*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 ½ 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 – 1984 – Donasco Donasco died. 7. He had paid P8,369 plus the 2,000 advance payment, leaving balance of P10,161 8. Lot remained remained in the possession of Donasco’s heirs 9. Donasco’s 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 Donasco’s heirs be ordered to vacate the premises and pay them reasonable compensation for use of land 13. Donasco’s 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 Donasco’s heirs to pay Pingols P350 as reasonable monthly rental for use of the the premises from filing of complaint; P10,000 attorney’s fee s 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 ½ portion by way of an absolute sale Failure to pay agreed price was not a ground for cancellation Donasco’s heirs’ action is imprescriptible since it is akin to an ACTION TO QUIET TITLE to property in one’s 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 Donasco’s 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 j udicial rescission had been made 2. Action for specific performance is in effect an ACTION TO QUIET TITLE, and Donasco’s 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 v indicate 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 ½ of lot coupled with their possession which entitles them to conveyance of the property
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 Donasco’s 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 e ntitled 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 o
-
Decision AFFIRMED. Donasco’s heirs are liable to pay legal rate of interest on unpaid alance from date of default or whe n the entire balance should have been paid DISPOSITIVE:
*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 P80 k, 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 latter’s 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. Portic’s claim is already barred by laches
RTC:
-
Ruled in favor of Sps. Portic Orders quieting of title or removal of cloud over Sps. Portic’s parcel of land and three-door apartment Orders Cristobal to reconvey parcel of land and three-door apartment after reimbursement
-
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
CA:
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 Cristobal’s 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. Portic’s cause of action is for quieting of title (YES) 2. WON Sps. Portic had personality to bring action for quieting of title 3. WON Cristobal’s 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. Portic’s cause of action has pre scribed 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
Registration does not vest, but merely se rves 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 Cristobal has no title over the property as title was expressly reserved by Sps. Portic in the Contract to Sell Yes, they have been in continuous possession (court didn’t explain why) Imprescriptible o
3. 4. 5.