Olegario B. Clarin vs. Alberto L.
Rulona and the Honorable Court of Appeals
L-40786 Feb. 20, 1985
FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed the finding
of the trial court that there was a perfected contract of sale between the petitioner and the respondent
with regard to the ten (10) hectares of land.
On May 31, 1959 the petitioner executed two documents, namely, Exhibits “A” and “B”.
Respondent Rulona filed a complaint for specific performance and recovery of improvements on
the ground that the petitioner and his wife violated the terms of the agreement of sale by returning the
payments made by Rulona and refusing to further sell the subject parcel of land.
In his complaint, the respondent alleged that the petitioner sold ten hectares of his share of the
disputed lot to him for P2,500.00. The conditions of the sale were that a downpayment of P1,000.00 was
to be made and then the balance of P1,500.00 was to be paid in monthly installment of P100.00.
As provided in Exhibit “B”, the respondent delivered to the petitioner a downpayment of
P800.00, and another P200.00 was also delivered thereby completing the downpayment of P1,000.00.
Another delivery was made by the respondent in the amount of P100.00 as payment for the first
installment.
The petitioner alleged that while it is true that he had a projected contract of sale of a portion of
land with the respondent, such was subject to the following conditions: (1) that the contract would only
be realized if his co-heirs would give their consent to the sale of a specific portion of their common
inheritance from the late Anecito Clarin before partition of the said common property (2) that should his
co-heirs refused to give their consent, the projected contract would be discontinued or would not be
realized.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the respondent on the ground that the contract of
sale (Exhibit “A”) is a pure sale of a portion of land, containing an area of ten hectares for the sum of
P2,500.00, and that the sale was not subject to any condition nor it is vitiated by any flaw. And that it is
binding upon the parties under Articles 1356 and 1458 of the Civil Code. Also, the fact that petitioner
returned the sum of P1,000.00 paid by the respondent indicated an intention to rescind the contract.
However, rescission under Article 1191 of the Civil Code can be authorized by the court only if either of
the party violates his obligation. Since there had been no violation, the court ruled that the petitioner
could not rescind the contract. Lastly, the court held that although as co-owner the petitioner could not
dispose of a specific portion of the land, his share was bound by the effect of the sale.
The Court of Appeals sustained the findings of the trial court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not a contract of sale was perfected between the petitioner and respondent.
2. Whether or not the petitioner’s share in the common property is bound by the effect of the
sale.
HELD:
1. YES. There was a contract of sale that was perfected between the petitioner and respondent.
While Exhibits A and B are, in themselves, not contracts of sale, they are, however, clear evidence that a
contract of sale was perfected and that such contract had already been partially fulfilled and executed. 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 (Art. 1475 of the Civil Code). Construing Exhibits A and B
together, it can be seen that the petitioner agreed to sell and the respondent agreed to buy the subject
parcel of land. The parties also agreed on a definite price which is P2,500.00 and Exhibit B further shows
that petitioner received the initial payment of P800.00. His acceptance of the payment clearly showed
his consent to the contract thereby precluding him from rejecting its binding effect. Therefore, with the
contract being valid and enforceable, the petitioner cannot avoid his obligation.
2. YES. The Supreme Court agree with the lower court’s holding that although as a co-owner,
the petitioner cannot dispose of a specific portion of the land, his share shall be bound by the effect of
the sale. And that the trial court did not erred in holding that a contract of sale was perfected between
the petitioner and the respondent and that the sale did not depend on the condition that the
petitioner’s co-owners would have to agree to the sale.
Article 493 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allowed to him in
the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
