Hernando R. Penalosa VS Severino Santos GR No. 133749 August 23, 2001 Facts

Hernando R.
Penalosa VS
Severino Santos
GR No. 133749 August 23, 2001
Facts:
Respondents Severino C. Santos (deceased) and Adela Mendez Santos are registered owners of a
residential house and lot. They decided to sell their property with petitioner Hernando (or Henry)
Peñalosa. The property was then occupied by a lessee, Eleuterio Perez, who was given preference
to buy it under the same terms offered by the buyer. Perez proposed less favorable terms and
expectedly, Severino rejected his offer.
Petitioner and Respondent attempted to enter into an agreement whereby the latter would sell his
land to Henry for 1.8M but the deed of absolute sale was only signed by Henry. The sole purpose of
the deed was to help the respondent to eject Perez. In the Deed of Absolute Sale no consideration
was paid by Henry.
Thereafter, Henry and Severino executed another deed of absolute sale for a higher consideration of
2M. This second deed was signed by both parties and duly notarizedHenry then gave Severino
P300,000.00 as "earnest money". The latter also maintained that he signed the second deed only for
the purpose of facilitating Henry's acquisition of a bank loan to finance payment of the balance of the
purchase price The execution of the second deed was necessary to enable Henry to file a court
action for ejectment of the tenant.
Henry brought a complaint for ejectment case of unlawful detainer against Perez before MTC.
Claiming that he still had a subsisting contract of lease over the property, Perez countersued
assailing the validity of the sale transaction between Henry and Severino.
The loan contract did not materialize because of failure of Severino to surrender the owner’s
duplicate title. The judgment was rendered ordering Perez to vacate and surrender possession to
Henry. Upon finality of said judgment, Henry and his family moved into the disputed house and lot
and spent a total of P700,000.00 for the renovation, as evidenced by receipts.
Severino sent a letter demanding that Henry vacate the house and lot, on the ground that Henry did
not conclusively offer nor tender a price certain for the purchase of the property. When Henry
refused to vacate the property, Severino brought this action for quieting of title, recovery of
possession and damages before the RTC.
Severino averred that the second deed was void and inexistent because the deed is fictitious and
simulated, it was executed only for the purpose of placing Henry in possession of the property
because he tendered "earnest money". Severino also claimed that there was no meeting of minds
with respect to the cause or consideration
For his part, Henry alleged that we was already the owner of the property because of the finality of
agreement. His possession of the property remained undisturbed for three (3) years. He, however,
faulted the latter for the non-payment because of Severino’s refusal to surrender the contract.
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Severino. Both Henry and Severino appealed the above
decision to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and
thereafter, denied Henry's motion for reconsideration. Thus, Henry brought this petition.
ISSUE: W/N The CA erred in concluding that there was no perfected contract of sale between
Severino Santos and Henry Penalosa
W/N Nonpayment of full price is a cause for declaring a perfected contract null and void
Ruling:
Yes. It should have been readily apparent to the trial court that the circumstances it cited in its
decision are not proper grounds for holding that the second deed is simulated. Simulation is a
declaration of a fictitious will, deliberately made by agreement of the parties, in order to produce, for
purposes of deception, the appearance of a juridical act which does not exist or is different from that
which was really executed. Its requisites are: a) an outward declaration of will different from the will
of the parties; b) the false appearance must have been intended by mutual agreement; and c) the
purpose is to deceive third persons. None of these requisites is present in this case.
The basic characteristic of an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is that the apparent contract
is not really desired or intended to produce legal effects or alter the juridical situation of the parties in
any way. However, in this case, the parties already undertook certain acts which were directed
towards fulfillment of their respective covenants under the second deed, indicating that they intended
to give effect to their agreement.
The fact that Severino executed the two deeds in question, primarily so that petitioner could eject the
tenant and enter into a loan/mortgage contract with Philam Life, is to our mind, a strong indication
that he intended to transfer ownership of the property to petitioner. Needless to state, it does not
make sense for Severino to allow petitioner to pursue the ejectment case, in petitioner's own name,
with petitioner arguing that he had bought the property from Severino and thus entitled to possession
thereof, if petitioner did not have any right to the property. The elements of a valid contract of sale
under Art. 1458 of the Civil Code are all present rendering it a perfected contract of sale.
It is well-settled that non-payment of the purchase price is not among the instances where the law
declares a contract to be null and void. At most, the non-payment of the contract price merely results
in a breach of contract for non-performance and warrants an action for rescission or specific
performance.
To begin with, it was Severino who prevented full payment of the stipulated price when he refused to
deliver the owner's original duplicate title to Philam Life. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner
breached his obligation towards Severino since the former has always been willing to and could
comply with what was incumbent upon him.
In sum, the only conclusion which can be deduced from the aforesaid circumstances is that
ownership of the property has been transferred to petitioner. Article 1477 of the Civil Code states
that ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive
delivery thereof. Not only was the contract of sale perfected, but also actual delivery of the property
effectively consummated the sale.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

Hernando R. Penalosa VS Severino Santos GR No. 133749 August 23, 2001 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernando R. Penalosa VS Severino Santos GR No. 133749 August 23, 2001 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernando R. Penalosa VS Severino Santos GR No. 133749 August 23, 2001 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hernando R.

You might also like