Coronel Vs CA Digest

Coronel vs.
CA/Alcaraz
G.R. No. 103577 Oct. 7, 1996
FACTS:
1. CORONEL: ISSUED RECEIPT OF DOWN PAYMENT TO ALCARAZ
a. Conditions:
i. 1,240,000 total amount
ii. 50,000 down payment
iii. 1,190,000 balance
iv. received by Ramona Alcaraz
v. Coronel to bind themselves in transferring of names (from deceased father), transfer
certificate of title immediate to down payment, deed of absolute sale immediate upon payment of balance.
2. ALCARAZ:
a. Conditions:
i. Ramona will pay down payment
ii. Coronel will transfer names
iii. Upon transfer, issue absolute deed of sale; Ramona will pay remaining balance.
3. Mother of Ramona paid the down payment.

a. Following month, Coronel transferred name to Alcaraz.
b. Suddenly sold property to CATALINA MABANAG for 1,580,000 after Catalina paid for 300,000.
i. Cancelled contract of Ramona, deposited back the down payment to Ramonas
account.
c. Filed complaint against the Coronels.
4. CATALINA filed annotation of notice of adverse claim.

a. Coronel executed deed of absolute sale to Catalina
b. Title was issued to Catalina
5. LOWER COURT sided with Alcaraz

a. Pay whole 1,190,000
b. Mabanag deed cancelled
c. Coronel to vacate property and deliver possession to Alcaraz, plus damages and attorney fees.
6. CORONEL: appealed but denied
ISSUE:
Receipt of down payment offered on both Alcaraz and Mabanag.
1. Article 1305: A contract is meeting of minds whereby one binds himself to give something/render service.
2. Coronel should insist that document is executor contract to sell, subject to suspensive conditions
a. Because of Ramonas absence (went to US), contract could not ripen to contract of absolute sale.
b. SALE should be a consensual contract:
i. Requisites:
Consent
Determinate subject matter
Price certain/equivalent
ii. In case at hand, CONSENT or MEETING OF THE MINDS is lacking.
3. CONTRACT TO SELL IS DIFFERENT FROM CONTRACT OF SALE:

a. CONTRACT TO SELL: seller explicitly reserves right to transfer title to prospective buyer.
Therefore, seller does not agree until happening of event.
b. CASE AT HAND: full payment of purchase price is the happening of event and the SUSPENSIVE
CONDITION.
i. Hence, fulfillment of SUSPENSIVE CONDITION (full payment) makes the obligation to
sell demandable.
4. CONTRACT TO SELL IS DIFFERENT FROM CONDITIONAL CONTRACT TO SELL

a. SIMILARITIES:
a. Both are bilateral contracts:
i. Seller reserves ownership of subject property
ii. Buyer binds himself exclusively upon fulfillment of condition.
b. DIFFERENCES:
a. CS: may not be considered conditional contract to sell
CCS: seller may reserve subject property UNTIL fulfillment of suspensive condition.
1ST CONDITION MUST BE PRESENT.
If suspensive condition not fulfilled, sale is abated.
If suspensive condition fulfilled, automatic transfer of ownership
c. CASE AT HAND: OWNERSHIP NOT AUTOMATIC EVEN IF PROPERTY IS DELIVERED: THERE HAS TO BE A
TITLE.
a. CS:
i. 3rd person (MABANAG) cant be buyer of bad faith even if suspensive condition
fulfilled.
ii. Prospective buyer (Alcaraz) can not seek reconveyance = no double sale.
iii. Transfer of title to buyer.
iv. No defect in owner-seller title although owner (CORONEL) can be sued for
damages by intending buyer.
b. CCS:
i. Sale has to become absolute/ affect sellers title upon fulfillment of suspensive
condition.
ii. If there is a previous delivery of subject property, automatic transfer of title
to buyer. Seller has no more title for 3rd party.
iii. 3rd party, if with knowledge, considered in bad faith. First buyer may seek
reconveyance.
HELD:
INSTANT PETITION DISMISSED/ APPEALED JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
DOUBLE SALE: Mabanag could not be in good faith or without knowledge.
Notice of lis pendens (Alcaraz) is Feb 1985. Notice of lis pendense (Mabanag) is April 1985.
First in time, stronger in right: PRIUS TEMPORE, POTIOR JURE.
DOUBLE SALE EXCEPTIONS: Second buyer registers ahead of first buyer (good faith).
No inscription of either two buyers (when 2nd buyer in good faith acquires possession ahead of first)
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY: ownership to first registered in Registry of Property.
No question to conceptions authority to represent Ramona.
Condition was fulfilled when new title was issued
FACTS:
This case is about a sale of land in Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon City by the vendor Romulo Coronel to the
vendees Conception Alcaraz and her daughter Ramona Patricia Alcaraz with the following conditions:
The Coronels will immediately transfer the certificate of title in their name upon receipt of the
downpayment which is 50,000.
Upon the transfer in their names of the subject property, the Coronels will execute the deed of
absolute sale in favor of Ramona and then Ramona shall immediately pay the Coronels the
whole balance of 1,190,000.
On January 15, 1985, Conception paid the downpayment of 50,000 and then on February 6, 1985, the
property was now registered under the name of Coronels. By Feb. 18, 1985, the Coronels sold the
property to Catalina B. Mabanag for 1,580,000 after she made a 300,000 downpayment. This is the
reason why the Coronels cancelled and rescind the contract with the Alcaraz by depositing back the
50,000 to Ramonas bank account.
On Feb. 22, Conception filed a complaint for specific performance against the Coronels. On April, the
Coronels executed a deed of absolute sale over the subject property to Catalina after which on June
Catalina was issued a new title over the subject property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Receipt of Down payment embodied a perfected contract of sale or just a mere
contract to sell?
HELD:
CONTRACT OF SALE- contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to
deliver a determinate thing and the other to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent.
CONTRACT TO SELL- the prospective seller explicitly reserves the transfer of the title to the
prospective buyer, meaning the seller does not yet agree or consent to transfer the ownership of
the property until the happening of a contingent event like full payment of price.
SUPREME COURT RULING:

When the Receipt of Down Payment document was prepared and signed by Romulo Coronel,
the parties had agreed to a conditional contract of sale the consummation of the contract is subject only
to the successful transfer of the certificate of Title.
According to Supreme Court, the receipt of down payment document manifests a clear intent of the
Coronels to transfer the title to the buyer, but since the title is still in the name effect the transfer even
though the buyers are able and willing to immediately pay the purchase price. The agreement as well
could not have been a contract to sell because the seller or the Coronels made no express reservation of
ownership or the title of the land.
On Feb. 6, 1985, the Contract of Sale between the Coronels and the Alcaraz became obligatory.

Coronel Vs CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coronel Vs CA Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Coronel Vs CA Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coronel vs.

3. Mother of Ramona paid the down payment.

4. CATALINA filed annotation of notice of adverse claim.

5. LOWER COURT sided with Alcaraz

6. CORONEL: appealed but denied

3. CONTRACT TO SELL IS DIFFERENT FROM CONTRACT OF SALE:

4. CONTRACT TO SELL IS DIFFERENT FROM CONDITIONAL CONTRACT TO SELL

SUPREME COURT RULING:

You might also like