MONTECILLO VS REYNES CASE 385 SCRA 244
Facts:
Respondents Ignacia Reynes (Reynes for brevity) and Spouses Abucay (Abucay Spouses for brevity) led on June 20, 1!" a co#plaint for $eclaration of %ullity and &uieting of 'itle against petitioner Rido ontecillo (ontecillo for brevity) Reynes asserted asserted t*at s*e is t*e o+ner of a lot situated in abolo, ebu ity, covered by 'ransfer erticate of 'itle %o -"1. and containing an area of ""! s/uare #eters (abolo ot for brevity) In 1!1, Reynes sold 1! s/uare #eters of t*e abolo ot to t*e Abucay Spouses +*o built a residential *ouse on t*e lot t*ey boug*t Reynes alleged furt*er t*at on arc* 1, 1!" s*e signed a $eed of Sale of t*e abolo ot in favor of ontecillo (ontecillos $eed of Sale for brevity) Reynes, being illiterate,.3 signed by a45ing *er t*u#b6#ar7-3 on t*e docu#ent ontecillo pro#ised to pay t*e agreed 8"-,00000 purc*ase price +it*in one #ont* fro# t*e signing of t*e $eed of Sale Reynes and t*e Abucay Spouses alleged t*at on June 1!, 1!" t*ey received infor#ation t*at t*e Register of $eeds of ebu ity issued erticate of 'itle %o 0!0 in t*e na#e of ontecillo for t*e abolo ot Reynes and t*e Abucay Spouses argued t*at for lac7 of consideration t*ere (+as) no #eeting of t*e #inds113 bet+een Reynes and ontecillo '*us, t*e trial court s*ould declare null and void ab initio ontecillos $eed of Sale, and order t*e cancellation of erticate of 'itle %o 0!0 in t*e na#e of ontecillo ontecillo In *is Ans+er, ontecillo, a ban7 e5ecutive +it* a 9S o##erce degree,123 clai#ed *e +as a buyer in good fait* and *ad actually paid t*e 8"-,00000 consideration stated in *is $eed of Sale ontecillo, *o+ever, ad#itted *e still o+ed Reynes a balance of 810,00000 :e also alleged t*at *e paid 80,00000 for t*e release of t*e c*attel #ortgage +*ic* *e argued constituted a lien on t*e abolo ot :e furt*er alleged t*at *e paid for t*e real property ta5 as +ell as t*e capital gains ta5 on t*e sale of t*e abolo ot In t*eir Reply, Reynes and t*e Abucay Spouses contended t*at ontecillo did not *ave aut*ority to disc*arge t*e c*attel #ortgage, especially after Reynes revo7ed ontecillos $eed of Sale and gave t*e #ortgagee a copy of t*e docu#ent of revocation Reynes and t*e Abucay Spouses clai#ed t*at ontecillo secured t*e release of t*e c*attel #ortgage t*roug* #ac*ination '*ey furt*er asserted t*at ontecillo too7 advantage of t*e real property ta5es paid by t*e Abucay Spouses and surreptitiously caused t*e transfer of t*e title to t*e abolo ot in *is na#e $uring pre6trial, pre6trial, ontecillo clai#ed t*at t*e consideration for t*e sale of t*e abolo ot +as t*e a#ount *e paid to ebu Ice and old Storage orporation (ebu Ice Storage for brevity) for t*e #ortgage debt of 9ienvenido Jayag (Jayag for brevity) ontecillo argued t*at t*e release of t*e #ortgage +as necessary since t*e #ortgage constituted a lien on t*e abolo ot Reynes, *o+ever, stated t*at s*e *ad not*ing to do +it* Jayags #ortgage debt e5cept t*at t*e *ouse #ortgaged by Jayag stood on a portion of t*e abolo ot Reynes furt*er stated t*at t*e pay#ent by ontecillo to release t*e #ortgage on Jayags *ouse is a #atter bet+een ontecillo and Jayag '*e #ortgage on t*e *ouse, being a c*attel #ortgage, could not be interpreted in any +ay as an encu#brance on t*e abolo ot Reynes Reynes furt*er clai#ed t*at t*e #ortgage debt *ad
long prescribed since t*e 8"-,00000 #ortgage debt +as due for pay#ent on January ;0, 1.- Issues:
1
•
8lainti> Ignacia Reynes +as not a party to nor privy of t*e obligation in favor of t*e ebu Ice and old Storage orporation, t*e obligation being e5clusively of 9ienvenido Jayag and +ife +*o #ortgaged t*eir residential *ouse constructed on t*e land sub?ect #atter of t*e co#plaint '*e pay#ent by t*e defendant to release t*e residential *ouse fro# t*e #ortgage is a #atter bet+een *i# and Jayag and cannot by i#plication or deception be #ade to appear as an encu#brance upon t*e land @ne of t*e t*ree essential re/uisites of a valid contract is consent of t*e parties on t*e ob?ect and cause of t*e contract In a contract of sale, t*e parties #ust agree not only on t*e price, but also on t*e #anner of pay#ent of t*e price An agree#ent on t*e price but a disagree#ent on t*e #anner of its pay#ent +ill not result in consent, t*us preventing t*e e5istence of a valid contract for lac7 of consent '*is lac7 of consent is separate and distinct fro# lac7 of consideration +*ere t*e contract states t*at t*e price *as been paid +*en in fact it *as never been paid
Reynes e5pected ontecillo to pay *i# directly t*e 8"-,00000 purc*ase price +it*in one #ont* after t*e signing of t*e $eed of Sale @n t*e ot*er *and, ontecillo t*oug*t t*at *is agree#ent +it* Reynes re/uired *i# to pay t*e 8"-,00000 purc*ase price to ebu Ice Storage to settle Jayags #ortgage debt ontecillo also ac7no+ledged a balance of 810,00000 in favor of Reynes alt*oug* t*is a#ount is not stated in ontecillos $eed of Sale '*us, t*ere +as no consent, or #eeting of t*e #inds, bet+een Reynes and ontecillo on t*e #anner of pay#ent '*is prevented t*e e5istence of a valid contract because of lac7 of consent
