59-dalion-v.-ca.docx

University of the Philippines College of Law Topic Case No. Case Name Ponente

Formation of the CoS; Formalities of the Contract; GR: Form not Important G.R. No. 78903 / Feb. 28, 1990 Dalion v. CA Medialdea, J. RELEVANT FACTS

  





A parcel of land in Sogod, Southern Leyte was registered in the name of Segundo Dalion. Ruperto Sabesaje sued him to recover its ownership, based on a private document of absolute sale, allegedly executed by Segundo. However, Segundo denied the sale, pointing out that: o The document was fictitious o his signature was forged, and o the land is conjugal property, which Segundo and his wife acquired from Saturnina Sabesaje. Furthermore, the Dalions argued that assuming the document and the signature were valid, the contract itself was not because it was not embodied in a public document, going against Art. 1358 which mandates that “acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinction of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument”. The RTC decided in favor of the respondent and ordered the Dalions to deliver to him the parcel of land in a public document—which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The trial court in particular compelled Dalion to execute a formal deed of sale. Pointing out that the suit for recovery of ownership was premised on the binding effect and validity inter parties of the contract of sale, it reasoned out that the respondent merely sought consummation of said contract which was mandated by Art. 1357.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI Issue WoN the sale of parcel of land between Segundo Dalion and Ruperto Sabesaje Jr. required the execution of a public document for the transfer of ownership?

Ratio NO. 1.

2.

3.

4.

The trial court was right in ordering the petitioners to deliver to Ruperto the parcel of land and to execute corresponding formal deed of conveyance in a public document. The petitioners’ argument—that the contract was still in a private document and does not convey title or right to the lot—is misplaced. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public instrument. In particular, Art. 1358 on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity. As per Art. 1475, upon perfection of the contract the parties may reciprocally demand performance, i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the thing sold. As regards to the petitioners’ contention that the proper action should have been for specific performance, the Court agreed with the RTC that the suit was properly for recovery of ownership. Art. 1475 of the Civil Code gave the parties to a perfected contract of sale the right to reciprocally demand performance, and to observe a particular form, if warranted by law (e.g. Art. 1357).

University of the Philippines College of Law RULING ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the ruling of the trial court is hereby. AFFIRMED. No costs.