38.holgado v. ca

8/9/2019 38.Holgado v. CA

1/15

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119777. October 23, 1997]

THE HEIRS OF PEDRO ESCANLAR, FRANCISCO HOLGADO !" t#e SPO$SESDR. ED%IN A. &A'(E !" ELISA TAN)&A'(E, petitioners, vs. THE HON.CO$RT OF APPEALS, GENEROSA (ARTINE*, CAR(EN CARI)AN,RODOLFO CARI)AN, NELL' CH$A CARI)AN, +or #ere-+ !" /r"0! ad litem o+ #er 0!or o!, LEONELL C. CARI)AN, FREDIS(INDA CARI)AN, t#eSPO$SES PA$ITO CH$A !" NE' SARROSA)CH$A !" THE REGISTEROF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, respondents.

[G.R. No. 1249. October 23, 1997]

FRANCISCO HOLGADO !" HRS. OF PEDRO ESCANLAR, !e-5 6ERNARDO,FEL', SONIA, LIL', D'ESE6EL !" NOE(I -- /r!e"ESCANLAR, petitioners, vs. HON. CO$RT OF APPEALS, GENEROSA(ARTINE*, CAR(EN CARI)AN, RODOLFO CARI)AN, NELL' CH$A CARI)AN, +or #ere-+ !" /r"0! ad litem o+ #er 0!or o!, LEONELL C.CARI)AN !" FREDIS(INDA CARI)AN, !" SP. PA$ITO CH$A !" NE'SARROSA CH$A !" REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROSOCCIDENTAL, respondents.

D E C I S I ON

RO(ERO, J .

Before us are consolidated petitions for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-!R! CV No! "##$% which affir&ed the trial court's pronounce&ent thatthe deed of sale of ri(hts) interests and participation in favor of petitioners is null andvoid!

The case arose fro& the followin( facts*

Spouses Guillermo Nombre and Victoriana Cari-an died without issue in 1924 and 1938,

respectiel!" Nombre#s heirs include his nephews and $randnephews" Victoriana Cari-an was

succeeded b! her late brother#s son, Gre$orio Cari-an" %he latter was declared as Victoriana#sheir in the estate proceedin$s &or Nombre and his wi&e 'Special (roceedin$ No )-)2)9*" +1 &ter

Gre$orio died in 19)1, his wi&e, Generosa .artine/, and children, 0odol&o, Carmen, eonardo

and redisminda, all surnamed Cari-an, were also adud$ed as heirs b! representation to

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn1


2/15

Victoriana#s estate"+2 eonardo Cari-an passed awa!, leain$ his widow, Nell! Chua vda. deCari-

an and minor son eonell, as his heirs"

%wo parcels o& land, denominated as ot No" 11 and 11) o& the 5aban6alan Cadastre with anarea o& 29,37 suare meters and 4,948 suare meters, respectiel!, &ormed part o& the estate

o& Nombre and Cari-an"

On Septe&+er ,%) ,#$) re(orio Cari-an's heirs) herein collectivel. referred to asprivate respondents Cari-an) e/ecuted the Deed of Sale of Ri(hts) Interests and0articipation worded as follows*

:N;0>;0>, &or and in consideration o& the sum o& %@ S>V>N%A-

BV> %=;?SN@ '(2)7,"* (esos, (hilippine Currenc!, to be paid b! the V>N@>>S to

the V>N@;0S, ecept the share o& the minor child o& eonardo Cari-an, which should bedeposited with the .unicipal %reasurer o& =imama!lan, (roince o& Ne$ros ;ccidental, b! the

order o& the Court o& irst Bnstance o& Ne$ros ;ccidental, Dranch VB, =imama!lan, b! those

presents, do hereb! S>, C>@>, %0NS>0 and C;NV>A b! wa! o& DS;?%> S>,all the 0BG=%S, BN%>0>S%S and (0%BCB(%B;N o& the Vendors as to the one-hal& '1E2*

portion pro-indiiso o& ots Nos" 11 and 11) 'ishpond*, o& the 5aban6alan Cadastre,

pertainin$ to the one-hal& '1E2* portion pro-indiiso o& the late Victoriana Cari-an unto and in

&aor o& the Vendees, their heirs, successors and assi$nsF

/ / / / / / / / /

%hat this Contract o& Sale o& ri$hts, interests and participations shall become e&&ectie onl! upon

the approal b! the =onorable Court o& irst Bnstance o& Ne$ros ;ccidental, Dranch

VB- =imama!lan" '?nderscorin$ supplied"*

0edro 1scanlar and 2rancisco Hol(ado) the vendees) were concurrentl. the lesseesof the lots referred to a+ove!3"4 The. stipulated that the +alance of the purchase price5066%)777!778 shall +e paid on or +efore 9a. ,#$# in a Deed of A(ree&ent e/ecuted+. the parties on the sa&e da.*

:0>S, at the time o& the si$nin$ o& the Contract, V>N@>>S has 'sic* onl! B%A

%=;?SN@ '(7,"* (esos aailable thereo&, and was not able to secure the entire amountF

0>S, the Vendors and one o& the Vendees b! the name o& (edro >scanlar are relaties,

and absolute &aith and trust eist between them, wherein durin$ economic crisis, has not &ailed to

$ie monetar! succor to the VendorsF

0>S, Vendors herein understood the present scarcit! o& securin$ aailable each 'sic* in

the amount stated in the contractF

N;< %=>0>;0>, &or and in consideration o& the sum o& B%A %=;?SN@ '(7,"*

(esos, (hilippine Currenc!, the balance o& %@ %N%A BV> %=;?SN@' ( 227,"* (esos to be paid b! the Vendees on or be&ore .a!, 19)9, the Vendors herein, b!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn3


3/15

these (resents, do hereb! C;NB0. and B0. the @eed o& Sale o& the 0i$hts, Bnterests and

(articipation dated September 17, 19)8, oer ots Nos" 11 and 11) '&ishpond* o& the

5aban6alan Cadastre in &aor o& the V>N@>>S, their heirs and assi$ns"

%hat pendin$ the complete pa!ment thereo&, Vendees shall not assi$n, sell, lease, nor mort$a$e

the ri$hts, interests and participation thereo&F

%hat in the eent the Vendees &ail andE or omit to pa! the balance o& said purchase price on .a!

31, 19)9 and the cancellation o& said Contract o& Sale is made thereb!, the sum o& B%A%=;?SN@ '(7,"* (esos shall be deemed as dama$es thereo& to Vendors"

'?nderscorin$ supplied*+4

0etitioners were una+le to pa. the Cari-an heirs' individual shares) a&ountin(to 0%%)777!77 each) +. the due date! However) said heirs received at least ,6install&ents fro& petitioners after 9a. ,#$#! 3%4 Rodolfo Cari-an was full. paid +. :une6,) ,#$#! enerosa 9artine;) Car&en Cari-an and 2redis&inda Cari-an were lieonell's share was deposited with the Re(ional Trial Court on Septe&+er $) ,#6! 3$4

Bein( for&er lessees) petitioners continued in possession of >ot Nos! ,=,= and,=,$! Interestin(l.) the. continued to pa. rent +ased on their lease contract! OnSepte&+er ,7) ,#,) petitioners &oved to intervene in the pro+ate proceedin(s of No&+re and Cari-an as the +u.ers of private respondent Cari-an's share in >ot Nos!,=,= and ,=,$! 0etitioners' &otion for approval of the Septe&+er ,%) ,#$ sale +eforethe sa&e court) filed on Nove&+er ,7) ,#,) was opposed +. private respondents Cari-an on :anuar. %) ,#6!34

On Septe&+er ,=) ,#6) the pro+ate court approved a &otion filed +. the heirs of

Cari-an and No&+re to sell their respective shares in the estate! On Septe&+er 6,),#6) private respondents Cari-an) in addition to so&e heirs of uiller&o No&+re)3#4 sold their shares in ei(ht parcels of land includin( >ot Nos! ,=,= and ,=,$ to thespouses Ne. Sarrosa Chua and 0a?uito Chua for 0,)%7)777!77! One wee< later) thevendor-heirs) includin( private respondents Cari-an) filed a &otion for approval of saleof hereditar. ri(hts) i!e! the sale &ade on Septe&+er 6,) ,#6 to the Chuas!

0rivate respondents Cari-an instituted this case for cancellation of sale a(ainstpetitioners 51scanlar and Hol(ado8 on Nove&+er ") ,#6!3,74 The. co&plained of petitioners' failure to pa. the +alance of the purchase price +. 9a. ",) ,#$# and alle(edthat the. onl. received a total of 0,"6)%%,!77 in cash and (oods! 0etitioners repliedthat the Cari-ans) havin( +een paid) had no ri(ht to resell the su+@ect lots that the

Chuas were purchasers in +ad faith and that the court approval of the sale to theChuas was su+@ect to their e/istin( clai& over said properties!

On April 67) ,#") petitioners also sold their ri(hts and interests in the su+@ectparcels of land 5>ot Nos! ,=,= and ,=,$8 to 1dwin :a.&e for 0$"%)777!77 3,,4 and turnedover possession of +oth lots to the latter! The :a.&es in turn) were included in the civilcase as fourth-part. defendants!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/oct1997/119777.htm#_edn11


4/15

On Dece&+er ") ,#) the pro+ate court approved the Septe&+er 6,) ,#6 salewithout pre@udice to whatever ri(hts) clai&s and interests over an. of those propertiesof the estate which cannot +e properl. and le(all. ventilated and resolved +. the courtin the sa&e intestate proceedin(s!3,64 The certificates of title over the ei(ht lots sold +.the heirs of No&+re and Cari-an were later issued in the na&e of respondents Ne.

Sarrosa Chua and 0a?uito Chua!The trial court allowed a third-part. co&plaint a(ainst the third-part. defendants

0a?uito and Ne. Chua on :anuar. $) ,#= where 1scanlar and Hol(ado alle(ed thatthe Cari-ans conspired with the Chuas when the. e/ecuted the second sale onSepte&+er 6,) ,#6 and that the latter sale is ille(al and of no effect! RespondentsChua countered that the. did not


5/15

favor of 0a?uito and Ne. Chua) which was approved +. the pro+ate court) wasupheld! The dispositive portion of the lower court's decision reads*

:0>;0>, premises considered, ud$ment is hereb! rendered as &ollowsH

1* @eclarin$ the &ollowin$ contracts null and oid and o& no e&&ectH

a* %he @eed o& Sale, dated Sept" 17, 19)8, eecuted b! the plainti&&s in &aor o& the

de&endants (edro >scanlar and rancisco =ol$ado '>h" :, (lainti&&s*

b* %he @eed o& $reement, dated Sept" 17, 19)8, eecuted b! the plainti&&s in &aor

o& the de&endants, (edro >scanlar and rancisco =ol$ado '>h" :D, (lainti&&s*

c* %he @eed o& Sale, dated pril 2, 1983, eecuted b! the de&endants in &aor o&the &ourth-part! de&endants, @r" >dwin Ia!me and >lisa %an Ia!me

d* %he sale o& leasehold ri$hts eecuted b! the de&endants in &aor o& the &ourth- part! de&endants

2* @eclarin$ the amount o& i&t! %housand (esos '(7,"* paid b! the de&endants tothe plainti&&s in connection with the Sept" 17, 19)8 deed o& sale, as &or&eited in &aor o& the

plainti&&s, but orderin$ the plainti&&s to return to the de&endants whateer amounts the! hae

receied &rom the latter a&ter .a! 31, 19)9 and the amount o& %hirt! ie %housand %wo

=undred >i$hteen J )7E1 '(37,218")7*+17 deposited with the %reasurer o& =imama!lan, Ne$ros ;ccidental, &or the minor eonell C" Cari-an -

3* @eclarin$ the deed o& sale, dated September 23, 1982, eecuted b! asaro Nombre,

Victorio .adala$, @omin$o Campillanos, So&ronio Campillanos, Generosa Vda" de .artine/,Carmen Cari-an, 0odol&o Cari-an, Nell! Chua Vda" de Cari-an, &or hersel& and as $uardian adlitem o& the minor eonell C" Cari-an, and redisminda Cari-an in &aor o& the third-part!

de&endants and &ourth-part! plainti&&s, spouses @r" (auito Chua and Ne! Sarrosa Chua '>h"

:2-Chua* as le$al, alid and en&orceable proided that the properties coered b! the said deedo& sale are subect o& the burdens o& the estate, i& the same hae not been paid !et"

4* ;rderin$ the de&endants rancisco =ol$ado and (edro >scanlar and the &ourth-part!

de&endants, spouses @r" >dwin Ia!me and >lisa %an Ia!me, to pa! ointl! and seerall! the

amount o& ;ne =undred %housand (esos '(1," as moral dama$es and the &urther sum o&%hirt! %housand (esos '(3,"* as attorne!#s &ees to the third-part! de&endant spouses, @r"

(auito Chua and Ne! Sarrosa-Chua"

7* ;rderin$ the &ourth-part! de&endant spouses, @r" >dwin Ia!me and >lisa %anIa!me, to pa! to the third-part! de&endants and &ourth-part! plainti&&s, spouses @r" (auito Chua

and Ne! Sarrosa-Chua, the sum o& ;ne =undred i&t! Seen %housand (esos '(17),"* as

rentals &or the riceland and %hree .illion %wo =undred %housand (esos '(3,2,"* as

rentals &or the &ishpond &rom ;ctober, 1987 to Iul! 24, 1989 plus the rentals &rom the latter date



6/15

until the propert! shall hae been deliered to the spouses @r" (auito Chua and Ne! Sarrosa-

ChuaF

* ;rderin$ the de&endants and the &ourth-part! de&endants to immediatel! acate ots Nos" 11 and 11), 5aban6alan CadastreF

)* ;rderin$ the de&endants and the &ourth-part! de&endants to pa! costs"

S; ;0@>0>@"+1

0etitioners raised the case to the Court of Appeals!3,$4 Respondent court affir&ed thedecision of the trial court on 2e+ruar. ,$) ,##% and held that the ?uestioned deed of sale of ri(hts) interests and participation is a contract to sell +ecause it shall +eco&eeffective onl. upon approval +. the pro+ate court and upon full pa.&ent of the purchaseprice!3,4

0etitioners' &otion for reconsideration was denied +. respondent court on April ")

,##%!3,#4 Hence) these petitions!3674

,! Ee disa(ree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Septe&+er ,%) ,#$Deed of Sale of Ri(hts) Interests and 0articipation is a contract to sell and not one of sale!

The distinction +etween contracts of sale and contracts to sell with reserved title has+een reco(ni;ed +. this Court in repeated decisions) accordin( to :ustice :!B!>! Re.esin >u;on Bro


7/15

s.&+olic deliver.


8/15

As a (eneral rule) the pertinent contractual stipulation 5re?uirin( court approval8should +e considered as the law +etween the parties! However) the presence of twofactors &ilitate a(ainst this conclusion! 2irst) the evident intention of the partiesappears to +e contrar. to the &andator. character of said stipulation! 3""4 Ehoever crafted the docu&ent of conve.ance) &ust have +een of the +elief that the controversial

stipulation was a le(al re?uire&ent for the validit. of the sale! But theconte&poraneous and su+se?uent acts of the parties reveal that the ori(inal o+@ectiveof the parties was to (ive effect to the deed of sale even without court approval!3"4 Receipt and acceptance of the nu&erous install&ents on the +alance of thepurchase price +. the Cari-ans and leavin( petitioners in possession of >ot Nos! ,=,=and ,=,$ reveal their intention to effect the &utual trans&ission of ri(hts ando+li(ations! It was onl. after private respondents Cari-an sold their shares in thesu+@ect lots a(ain to the spouses Chua) in Septe&+er ,#6) that these sa&e heirs filedthe case at +ar for the cancellation of the Septe&+er ,#$ conve.ance! Eorthconsiderin( too is the fact that althou(h the period to pa. the +alance of the purchaseprice e/pired in 9a. ,#$#) the heirs continued to accept pa.&ents until late ,#$# and

did not see< @udicial relief until late ,#6 or three .ears later!Second) we hold that the re?uisite approval was virtuall. rendered i&possi+le +. the

Cari-ans +ecause the. opposed the &otion for approval of the sale filed +.petitioners3"%4 and sued the latter for the cancellation of that sale! The pro+ate courte/plained*

:'e* scanlar and =ol$ado &iled a similar motion &or the approal o& @eed

o& Sale eecuted b! some o& the heirs in their &aor concernin$ the one-hal& '1E2* portions o&ots 11 and 11) as earl! as Noember 1, 1981, !et the Court could not hae &aorabl! acted

upon it, because there eists a pendin$ case &or the rescission o& that contract, instituted b! the

endors therein a$ainst (edro >scanlar and rancisco =ol$ado and &iled be&ore another branch o&

this Court" ?ntil now, this case, which attac6s the er! source o& whateer ri$hts or interests=ol$ado and >scanlar ma! hae acuired oer one-hal& '1E2* portions o& ots Nos" 11 and

11), is pendin$ resolution b! another court" ;therwise, i& this Court meddles on these issues

raised in that ordinar! ciil action see6in$ &or the rescission o& an eistin$ contract, then, the acto& this Court would be totall! ine&&ectie, as the same would be in ecess o& its urisdiction"+3

Havin( provided the o+stacle and the @ustification for the stipulated approval not to+e (ranted) private respondents Cari-an should not +e allowed to cancel their firsttransaction with petitioners +ecause of lac< of approval +. the pro+ate court) which lac<is of their own &a


9/15

In the instant case) the sellers (ave the +u.ers until 9a. ,#$# to pa. the +alance of the purchase price! After the latter failed to pa. install&ents due) the for&er &ade no

@udicial de&and for rescission of the contract nor did the. e/ecute an. notarial actde&andin( the sa&e) as re?uired under Article ,%#6! Conse?uentl.) the +u.ers couldlawfull. &a&a. not have +een co&plete for she (ave the receipts for install&ents to petitioners1scanlar and Hol(ado! She thus clai&ed that the. were defrauded +ecause petitionersare wealth. and private respondents are poor!

However) despite all her clai&s) 2redis&inda's testi&on. fails to convince this Courtthat the. were not full. co&pensated +. petitioners! 2redis&inda ad&its that her &other and her sister si(ned their individual receipts of full pa.&ent on their own andnot in her presence!3"4 The receipts presented in evidence show that enerosa 9artine;was paid 0%)=6%!77 Car&en Cari-an)0%)=6%!77 Rodolfo Cari-an) 0$)%77!77 on:une 6,) ,#$# Nell. Chua vda! de Cari-an) 0,,)""!77 and the su& of 0")6,!77 wasconsi(ned in court for the &inor >eonell Cari-an! 3"#42redis&inda insists that she si(ned areceipt for full pa.&ent without receivin( the &one. therefor and ad&its that she did not

o+@ect to the co&putation! Ee find it incredi+le that a &ature wo&an li


10/15

The trial court reasoned out that petitioners) in continuin( to pa. the rent for theparcels of land the. alle(edl. +ou(ht) ad&it not havin( full. paid the Cari-ans! 0etitioners' response) that the. paid rent until ,#= in co&pliance with their leasecontract) onl. proves that the. respected this contract and did not ta


11/15

,=,=8 - ,% cavans per hectare per .ear fro& ,#6 to ,#=) 0,6%!77 per cavan ,#$-,#) 0,$%!77 per cavan and ,## and succeedin( .ears) 0677!77 per cavan! 3"4

%HEREFORE) the petitions are here+. RANT1D! The decision of the Court of Appeals under review is here+. R1V1RS1D AND S1T ASID1! The case isR19AND1D to the Re(ional Trial Court of Ne(ros Occidental) Branch =, for petitioners

and private respondents Cari-an or their successors-in-interest to deter&ine e/actl.which ,F6 portion of >ot Nos! ,=,= and ,=,$ will +e owned +. each part.) at the optionof petitioners! The trial court is DIR1CT1D to order the issuance of the correspondin(certificates of title in the na&e of the respective parties and to resolve the &atter of rental pa.&ents of the land not delivered to the Chua spouses su+@ect to the ratesspecified a+ove with le(al interest fro& date of de&and!

SO ORDERED.

DI1ST

TH1 H1IRS O2 01DRO 1SCAN>AR 1T A> V! CA 6, SCRA ,$= 5,##$8

2ACTS* Spouses uiller&o No&+re and Victoriana Cari-an died without issue in ,#6

and ,#") respectivel.! No&+re's heirs include his nephews and (randnephews!

Victoriana was succeeded +. her late +rother's son) re(orio Cari-an!

,! After re(orio's death in ,#$,) his wife) enerosa 9artine; and children 5Rodolfo)

Car&en) >eonardo and 2redis&inda8 were ad@ud(ed as heirs +. representation to

Victoriana's estate! >eonardo passed awa.) leavin( his widow) Nell. Chua vda! de Cari-

an and &inor >eonell as his heirs

6! 6 parcels of land) deno&inated +. >ot ,=,= and ,=,$) for&ed part of the estate of

uiller&o No&+re and Victoriana Cari-an!

"! In ,#$) re(orio's heirs e/ecuted a deed of sale of ri(hts) interests and

participation in favor of 0edro 1scanlar and 2rancisco Hol(ado over the undivided

share of Victoriana for 06$%)777 to +e paid to the heirs) e/cept the share of the &inor

>eonell Cari-an which shall +e deposited to the 9unicipal Treasurer! Said contract of

sale will +e effective onl. upon approval of C2I

! 1scanlar and Hol(ado) the vendees) were concurrentl. the lessees of the su+@ectpropert.! In a deed of a(ree&ent e/ecuted +. +oth parties confir&in( and affir&in( the

contract of sale) the. stipulated the followin(*

a! That the +alance of the purchase price 5066%)7778 shall +e paid on or +efore 9a.

,#$#



12/15

+! 0endin( co&plete pa.&ent thereof) the vendees shall not assi(n) sell) lease or

&ort(a(e the ri(hts) interests and participation thereof

c! In the event of nonpa.&ent of the +alance of said purchase price) the su& of

0%7)777 5down pa.&ent8 shall +e dee&ed as da&a(es

%! 1scanlar and Hol(ado were una+le to pa. the individual shares of the Cari-an heirs)

a&ountin( to 0%%)777 each) on the due date! However) said heirs received at least ,6

install&ent pa.&ents fro& 1scanlar and Hol(ado after 9a. ,#$#! Rodolfo was full.

paid +. :une ,#$#) enerosa 9artine;) Car&en and 2redis&inda were li


13/15

Gnder Art ,", Civil Code) the essential re?uisites of a contract are* consent of the

contractin( parties o+@ect certain which is the su+@ect &atter of the contract and cause

of the o+li(ation which is esta+lished! A+sent one of the a+ove) no contract can

arise! Conversel.) where all are present) the result is a valid contract! However) so&eparties introduce various


14/15

N11D O2 0ROBAT1 COGRT'S A00ROVA> 1JISTS EH1R1 S01CI2IC

0RO01RTI1S O2 TH1 1STAT1 AR1 SO>D AND NOT EH1N ID1A> AND

INDIVISIB>1 SHAR1S O2 AN H1IR AR1 DIS0OS1D O2

The need for approval +. the pro+ate court e/ists onl. where specific properties of the

estate are sold and not when onl. ideal and indivisi+le shares of an heir are disposed

of! In Dillena v! Court of Appeals) the Court declared that it is within the @urisdiction of

the pro+ate court to approve the sale of properties of a deceased person +. his

prospective heirs +efore final ad@udication! The pro+ate court's approval is necessar. for

the validit. of an. disposition of the decedent's estate! However) reference to @udicial

approval cannot adversel. affect the su+stantive ri(hts of the heirs to dispose of their

ideal share in the co-heirship andFor co-ownership a&on( the heirs! It &ust +e recalled

that durin( the period of indivision of a decedent's estate) each heir) +ein( a co-owner)

has full ownership of his part and &a. therefore alienate it! But the effect of thealienation with respect to the co-owners shall +e li&ited to the portion which &a. +e

allotted to hi& in the division upon the ter&ination of the co-ownership!

CONTRACTGA> STI0G>ATIONS CONSID1R1D >AE B1TE11N 0ARTI1S

1JC10TION* CONT190ORAN1OGS ACTS O2 0ARTI1S

As a (eneral rule) the pertinent contractual stipulation 5re?uirin( court approval8 should

+e considered as the law +etween the parties! However) the presence of two factors

&ilitates a(ainst this conclusion* 5,8 the evident intention of the parties appears to +e

contrar. to the &andator. character of said stipulation! Ehoever crafted the docu&ent

of conve.ance) &ust have +een of the +elief that the controversial stipulation was a

le(al re?uire&ent for the validit. of the sale! But the conte&poraneous and su+se?uent

acts of the parties reveal that the ori(inal o+@ective of the parties was to (ive effect to

the deed of sale even without court approval!

Receipt and acceptance of the nu&erous install&ents on the +alance of the purchase

price +. the Cari-ans) althou(h the period to pa. the +alance of the purchase pricee/pired in 9a. ,#$#) and leavin( 1scanlar and Hol(ado in possession of >ots ,=,= and

,=,$ reveal their intention to effect the &utual trans&ission of ri(hts and o+li(ations!

The Cari-ans did not see< @udicial relief until late ,#6 or three .ears later 568 the

re?uisite approval was virtuall. rendered i&possi+le +. the Cari-ans +ecause the.

opposed the &otion for approval of the sale filed +. 1scanlar and Hol(ado) and sued

the latter for the cancellation of that sale! Havin( provided the o+stacle and the


15/15

@ustification for the stipulated approval not to +e (ranted) the Cari-ans should not +e

allowed to cancel their first transaction with 1scanlar and Hol(ado +ecause of lac< of

approval +. the pro+ate court) the lac< of which is of their own &a

38.holgado v. ca

Documents