Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 133895, October 2, 2001

Santos v. Santos, G.R. No.
133895,
October 2, 2001
Facts: Petitioner Zenaida M. Santos is the widow of Salvador Santos, a brother of
private respondents Calixto, Alberto, Antonio, all surnamed Santos and Rosa Santos-
Carreon. Spouses Jesus and Rosalia Santos owned a parcel of land registered under
TCT No. 27571 with an area of 154 square meters, located at Sta. Cruz Manila. On it
was a four-door apartment administered by Rosalia who rented them out. The spouses
had five children, Salvador, Calixto, Alberto, Antonio and Rosa. Jesus and Rosalia
executed a deed of sale of the properties in favor of their children Salvador and Rosa.
Rosa then sold her share to Salvador which resulted in the issuance of a new TCT No.
113221.
Despite the transfer of the property to Salvador, Rosalia continued to lease and receive
rentals from the apartment units. Jesus, Salvador and Rosalia died. Petitioner Zenaida,
claiming to be Salvador’s heir, demanded the rent from Antonio Hombrebueno, a tenant
of Rosalia. The latter refused to pay, thus Zenaida filed an ejectment suit against him
with the MTC of Manila. The trial court ruled in favor of Zenaida. Private respondents
instituted an action for reconveyance of property with preliminary injunction against
petitioner in the RTC of Manila, where they alleged that the two deeds of sale executed
on were simulated for lack of consideration and that they were executed to
accommodate Salvador in generating funds for his business ventures and providing him
with greater business flexibility. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
the private respondents.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner can invoke the “Dead Man’s Statute”?
Held: No. Petitioner in her memorandum seeks to expunge the testimony of Rosa
Santos-Carreon before the trial court in view of Sec. 23, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules
of Court, otherwise known as the “Dead Man’s Statute.” It is too late for petitioner,
however, to invoke said rule. The trial court in its order dated February 5, 1990, denied
petitioner’s motion to disqualify respondent Rosa as a witness. Petitioner did not appeal
therefrom. Trial ensued and Rosa testified as a witness for respondents and was cross-
examined by petitioner’s counsel. By her failure to appeal from the order allowing Rosa
to testify, she waived her right to invoke the dean man’s statute. Further, her counsel
cross-examined Rosa on matters that occurred during Salvadors’ lifetime.
In Goñi vs. CA, 144 SCRA 222, 231 (1986) we held that protection under the dead
man’s statute is effectively waived when a counsel for a petitioner cross-examines a
private respondent on matters occurring during the deceased’s lifetime. The Court of
appeals cannot be faulted in ignoring petitioner on Rosa’s disqualification. Petition is
DENIED.
The controlling fact is that there was agreement between the parties on the subject matter, the price
and the mode of payment and that part of the price was paid. "Whenever earnest money is given in
a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the
contract" Thus, it was held that the vendor's change in a phrase of the offer to purchase, which
change does not essentially change the terms of the offer, does not amount to a rejection of the offer
and the tender of a counter-offer (Stuart vs. Franklin Life Ins. Co., supra).
It should be underscored that the condition that Bormaheco, Inc. should acquire the Nassco
property was fulfilled. As admitted by the appellants, the Nassco property was conveyed to
Bormaheco, Inc. on June 26, 1964. As early as January 17, 1964 the property was awarded to
Bormaheco, Inc. as the highest bidder.
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should
be complied with in good faith" (Art. 1159, Civil Code). Issue; Inasmuch as the sale was perfected
and even partly executed, Bormaheco, Inc., and the Cervantes spouses, as a matter of justice and
good faith, are bound to comply with their contractual commitments.
Parenthetically, it may be observed that much misunderstanding could have been avoided had the
broker and the buyer taken the trouble of making some research in the Registry of Deeds and
availing themselves of the services of a competent lawyer in drafting the contract to sell.
Facts:
1. That plaintiffs do not have a cause of action against them as well as the requisite standing and
interest to assail their titles over the properties in litis; (2) that the sales were with sufficient
considerations and made by defendants parents voluntarily, in good faith, and with full
knowledge of the consequences of their deeds of sale; and (3) that the certificates of title
were issued with sufficient factual and legal basis.
It is evident from the records that petitioners are interested in the properties subject of the Deeds of
Sale, but they have failed to show any legal right to the properties. The trial and appellate courts
should have dismissed the action for this reason alone. An action must be prosecuted in the name of
the real party-in-interest.12cräläwvirtualibräry
[T]he question as to real party-in-interest is whether he is the party who would be benefitted or
injured by the judgment, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit.
In actions for the annulment of contracts, such as this action, the real parties are those who are
parties to the agreement or are bound either principally or subsidiarily or are prejudiced in their rights
with respect to one of the contracting parties and can show the detriment which would positively
result to them from the contract even though they did not intervene in it (Ibaez v. Hongkong &
Shanghai Bank, 22 Phil. 572 [1912]) xxx.
These are parties with a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere expectancy or
future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest. The phrase present substantial interest
more concretely is meant such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as will entitle
him, under the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is sufficient, or that he has the legal title to
demand and the defendant will be protected in a payment to or recovery by him. 13 cräläwvirtualibräry
Petitioners do not have any legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale. As the
appellate court stated, petitioners right to their parents properties is merely inchoate and vests only
upon their parents death. While still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their
properties. In their overzealousness to safeguard their future legitime, petitioners forget that
theoretically, the sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the value of their parents estate.
While the sale of the lots reduced the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the
estate.
It is not the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale. Payment of the
price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Payment of the price goes into the
performance of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration.
The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an
existing valid contract while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract
Courts cannot follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains, protect him from
unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided contracts, or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts
cannot constitute themselves guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate
not because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but because he has been
defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do foolish things, make ridiculous contracts, use miserable
judgment, and lose money by them indeed, all they have in the world; but not for that alone can the
law intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of the law, the commission of what
the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation and
remedy it.

Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 133895, October 2, 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 133895, October 2, 2001

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

Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 133895, October 2, 2001

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santos v. Santos, G.R. No.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner can invoke the “Dead Man’s Statute”?

You might also like