differences noted by Varona on the questioned and standard signatures and found that the questioned signature showed substantial differences with that of the standard signatures of Teodorica. The conclusion that the said signature on the Contract to Buy is a forgery is strengthened by the fact that Spouses Valenzuela offered to buy the subject property from respondents Capala during the barangay conciliation. There would be no reason to buy the said land if Teodorica indeed signed in the contract. The RTC also ruled that laches had already set in against Spouses Valenzuela.31chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. The CONTRACT TO BUY allegedly executed by the late Teodorica Capala in favor of defendants dated December 1, 1978 as null and void and without any effect whatsoever;cralawlawlibrary
2. The defendants are hereby directed to turn over the possession of Lot No. 955-B-2 now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 34880 registered in the name of Teodorica Capala in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Ormoc City to herein plaintiffs;SO ORDERED.30 (Emphasis in the original)
- 3. The DEFENDANTS are also hereby ordered to pay to the PLAINTIFFS the following:
- a) The amount of TWO HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (Php240,000.00) to compensate for the plaintiffs loss of income over the lot in question because of the illegal and unlawful occupancy of the defendants of the same;cralawlawlibrary
b) The amount of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000.00) as MORAL DAMAGES to the six (6) plaintiffs;
c) The amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php100,000.00) as Attorney's fees,
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 4 January 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, of Ormoc City in Civil Case No. 3714-0 is AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATIONS that:While the CA declared the Contract to Buy valid, it affirmed the RTC's directive to turn over the possession of the subject property to respondents Capala in view of Spouses Valenzuela's failure to prove their right to remain therein.35chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) The Contract to Buy dated 1 December 1978 is declared valid; and
(2) The awards of actual and moral damages are deleted, in lieu of which, nominal damages are awarded in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP100,000.00).
SO ORDERED.34 (Emphasis and italics in the original)
I. The Honorable Court of Appeals committed an error of law in holding that "defendants-appellants' claims are precluded by laches; but not those of plaintiffs-appellees".41chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryII. The Honorable Court of Appeals, with due respect, erred in imposing nominal damages and attorney's fees upon the defendants-appellants.42cralawredlibrary
The authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, shades, etc., that may be found between the questioned signature and the genuine one are not decisive on the question of the former's authenticity. The result of examinations of questioned handwriting, even with the benefit of aid of experts and scientific instruments, is, at best, inconclusive. There are other factors that must be taken into consideration. The position of the writer, the condition of the surface on which the paper where the questioned signature is written is placed, his state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind of pen and/or paper used, play an important role on the general appearance of the signature. Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, of direct or circumstantial competent evidence on the character of a questioned handwriting, much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between that questioned handwriting and an authentic one.49cralawredlibraryAfter a careful and thorough examination of the records of the case, this Court affirms the findings of the CA that Teodorica's signature in the Contract to Buy is genuine. The CA found that, after a visual examination of the sample signatures of Teodorica and her signature in the Contract to Buy, there is a striking resemblance and no distinguishing difference. While there may be slight dissimilarities, these appear to be natural and inevitable variations that may be expected even in genuine signatures made by one and the same person.
That the Party for the First Part desires to sell said parcel of land aforementioned to the Party for the Second Part for a valuable sum of Thirty Five Thousand Pesos (P35,000.00), Philippine Currency, and a token money or partial amount of which has been acknowledged in this document the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), has been paid by the Party for the Second Part;cralawlawlibraryIt can be gleaned from the provisions of the contract that Spouses Valenzuela have the obligation to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price as soon as the Transfer Certificate of Title shall have been delivered by Teodorica. As testified by petitioner Brenda Valenzuela, at the time of the execution of the Contract to Buy, the title to the subject property was still in the name of Pedro Codilla.62 No one was interested to buy the property because of the pending litigation involving the subject property.63 Hence, the above condition was imposed, i.e., that the payment of the remaining balance of P25,000.00 would be paid by petitioner Brenda Valenzuela upon delivery of the title.
That the Party for the Second Part is to buy the land belonging to the Party for the First Part and hereby paid the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to the Party for the First Part, as token money or earnest money acknowledged to have been received in full by the Party for the First Part;cralawlawlibrary
That the remaining balance of P25,000.00, shall be paid by the Party for the Second Part to the Party for the First Part, as soon as the Transfer Certificate of Title shall be delivered by the Party for the First Part to the Party for the Second Part, and when this is complied a Final Deed of Sale of this lot shall be executed by the Party for the First Part to the Party for the Second Part.61 (Emphasis supplied)
To determine the admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise, the circumstances of the case and the intent of the party making the offer should be considered. Thus, if a party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such indebtedness x x x. Indeed, an offer of settlement is an effective admission of a borrower's loan balance x x x.72 (Emphasis supplied)Applying the foregoing to this case, Spouses Valenzuela's assertion that they had fully paid the purchase price yet offered to give the monthly rentals of LG Gas to respondents Capala is not an admission of liability. It is not an admission that they have not fully paid the purchase price.
Endnotes:
1 Deceased.
2 Rollo, pp. 14-41.
3 Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap; id. at 102-119.
4 Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz; id. at 129-130.
5 Id. at 45-52.
6 Id. at 75-76.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 47-48.
9 Id. at 80.
10 Id. at 48-50.
11 Id. at 51.
12 Id. at 83-88.
13 Id. at 83-85, 91.
14 Id. at 85-86, 91.
15 Id. at 86.
16 Id. at 85-86, 92.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 87.
19 Id. at 105.
20 Records, pp. 253-259.
21 Id. at 256-257.
22 Id. at 258-259.
23 Id. at 291-292.
24 Id. at 310-311.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 313-319.
27 Rollo, p. 94.
28 Id. at 96-97.
29 Penned by Presiding Judge Apolinario M. Buaya; id. at 90-100.
30 Id. at 99-100.
31 Id. at 98-99.
32 Records, pp. 1368-1369.
33 Supra note 3.
34 Rollo, p. 118.
35 Id. at 109-112.
36 Id. at 112-113.
37 Id. at 113-114.
38 Id. at 114-118.
39 Id. at 120-126.
40 Supra note 4.
41 Rollo, p. 33.
42 Id. at 39.
43 Id. at 36-39.
44 Id. at 40.
45 Sps. Tumibay v. Sps. Lopez, 710 Phil. 19, 28 (2013).
46 Heirs of Donton v. Stier, 817 Phil. 165, 179 (2017).
47 Id.
48 750 Phil. 846 (2015).
49 Id. at 856, citing Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United Presbyterian Church, USA, 432 Phil. 895, 908-909 (2002).
50 Lamsen v. People, 821 Phil. 651, 662 (2017).
51 TSN dated September 15, 2000, p. 15.
52 TSN dated September 21, 2001, p. 14.
53 Id. at 15.
54 Id. at 16.
55 Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 267 (2017).
56 TSN dated July 17, 2003, pp. 5-6.
57 TSN dated September 15, 2000, pp. 4-5.
58 Naranja v. Court of Appeals, 603 Phil. 779, 790 (2009).
59 TSN dated September 15, 2000, pp. 4-5.
60 TSN dated July 13, 2000, pp. 67-68.
61 Rollo, p. 80.
62 TSN dated June 16, 2006, p. 6.
63 Id.
64 Civil Case No. 1466-0 filed at the Court of First Instance of Leyte, Branch V.
65 TSN dated August 19, 2008, p. 11.
66 TSN dated June 16, 2006, p. 16.
67 Republic v. Sundiam, G.R. No. 236381, August 27, 2020.
68 Id., citing Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 96 Phil. 622, 637 (1955).
69 TSN dated March 16, 2001, p. 6.
70 Section 27, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules on Evidence.
71 305 Phil. 534 (1994).
72 Id. at 544-545.
73 Diego v. Diego, 704 Phil. 373, 388 (2013), citing Chua v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 25, 42 (2003).
74 Id., citing Heirs of Cayetano v. Spouses Perreras, 613 Phil. 615, 625 (2009).
75 TSN dated June 16, 2006, p. 29.
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur in the result. The Contract to Buy is valid and respondents are bound to execute a Final Deed of Sale and to deliver Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 34880 upon receipt of the unpaid amount of the purchase price.1 I dissent, however, as regards (1) the discussion on the superseded judicial admission and (2) the characterization of the Contract to Buy as a contract to sell.
A judicial admission does not lose effect simply because a party amends his or her complaint |
Preliminarily, the Court will discuss the effect of the stipulation made by the parties during the pre-trial, specifically the admission as to the existence of the execution of the Contract to Buy between Teodorica and Brenda Valenzuela. In the original complaint filed by respondents Capala, they claim that Spouses Valenzuela should now turn over the subject property to them considering the death of Teodorica which extinguished the alleged Contract to Buy, terminating whatever rights and obligations created between the contracting parties. In the amended complaint, respondents Capala changed their principal cause of action to nullity of the Contract to Buy on the basis of forgery, asserting that Teodorica's signature therein was forged. The contract being a nullity, Spouses Valenzuela should now turn over the possession to respondents Capala.I disagree. The facts indicate that respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership, claiming that the subject property was owned by their mother, Teodorica Capala (Teodorica), but that the same was in the possession of petitioners who had no right over the same.3 On the other hand, petitioners claimed that the subject property was sold to them by Teodorica by virtue of a Contract to Buy dated December 1, 1978. As such, it was incumbent upon her heirs to deliver the TCT and to execute a Final Deed of Sale in their favor.4 During pre-trial, respondents admitted the following stipulation:
It should be noted that the pre-trial was conducted prior to the amendment of the complaint. When the motion for leave to amend complaint was granted by the RTC, no other pre-trial was conducted. The Court disagrees with the CA that the admission as [to] the existence and due execution of the Contract to Buy stands. When respondents Capala changed their cause of action in their amended complaint to forgery, said admission no longer applies in their favor considering that it contradicts their claim as to the due execution and genuineness of the contract. Thus, said admission was vacated upon the [amendment] of the complaint.2cralawredlibrary
4. The existence of the execution of the Contract to Buy between the late Teodorica Capala and the defendant Brenda Valenzuela executed on December 1, 1978 as notarized by Notary Public Bruno Villamor.5cralawredlibraryLater, respondents sought: (1) to amend their complaint to emphasize that their principal cause of action was to declare the Contract to Buy null and void and (2) to correct their pre-trial admission.6chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Nothing in the records would show that [respondents'] former counsel, Atty. Benjamin Tugonon, who they blame for the purported improvident admission, unintentionally agreed to the subject stipulation. Further negating the alluded mistake is the circumstance that the supposed erroneous admission is not at variance, but is rather consistent, with [respondents'] theory expressed in their Complaint, Reply and Pre-Trial Brief that said Contract does exist but has been concealed from them, and that it has been extinguished by Teodorica's death, thereby conceding the prior existence and due execution thereof.8cralawredlibraryBased on the foregoing, I agree with the CA that the judicial admission stands. Section 4, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court expressly states that "[a]n admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made."9chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
A contract should not be considered as one "to sell" simply because the seller is obliged to execute a Final Deed upon full payment of the price |
That the Party for the First Part desires to sell said parcel of land aforementioned to the Party for the Second Part for a valuable sum of Thirty[-]Five Thousand Pesos (P35,000.00), Philippine Currency, and a token money or partial amount of which has been acknowledged in this document the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), has been paid by the Party [f]or the Second Part;cralawlawlibraryI am aware that there are cases that hold that "[w]here the vendor promises to execute a deed of absolute sale upon the completion by the vendee of the payment of the price, the contract is only a contract to sell"13 and that "[t]he need to execute a deed of absolute sale upon completion of payment of the price generally indicates that it is a contract to sell, as it implies the reservation of title in the vendor until the vendee has completed the payment of the price."14chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That the Party for the Second Part is to buy the land belonging to the Party for the First Part and hereby paid the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to the Party for the First Part, as token money or earnest money acknowledged to have been received in full by the Party for the First Part;cralawlawlibrary
That the remaining balance of P25,000.00, shall be paid by the Party for the Second Part to the Party for the First Part, as soon as the Transfer Certificate of Title shall be delivered by the Party for the First Part to the Party for the Second Part, and when this is complied [with,] a Final Deed of Sale of this lot shall be executed by the Party for the First Part to the Party for the Second Part.12 (Emphasis supplied)
A contract of sale is consensual in nature, and is perfected upon the concurrence of its essential requisites, thus:Evidently, a contract of sale is perfected by mere consent. The execution of a deed is only necessary for (1) enforceability under Article 140317 of the Civil Code, (2) convenience under Article 135818 of the same law, and (3) eventual registration with the Land Registration Authority under Presidential Decree No. 1529.19chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe essential requisites of a contract under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code are: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which is established. Thus, contracts, other than real contracts are perfected by mere consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract. Once perfected, they bind other contracting parties and the obligations arising therefrom have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith. The parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
Being a consensual contract, 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. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. A perfected contract of sale imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties whereby the vendor obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing to the buyer who, in turn, is obligated to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. Failure of either party to comply with his [or her] obligation entitles the other to rescission as the power to rescind is implied in reciprocal obligations. x x x16 (Emphasis supplied)
Sale, being a consensual contract, is perfected by mere consent and from that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand performance. The essential elements of a contract of sale, to wit: (1) consent or meeting of the minds, that is, to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) cause of the obligation which is established.In view of the foregoing principles, I disagree with the doctrine that an undertaking to execute a final deed upon full payment of the price necessarily means that the parties entered into a contract to sell and that no contract of sale yet exists.
The perfection of a contract of sale should not, however, be confused with its consummation. In relation to the acquisition and transfer of ownership, it should be noted that sale is not a mode, but merely a title. A mode is the legal means by which dominion or ownership is created, transferred or destroyed, but title is only the legal basis by which to affect dominion or ownership. Under Article 712 of the Civil Code, "ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition." Contracts only constitute titles or rights to the transfer or acquisition of ownership, while delivery or tradition is the mode of accomplishing the same. Therefore, sale by itself does not transfer or affect ownership; the most that sale does is to create the obligation to transfer ownership. It is tradition or delivery, as a consequence of sale, that actually transfers ownership.
Explicitly, the law provides that the ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him [or her] in any of the ways specified in Article 1497 to 1501. The word "delivered" should not be taken restrictively to mean transfer of actual physical possession of the property. The law recognizes two principal modes of delivery, to wit: (1) actual delivery; and (2) legal or constructive delivery.
Actual delivery consists in placing the thing sold in the control and possession of the vendee. Legal or constructive delivery, on the other hand, may be had through any of the following ways: the execution of a public instrument evidencing the sale; symbolical tradition such as the delivery of the keys of the place where the movable sold is being kept; traditio longa manu or by mere consent or agreement if the movable sold cannot yet be transferred to the possession of the buyer at the time of the sale; traditio brevi manu if the buyer already had possession of the object even before the sale; and traditio constitutum possessorium, where the seller remains in possession of the property in a different capacity.23 (Emphasis supplied; italics in the original)
Endnotes:
1 Ponencia, p. 17.
2 Id. at 10-11.
3 Id. at 2.
4 Id. at 3-4.
5 Id. at 4.
6 See id. at 4-5
7 Rollo, p. 28.
8 Id. at 110.
9 Emphasis supplied.
10 Supra note 7.
11 See ponencia, p. 17.
12 Rollo, p. 80.
13 Nabus v. Spouses Pacson, 620 Phil. 344, 363, citing Ver Reyes v. Salvador, Sr., G.R. Nos. 139047 & 139365, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 456, 479-480.
14 Ponencia, p. 17. Citations omitted.
15 838 Phil. 935 (2018).
16 Id. at 945-946. Citations omitted.
17 ART. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers;
(2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases, an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable by action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:
- (a) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof;
(b) A special promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another;
(c) An agreement made in consideration of marriage, other than a mutual promise to marry;
(d) An agreement for the sale of goods, chattels or things in action, at a price not less than five hundred pesos, unless the buyer accept and receive part of such goods and chattels, or the evidences, or some of them, of such things in action or pay at the time some part of the purchase money; but when a sale is made by auction and entry is made by the auctioneer in his sales book, at the time of the sale, of the amount and kind of property sold, terms of sale, price, names of the purchasers and person on whose account the sale is made, it is a sufficient memorandum;
(e) An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein;
(f) A representation as to the credit of a third person.
(3) Those where both parties are incapable of giving consent to a contract.
18 ART. 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405;
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary rights or of those of the conjugal partnership of gains;
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power which has for its object an act appearing or which should appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third person;
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act appearing in a public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five hundred pesos must appear in writing, even a private one. But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405.
19 AMENDING AND CODIFYING THE LAWS RELATIVE TO REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, otherwise known as the "PROPERTY REGISTRATION DECREE," June 11, 1978. Section 112 states:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarySEC. 112. Forms in conveyancing. – The Commissioner of Land Registration shall prepare convenient blank forms as may be necessary to help facilitate the proceedings in land registration and shall take charge of the printing of land title forms.20 ART. 1498. When the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred.
Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney and other voluntary instruments, whether affecting registered or unregistered land, executed in accordance with law in the form of public instruments shall be registrable: Provided, that, every such instrument shall be signed by the person or persons executing the same in the presence of at least two witnesses who shall likewise sign thereon, and shall be acknowledged to be the free act and deed of the person or persons executing the same before a notary public or other public officer authorized by law to take acknowledgment. Where the instrument so acknowledged consists of two or more pages including the page whereon acknowledgment is written, each page of the copy which is to be registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, or if registration is not contemplated, each page of the copy to be kept by the notary public, except the page where the signatures already appear at the foot of the instrument, shall be signed on the left margin thereof by the person or persons executing the instrument and their witnesses, and all the pages sealed with the notarial seal, and this fact as well as the number of pages shall be stated in the acknowledgment. Where the instrument acknowledged relates to a sale, transfer, mortgage or encumbrance of two or more parcels of land, the number thereof shall likewise be set forth in said acknowledgment.
With regard to movable property, its delivery may also be made by the delivery of the keys of the place or depository where it is stored or kept.
21 Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Phil. Deposit Insurance Corp., 764 Phil. 488 (2015) explains:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryIt is well-established that a contract undergoes various stages that include its negotiation or preparation, its perfection, and finally, its consummation.22 490 Phil. 7 (2005).
Negotiation covers the period from the time the prospective contracting parties indicate interest in the contract to the time the contract is concluded (perfected). The perfection of the contract takes place upon the concurrence of its essential elements. A contract which is consensual as to perfection is so established upon a mere meeting of minds, i.e., the concurrence of offer and acceptance, on the object and on the cause or consideration. The consummation stage begins when the parties perform their respective undertakings under the contract, culminating in its extinguishment. (Emphasis and italics in the original) Id. at 503. Citations omitted.
23 Id. at 20-22. Citations omitted.
24 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1371 provides:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryART. 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered.25 See ponencia, p. 13.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Rollo, p. 37.
30 CIVIL CODE, Art. 1482 provides:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryART. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.31 Ponencia, p. 17.cralawredlibrary