HEIRS OF AMPARO DEL ROSARIO, plaintiffs-appellees, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. AURORA O. SANTOS, JOVITA SANTOS GONZALES, ARNULFO O. SANTOS, ARCHIMEDES O. SANTOS, ERMELINA SANTOS RAVIDA, and ANDRES O. SANTOS, JR., defendants-
appellants. G.R. No. L-46892 September 30, 1981 FACTS: Amparo Del Rosario entered into a contract with Atty. Andres Santos and his wife
Aurora Santos whereby the latter sold to the former a 20,000 sq. m. of land which is to be segregated from Lot 1. Said lot forms part of the several lots belonging to a certain Teofilo Custodio, of which lots, Attorney Santos, by agreement with the latter, as his attorney’s fees, owns ½ interests thereof. Parties agreed that spouses Andres shall thereafter execute a Deed of Confirmation of Sale in favor of Del Rosario as soon as the title has been released and the subdivision plan of said Lot 1 has been approved by the Land Registration Commissioner. Due to the failure of the spouses Andres to execute the deed after the fulfilment of the condition, Del Rosario claims malicious breach of a Deed of Sale. Defendant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss setting up the defenses of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the action lack of cause of action as well as the defense of prescription. They further alleged that the deed of sale was only an accommodation graciously extended, out of close friendship between the defendants and the plaintiff, hence, tantamount to waiver, abandonment or otherwise extinguishment of the demand set forth in the complaint. Finally, defendants alleged that the claim on which the action or suit is founded is unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that the cause or object of the contract did not exist at the time of the transaction. The lower court resolved to deny the motion to dismiss. After actions by respective parties, the lower court ordered the defendants to execute and convey to plaintiff the 200,000 sq. m. of land to be taken either from Lot 4 or from Lot 5-A 5-A of Custodio’s lots, which defendants own ½ interest thereof. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the defendants filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals which certified the records of the case to the Supreme Court for final determination. ISSUE: WON THE SALE IS VALID AS TO THE CAUSE OR OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT. HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the execution of the Deed of Sale is valid
notwithstanding the lack of any title to the lot by appellants at the time of execution of the Deed of Sale in favor of appellee as there can be a sale of an expected thing in accordance with Article 1461 of the NCC: “Article 1461: Things having a potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale. The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope of expectancy is deemed subject to the condition that the thing will come into existence. The sale of a vain hope or expectancy is void.” The case at bar is not a case of a vain hope or expectancy which is void under the law. The expectant right came into existence or materialized for the appellants actually derived titles from Lot 1which subsequently became the object of subdivision.
