179. Clarin v.

Rulona
G.R. No. L-30786
DATE: 20 February 1984

Topic: Unenforceable
Petitioner: Olegario Clarin
Respondent: Alberto Rulona and Court of Appeals
Ponente: Gutierrez, Jr., J.

FACTS: Olegario Clarin was the owner of a 10-hectare land in Carmen, Bohol. The same was
said to be part and parcel of Lot 20 PLD No. 4, owned in common by the petitioner and
his sisters. in 1959, petitioner executed a Contract of Sale with respondent Alberto Rulona
as the former was selling his 10-hectare land. Both parties agreed that the purchase price
would be P2,500.00. Rulona would pay a down payment ofP1,000.00 and the
remaining balance would be paid monthly at P100.00. Respondent Rulona paid the
downpayment as well as the 1st installment but then later on, petitioner Clarin
returned the P1,100.00 against Rulona’s will. Clarin claimed that he could not convince his
sisters, his co-owners, about the selling of his share. Clarin also said there was no perfected
sale between him and respondent Rulona as he said that the sale was subject to the
condition that the other co-owners should give their consent to the sale.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a perfect contract of sale

RULING: YES. A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon
the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. Such contract is binding in
whatever form it may have been entered into. Construing Exhibits A and B together, it can be
seen that the petitioner agreed to sell and the respondent agreed to buy a definite object,
that is, ten hectares of land which is part and parcel of Lot 20 PLD No. 4, owned in common
by the petitioner and his sisters although the boundaries of the ten hectares would be
delineated at a later date. The parties also agreed on a definite price which is P2,500.00.
Exhibit B further shows that the petitioner has received from the respondent as initial
payment, the amount of P800.00. Hence, it cannot be denied that there was a perfected
contract of sale between the parties and that such contract was already partially executed
when the petitioner received the initial payment of P800.00. The latter’s acceptance of the
payment clearly showed his consent to the contract thereby precluding him from rejecting its
binding effect.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Costs against the petitioner.