Jomoc v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a lot in Cagayan de Oro City, part of the estate of the late Pantaleon Jomoc. Petitioner Maria P. Vda. de Jomoc, as administratrix, filed suit to recover the property due to fictitious sales. Mariano So, husband of private respondent Maura So, intervened, claiming ownership. Pending appeal of the recovery case, Maria Jomoc executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of Land with Maura So for P300,000.00, receiving partial payments totaling P49,000.00. Later, Mariano So agreed to a Deed of Reconveyance, settling the recovery case and leading to the dismissal of his appeal. Subsequently, the Jomoc heirs executed another extra-judicial settlement with absolute sale in favor of intervenors Lim Leong Kang and Lim Pue filing. 2. Procedural History: Following the reconveyance and the sale to the Lim spouses, Maura So demanded a final deed of conveyance, which was ignored. Maura So then sued the Jomoc heirs for specific performance to compel the execution of a deed of sale, filing a notice of lis pendens on February 28, 1983. On the same date, the Jomoc heirs, believing Maura So had backed out, executed a settlement and sale of the same registered land in favor of the Lim spouses for P200,000.00. The Lim spouses registered their sale on April 27, 1983. The trial court ruled it was a double sale, finding the Lim spouses to be registrants in bad faith due to the prior lis pendens. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, except for damages and attorney's fees. 3. The Petition: The consolidated petitions, filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenge the appellate court's decision affirming the trial court's ruling. Petitioners argue that the trial court and appellate court erred in voiding the deed of sale to the Lim spouses, contending that specific performance, not annulment due to double sale, was the thrust of Maura So's complaint. They also question the validity of the sale to Maura So, citing the Statute of Frauds and alleged lack of signatures and notarization. The Supreme Court is asked to determine who has the better right to the property, considering the conflicting sales and the registration dates.
Issue(s)
Whether the contract of sale between the heirs of Jomoc and Maura So is valid and enforceable despite not being fully signed or notarized. Whether Maura So abandoned or backed out from her agreement to purchase the lot. Whether the subsequent sale to Spouses Lim is void due to the prior sale to Maura So and the Spouses Lim's alleged bad faith. Whether the trial court erred in resolving the issue of double sale when the complaint was for specific performance.
Ruling
The petitions are dismissed for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and enforceability of the contract with Maura So: The Court held that the contract of sale, despite its incompleteness in form (lack of signatures and notarization), was valid and enforceable. The petitioners-heirs admitted its validity before the appellate court. The existence of Exhibit "A", the meeting of the minds, and the delivery of partial payments were clear and admitted by both parties, indicating a partly executed contract. The Statute of Frauds was deemed inapplicable due to partial payment and acceptance. The essential requisites of consent, object, and cause were present, making the contract valid and effective between the parties. Article 1357 of the Civil Code grants the right to compel the execution of the proper public instrument for registration and to bind third persons. On Maura So's abandonment of the agreement: The Court found no cogent reason to reverse the factual findings of the lower courts that Maura So did not abandon her intention to purchase the lot. The terms of Exhibit "A" stipulated payment upon the termination of Mariano So's appeal, and the partial payments made by Maura So, even if intended to expedite the appeal's dismissal, indicated her interest in acquiring the lot. The claim that payments were for gathering heirs also confirmed her continuing interest. The oral evidence presented by the petitioners to show withdrawal was insufficient to overturn the express intention in the contract and the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts. On the validity of the subsequent sale to Spouses Lim: The Court affirmed the lower courts' ruling that Spouses Lim did not have a better right to the property. They purchased the land with full knowledge of the prior sale to Maura So and without requiring proof of revocation from the vendors-heirs. Their registration of the sale on April 27, 1983, after the notice of lis pendens was annotated on February 28, 1983 (the same date of their purchase), indicated they were buyers in bad faith. Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, mere registration is insufficient; good faith must concur. Their registration, done after being charged with notice of the lis pendens, was in bad faith, and thus, they could not acquire title superior to the prior vendee. On the trial court's resolution of the double sale issue: The contention that the trial court erred in resolving the issue of double sale was deemed untenable. The issue of double sale had to be resolved to determine Maura So's entitlement to the reliefs prayed for, as there was no evidence of the severance of the contractual relation between the Jomocs and Maura So when the same lot was sold to Spouses Lim. The case necessarily required discerning who had the better right to the property.
Main Doctrine
A subsequent sale of immovable property, even if registered, is void if the second buyer acted in bad faith, particularly when a notice of lis pendens concerning the property had already been annotated.