PINGOL V. CA, G.R. NO.

102909, SEPTEMBER 6, 1993

DOCTRINE:

The acts of the parties, contemporaneous and subsequent to the contract clearly show that an absolute
deed of sale was intended by the parties and not a contract to sell.—Furthermore, as found by the Court of
Appeals, the acts of the parties, contemporaneous and subsequent to the contract, clearly show that an
absolute deed of sale was intended by the parties and not a contract to sell.

The contract being one of absolute sale, the ownership of the subject lot was transferred to the buyer upon
the actual and constructive delivery thereof.—The contract here being one of absolute sale, the ownership
of the subject lot was transferred to the buyer upon the actual and constructive delivery thereof. The
constructive delivery of the subject lot was made upon the execution of the deed of sale while the actual
delivery was effected when the private respondents took possession of and constructed a house on Lot
No. 3223-A.

A vendee in an oral contract to convey land who had made part payment thereof, entered upon the land
and had made valuable improvements thereon is entitled to bring suit to clear his title to him.—A vendee
in an oral contract to convey land who had made part payment thereof, entered upon the land and had
made valuable improvements thereon, is entitled to bring suit to clear his title against the vendor who had
refused to transfer the title to him. It is not necessary that the vendee has an absolute title, an equitable
title being sufficient to clothe him with personality to bring an action to quiet title.

Prescription; Prescription thus cannot be invoked against the private respondents for it is aphoristic that
an action to quiet title to property in one’s possession is imprescriptible.—Prescription thus cannot be
invoked against the private respondents for it is aphoristic that an action to quiet title to property in one’s
possession is imprescriptible.

FACTS:

In 1969, Pingol, the owner of a lot (Lot No. 3223) in Caloocan City, executed a DEED OF ABSOLUTE
SALE OF ONE-HALF OF AN UNDIVIDED PORTION OF [his] PARCEL OF LAND in favor of
Donasco (private respondent), payable in 6 years.

In 1984, Donasco died and was only able to pay P8,369 plus P2,000 downpayment, leaving a balance of
P10,161. The heirs of Donasco remained in possession of such lot and offered to settle the balance with
Pingol. However, Pingol refused to accept the offer and demanded a larger amount. Thus, the heirs of
Donasco filed an action for specific performance (with Prayer for Writ of Prelim. Injunction, because
Pingol were encroaching upon Donasco’s lot). Pingol averred that the sale and transfer of title was
conditional upon the full payment of Donasco (contract to sell, not contract of sale). With Donasco’s
breach of the contract in 1976 and death in 1984, the sale was deemed cancelled, and the heirs’
continuous occupancy was only being tolerated by Pingol.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Pingol can refuse to transfer title to Donasco

2. Whether or not Donasco has the right to quiet title

RULING:
 1. No. The contract between Pingol and Donasco is a contract of sale and not a contract to sell. The
acts of the parties, contemporaneous and subsequent to the contract, clearly show that the parties
intended an absolute deed of sale; the ownership of the lot was transferred to the Donasco upon
its actual (upon Donasco’s possession and construction of the house) and constructive delivery
(upon execution of the contract). The delivery of the lot divested Pingol of his ownership and he
cannot recover the title unless the contract is resolved or rescinded under Art. 1592 of NCC. It
states that the vendee may pay even after the expiration of the period stipulated as long as no
demand for rescission has been made upon him either judicially or by notarial act. Pingol neither
did so. Hence, Donasco has equitable title over the property.

2. Although the complaint filed by the Donascos was an action for specific performance, it was
actually an action to quiet title. A cloud has been cast on the title, since despite the fact that the
title had been transferred to them by the execution of the deed of sale and the delivery of the
object of the contract, Pingol adamantly refused to accept the payment by Donascos and insisted
that they no longer had the obligation to transfer the title.

Donasco, who had made partial payments and improvements upon the property, is entitled to
bring suit to clear his title against Pingol who refused to transfer title to him. It is not necessary
that Donasco should have an absolute title, an equitable title being sufficient to clothe him with
personality to bring an action to quiet title.

Prescription cannot also be invoked against the Donascos because an action to quiet title to
property in ONE’s POSSESSION is imprescriptible.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, except as above modified, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. As
modified, the interest on the unpaid balance of P10,161.00, at the legal rate, shall be computed from 6
January 1976. Upon the payment by the private respondents to the petitioners of the said amount and the
interest thereon, the latter are ordered to deliver Transfer Certificate of Title No. 7435 to the Register of
Deeds of Caloocan City who shall cancel the same and issue two new transfer certificates of title in lieu
thereof, one of which shall be in the name of the herein private respondents covering Lot No. 3223-A and
the other in the name of the petitioners covering the remainder of the lot.

SO ORDERED.