Nature and Form of the Contract

Sales / 2D Article 1461

Case Digest Heirs of Amparo del Rosario vs. Santos

Heirs of Amparo del Rosario vs. Aurora O. Santos

G.R. No. L-46892, 30 September 1981

FACTS:

Amparo del Rosario filed a complaint against the spouses Andres F. Santos and Aurora O.
Santos, for specific performance and damages, for failure of the spouses to execute the Deed of
Confirmation of Sale of an undivided 20,000 square meters of land.

The Deed of Sale provided that Andres Santos sold to Amparo Del Rosario the property in issue
for P2,000.00; that Andres owned ½ interest to a 181,420 square meter property; and that the
20,000 square meter property in issue will be transferred to Amparo as soon as the title thereof
has been released by the proper authorities.

The Santos’ argued that the court a quo had no jurisdiction; that the complaint had prescribed
for being filed ten years (Jan 14, 1974) from the deed of sale was dated (Sept. 28, 1964) and
ratification (Oct. 1, 1964); that the demands of Rosario had been waived, abandoned, or
extinguished; that the deed of sale was “only an accommodation graciously extended, out of
close friendship between the parties and their casual business partner in real estate “Erlinda
Cortez”; that Erlinda had a debt with the Santos’, whom in turn had a debt with Erlinda, the
Santos’ voluntarily offered to transfer to Rosario their inexistent but expectant right over the lot
in question, to be considered as part of payment of Erlinda Cortez’ debt with Rosario; that
Erlinda eventually paid her debt and thus the Deed of Sale had in effect been extinguished; and
that the deed of sale was merely a tentative agreement. They further allege that the claim is
unenforceable as the cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction.

The CFI of Rizal found Santos to only have been given 90,775 square meters registered in his
name and co-owned with Teofilo Custodio. It ordered Santos to execute and convey to Rosario
the 20,000 square meter land stated in the Deed of Sale. Thus, the Santos’ appealed to the CA.
At this point, the Santos’ claim Lot I, which was supposedly sold, is in the exclusive name of
Teofilo Custodio and that the deed of assignment of ½ interest thereof executed by Custodio is
strictly personal between them.

ISSUES:

WON the sale is valid

RULING:

On the validity of the sale

a. Notwithstanding the lack of any title to the said lot by appellants at the time of the
execution of the deed of sale in favor of appellee, the said sale may be valid as there
can be sale of an expected thing, in accordance with Art. 1461 of the New Civil Code.

b. In this case, the expectant right came into existence or materialized for the Santos’
actually derived titles from Lot I.

1|Page
 Nature and Form of the Contract
Sales / 2D Article 1461
Case Digest Heirs of Amparo del Rosario vs. Santos

On the order to execute and convey the 20,000 sq.m. of land

a. The argument of the Santos’ that the southeastern portion of Lot 4 or Lot 5-A is no
longer the southeastern portion of the bigger Lot I, the latter portion belonging to the lone
registered owner, Teofilo Custodio, is rejected. The Santos’ may not violate nor escape
their obligation under the Deed of Sale they have agreed and signed with the appellee
by simply subdividing Lot I, bisecting the same and segregating portions to change their
sides in relation to the original Lot I.

On the prescription of the suit

a. The suit is not barred by prescription because only seven years and six months of the
ten-year prescription period under Arts. 1144 and 1155 in cases of actions for specific
performance of the written contract of sale had elapsed.

2|Page