The Estate of Gonzales and Heirs of Gonzales v.

The Heirs of Marcos Perez

605 SCRA 47 (2009) G.R. NO. 169681
PERALTA, J.
DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: A sale of real property, though not consigned in a public
instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties, for
the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal
effects between the parties.
FACTS: The Municipal Council of Marikina sold lots A and C thru public bidding to
Pedro Gonzales. A deed of sale was executed in favor of the latter. Subsequently,
Pedro sold to Marcos Perez a portion of Lot C, denominated as Lot C-3, which contains
an area of 375 square meters. The contract of sale was embodied in a Deed of Sale
which, however, was not notarized. The Heirs of Perez sent a demand letter to one of
herein petitioners asking for the reconveyance of the subject property. However,
petitioners refused to reconvey the said lot.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Deed of Sale executed by Pedro and Perez invalid on the
ground that it does not appear in a public document.
RULING: No. Under Article 1403(2), the sale of real property should be in writing and
subscribed by the party charged for it to be enforceable. In the case before the Court,
the Deed of Sale between Pedro and Marcos is in writing and subscribed by Pedro and
his wife Francisca; hence, it is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. However, not
having been subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, the Deed of Sale is not a
public document and, therefore, does not comply with Article 1358 of the Civil Code.
Nonetheless, it is a settled rule that the failure to observe the proper form prescribed by
Article 1358 does not render the acts or contracts enumerated therein invalid. It has
been uniformly held that the form required under the said Article is not essential to the
validity or enforceability of the transaction, but merely for convenience. The Court
agrees with the CA in holding that a sale of real property, though not consigned in a
public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the
parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate
produces legal effects between the parties.
 Secuya v. Vda. De Selma
G.R. No. 136021 (2000)
PANGANIBAN, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: While a sale of a piece of land appearing in a private deed
is binding between the parties, it cannot be considered binding on third persons, if it is
not embodied in a public instrument and recorded in the Registry of Property.
FACTS: Maxima Caballero executed a document entitled "Agreement of Partition,"
wherein she stipulated to transfer one-third (1/3) of the lot to and accepted by Paciencia
Sabellano, her aunt. When the application was approved, Maxima failed to transfer the
agreed portion to Paciencia who took possession thereof. Paciencia thereafter sold the
same to Dalmacio Secuya. When Paciencia died, her only heir, Ramon Sabellano,
executed a private document, "Deed of Confirmation of Sale," confirming the sale
between Paciencia and Dalmacio. The document was, however, lost. Meanwhile,
Maxima sold the entire lot to Silverio Aro, husband of Cesaria Caballero. Upon Silverio's
death, the lot was transferred to Cesaria from whom respondent bought the lot.
Respondent was assured that petitioners who were occupying a portion of the land
were tenants. A clean title to the whole lot was transferred to respondent. Petitioners,
heirs of Dalmacio Secuya, filed an action for quieting of title on the ground that
respondent's title is a cloud on their title as owners and possessors of the property
subject of litigation. They claimed that they had been occupying the property for forty-
seven years though they did not pay the land taxes. The trial court rendered judgment
against respondent. It was affirmed, on appeal, by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale by Sabellano to Secuya a valid sale.
RULING: No. Petitioners have not proven that they are the rightful successors-in-
interest of Paciencia Sabellona. Petitioners insist that Paciencia sold the disputed
property to Dalmacio Secuya and that the sale was embodied in a private document.
However, such document, which would have been the best evidence of the transaction,
was never presented in court, allegedly because it had been lost. While a sale of a
piece of land appearing in a private deed is binding between the parties, it cannot be
considered binding on third persons, if it is not embodied in a public instrument and
recorded in the Registry of Property. Moreover, while petitioners could not present the
purported deed evidencing the transaction between Paciencia Sabellona and Dalmacio
Secuya, petitioners' immediate predecessor-in-interest, private respondent in contrast
has the necessary documents to support her claim to the disputed property.
 Talusan v. Tayag
G.R. No. 133698. April 4, 2001
PANGANIBAN, J

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: Insofar as third persons are concerned, it is the registration
of the deed of sale that can validly transfer or convey a persons interest in a property

FACTS: Talusan allegedly bought a condominium from Elias Imperial. In order to satisfy
the unpaid real estate taxes of Elias Imperial on the property, the City Treasurer caused
the property to be sold in a public bidding of which Tayag was declared as the highest
bidder. Talusan challenged such sale due to irregularities in the proceedings and
noncompliance with statutory requirements. Tayag contends that he is not bound by the
alleged deed of sale in favor of Talusan by Elias Imperial, because it was not registered
and recorded with the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City, hence the auction sale is valid.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sale to Tayag (auction sale) was valid.

RULE: Yes. Insofar as third persons are concerned, it is the registration of the deed of
sale that can validly transfer or convey a persons interest in a property. In the absence
of registration, the registered owner whose name appears on the certificate of title is
deemed the taxpayer to whom the notice of auction sale should be sent. Petitioners,
therefore, cannot claim to be taxpayers. For this reason, the annulment of the auction
sale may not be invoked successfully.
 Fule v. CA
G.R. No. 112212 March 2, 1998
ROMERO, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: Ownership is transferred upon the unconditional, actual and
constructive delivery thereof despite the failure of the buyer to pay the purchase price.

FACTS: Gregorio Fule, a banker by profession and a jeweler at the same time,
acquired a 10-hectare property in Tanay, Rizal. Fule agreed to barter his Tanay
property with a pair of emerald-cut diamond earrings owned by Dr. Cruz. An absolute
deed of sale was executed. Petitioner also issued a certification to the effect that the
actual consideration of the sale was P200k and not P80k as indicated in the deed of
absolute sale. However, Fule later on contends that the jewellery given by Dr. Cruz is
fake.

ISSUES: Whether or not the sale of the Tanay property valid given that the
consideration was found to be fake.

RULING: Yes. Both the trial and appellate courts, therefore, correctly ruled that there
were no legal bases for the nullification of the contract of sale. Ownership over the
parcel of land and the pair of emerald-cut diamond earrings had been transferred to Dr.
Cruz and petitioner, respectively, upon the actual and constructive delivery thereof. Said
contract of sale being absolute in nature, title passed to the vendee upon delivery of the
thing sold since there was no stipulation in the contract that title to the property sold has
been reserved in the seller until full payment of the price or that the vendor has the right
to unilaterally resolve the contract the moment the buyer fails to pay within a fixed
period. Such stipulations are not manifest in the contract of sale.
 Dalion v. CA
G.R. No. 78903 February 28, 1990
MEDIALDEA, J.

DOCTRINE OF THE LAW: A sale of a real property may be in a private instrument but
that contract is valid and binding between the parties upon its perfection. A party may
compel the other to execute a public instrument embodying their contract to affect real
rights once the contract has been perfected.

FACTS: Dalion and Sabasaje executed a contract of sale of parcel of land in a private
document. Dalion challenged the validity of the sale contending that it was conveyed in
a private document but the law requires that it must be in a public document.

ISSUE: Whether or not contract of sale is valid.

RULING: The contract of sale is valid. A contract of sale, which is a consensual

contract, is perfected by mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity.
Upon perfection, the parties may reciprocally demand performance. The trial court
rightly ordered Dalion to deliver to Sabesaje the parcel of land, and execute a formal
deed of conveyance in a public instrument. A sale of a real property may be in a private
instrument but that contract is valid and binding between the parties upon its perfection.
A party may compel the other to execute a public instrument embodying their contract to
affect real rights once the contract has been perfected. The provision of Article 1358 of
the Civil Code on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for
validity or enforceability. In this case, the contract of sale was embodied in a private
document and it does not affect the validity of the contract. Therefore, the contract of
sale is valid.