University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Kinds of Delivery; Real or Actual

Case Name Alfredo v Borras
Ponente J. Carpio

SUMMARY
RELEVANT FACTS
1. The Spouses Alfredo (Godofredo and Carmen) were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Bataan
measuring 81, 525 sq.m. This parcel of land (subject land) was issued to them under the law on
Homestead.
2. The couple mortgaged this parcel of land for 7,000 with the DBP. To pay such debt, they sold the subject
land to the Sps. Borras (Armando and Adelia) for 15,000, wherein the buyers will pay the DBP loan plus
interest and the balance to be paid in cash to the Spouses Alfredo.
3. The Sps. Borras gave the Sps. Alfredo the money to pay the debt in DBP which in turn signed the release
of mortgage and returned the owner’s duplicate cipy of the OCT to Sps. Alfredo. The Sps. Borras also
paid the balance to the Sps. Aldredo. Which issued a receipt dated March 11, 1970.
4. Sps. Alfredo then delivered to Adelia Borras the duplicate copy of the OCT with the document of
cancellation of mortgage, official receipts of realty tax payments and tax declaration all in the name of
Godofredo Alfredo.
5. The Spouses Alfredo also introduced the Sps. Borras as the new owners the subject land and
subsequently, they took possession of such land.
6. In 1994, the Sps. Borras learned that there were hired persons who had entered the subject land and
were cutting down the trees under the instructions of the new owners. It was after this when they learned
that Sps. Alfredo actually resold portions of the land to several persons.
7. On Feb. 8, 1994, Sps. Borras filed an adverse claim with the RD of Bataan. They also learned here that
the petitioners secured a copy of the title because they claimed that they lost their copy of it.
8. The respondents wrote a letter to the petitioners complaining about their acts but the petitioners did not
reply. So they filed a complaint for specific performance. Later, they amended their complaint to include
the subsequent buyers as additional defendants.
9. The subsequent buyers were issued TCTs by the RD of Bataan after their purchase of the portionsof the
land from the petitioners.
10. Answer of petitioners: The action is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
a. No written instrument evidencing the contract of sale.
b. Also objected to the presentation of parole evidence unless it was in writing and signed by the
spouses Alfredo.
c. Subsequent buyers were purchasers in good faith and for value.
11. The petitioners seek payment of attys fees and incidental expenses.
12. Trial ensued. RTC and CA ruled in favor of the Spouses Borras.
13. Petitioners brought their case to the Supreme Court
 University of the Philippines College of Law

ISSUES

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
1. Whether the CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:
alleged sale a. The contract was made orally and not in writing
of the b. Carmen Alfredo did not obtain the consent of her husband Godofredo in selling
the land to the Respondents. They claim that the subject land was owned by
subject land
Godofredo solely.
to the c. The contract was entered into during the prohibitive period for alienating the
Spouses Subject land without first seeking the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture
Borres is and Natural Resources.
valid and SC:
enforceable.
 A contract of sale is perfected upon the giving of consent of the contracting
parties on the object certain and the cause of the obligation. In the instant
case, both were present. There was a meeting of minds as to the object of the
sale which was the subject land and the consideration was fixed at 15000.
 The contract has been consummated upon the receipt by the petitioners of the
15,000 and the delivery of the subject land by the petitioners to the
respondents. This physical delivery constituted transfer of ownership of the
thing sold. After the delivery, the Spouses Borras were in the actual physical
possession of the land.
 Both lower courts correctly refused to apply the Statute of Frauds. The SoF
provides that a contract for the sale of real property shall be unenforceable
unless there is a contract in writing or a note or memorandum of the sale also
in writing and subscribed by the party charged or his agent. The receipt dated
March 11, 1970 removes the contract between the parties in this case from the
SoF.
 Moreover, SoF applies only to executory contracts. The instant case however
was already consummated because they have already performed their
respective obligations.
 The Sof was enacted to prevent fraud. This law cannot be used to advance the
very evil the law seeks to prevent.
XXXX

SC:
 The Civil Code governs the sale because the transaction happened during the
regime of the NCC and at the time, there was no Family Code yet.
 Article 173 of the Civil Code provides that the disposition of conjugal property
without the wife’s consent is not void but merely voidable. But in this case,
Godofredo can no longer question the sale because he ratified it when he
introduced the Spouses Borras to the Subject land as the new owners and
landlords of the tenants therein.
 The petitioner spouses also allowed the respondents to enjoy possession of
the land for 24 long years. It is enough proof that Godofredo acquiesced to the
sale. He should have filed an action to annul the sale if he believed it was
unauthorized. But he cannot do so anymore because the action has
prescribed.
 University of the Philippines College of Law

 The proceeds of the sale also redounded to their benefit (because their debt
with DBP was paid for by its proceeds) so even if the consent of one spouse
was not obtained, the sale still binds their CPG.
XXXX

 The sale cannot be annulled on the ground that the Secretary did not approve
of the sale, which was made within the 25 years from the issuance of the
homestead title. The law provides that it is only within 5 years that any
alienation is prohibited. The failure to secure approval does not nullify the sale
because after the 5year period, the requirement in the law becomes merely
directory or a mere formality.

2. Whether or Petitioners contend that the title was not delivered to the Borras spouses.
not there
was Court took note of the fact that it was the first time they were raising this contention.
delivery
Adelia Borras got the title from Julie Limon her classmate in college and the sister of
(ISSUE Carmen Alfredo. Earlier, Adelia’s own sister had secured the title from the father of
RELEVANT Carmen. However, Adelia’s sister, who was about to leave for the United States, gave
TO THE the title to Julie because of the absence of the other documents. Adelia’s sister told
TOPIC) Adelia to secure the title from Julie, and this was how Adelia obtained the title from
Julie.

SC:

 It is not necessary that the seller himself deliver the title of the property to the
buyer because the thing sold is understood as delivered when it is placed in
the control and possession of the vendee. To repeat, Godofredo and Carmen
themselves introduced the Natanawans, their tenants, to Armando and Adelia
as the new owners of the Subject Land. From then on, Armando and Adelia
acted as the landlords of the Natanawans.
3. Whether the NO.
action to
enforce the  Action is not barred by laches and prescription. The court here explained that
alleged oral there was an implied trust created between the parties to the contract of sale
and that the action for reconveyance is needed when the real owners are not in
contract of
possession of the property.
sale brought  In this case the Borras spouses lost possession of the land when the
after 24 subsequent buyers forcibly drove them away from the subject land.
years from  The action prescribes in 10 years reckoned from the registration of the deed or
its alleged the issuance of the title. In this case, it is on Feb 22, 1994 that the subsequent
perfection buyers executed the deed of sale. The RD issued their TCTs on Feb 24 and
had been the Spuoses Borras filed their complaint on March 7, 1994. Clearly, the action
has not prescribed.
barred by
 Not barred by laches. They immediately filed a complaint when they learned of
prescription the issuance of TCTs to new owners.
and laches?
 University of the Philippines College of Law

4. Whether the  Not buyers in good faith. There was an adverse claim on the title with the RD
subsequent registered by the Borras spouses on Feb. 8, 1994. The subsequent buyers
buyers were bought the portions of the land on Feb. 22, SC said that the adverse claim
purchasers serves as notice to the whole world. They had constructive notice so they
cannot claim innocence of another person’s claim on the same land that they
in good faith
had bought.
and for
value?

RULING

Petition denied.