(8) SPS GODOFREDO ALFREDO and CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO, SPOUSES

Ps' Answer: the action is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

ARNULFO SAVELLANO and EDITHA B. SAVELLANO, DANTON D. MATAWARAN, - there is no written instrument evidencing the alleged contract of sale over the
SPOUSES DELFIN F. ESPIRITU, JR. and ESTELA S. ESPIRITU and ELIZABETH
Subject Land in favor of Armando and Adelia. They objected to whatever parole
TUAZON v
evidence Sps Borras introduced.
SPS ARMANDO BORRAS and ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS
June 17, 2003
- Subsequent Buyers were buyers in good faith and for value.
Real or Actual Delivery
CARPIO, J.
June 7 1996, the RTC Bataan ruled in favor of Sps Borras.
FACTS Note: OCT here is of course owner's duplicate copy
- DoASes executed to Subsequent Buyers and the corresponding TCTs issued
Sps Alfredo were the registered owbers of a parcel of land measuring 81,524 sqm with them are null and void. RoD ordered to cancel the said titles.
in Barrio Culis, Mabiga, Hermosa, Bataan.
- Sps Alfredo are ordered to execute and deliver a good and valid DoAS of the
disputed parcel of land in favor of the Sps Borras; and to surrender the OCT No.
Mar 7 1994, Rs Sps Borras filed a complaint for SP against Sps Alfredo before the 284 to ROD Bataan, who, in turn, is directed to cancel the same.
RTC Bataan. Allegations:
-Sps Alfredo mortgaged the Subject Land for P7k with the DBP. To pay the debt, The trial court found the following facts as proof of a perfected contract of sale.
Sps Alfredo sold the Subject Land to them for pay P15k: 7k for payment of the
DBP loan and its accumulated interest, and the balance to be paid in cash.
The trial court also concluded that the Subsequent Buyers were not innocent
- they gave the money DBP released the mortgage and returned the OCT No. purchasers. Not one of the Subsequent Buyers testified in court on how they
284 to Sps Alfredo.
purchased their respective lots. The Subsequent Buyers totally depended on the
- they subsequently paid the balance of the purchase price of the Subject Land (a testimony of Constancia Calonso (a broker) to explain the subsequent sale.
receipt dated Mar 11 1970). Sps Alfredo then delivered to Adelia the OCT No. 284,
with the document of cancellation of mortgage, official receipts of realty tax
Calonso admitted that the Subject Land was adjacent to her own lot. Calonso did
payments, and tax declaration in the name of Godofredo.
not inquire on the nature of the tenancy of the Natanawans and on who owned
- Sps Alfredo introduced them, as the new owners of the Subject Land, to the
the Subject Land. Instead, she bought out the tenants for P150k. The buy out was
Natanawans, the old tenants of the Subject Land. They then took possession of embodied in a Kasunduan. Apolinario Natanawan testified that he and his wife
it.
accepted the money and signed the Kasunduan because Calonso and the
- in Jan 1994, they learned that hired persons had entered the Subject Land and Subsequent Buyers threatened them with forcible ejectment.
were cutting trees under instructions of new owners of the Subject Land.
Subsequently, they discovered that the Sps had re-sold portions of the Subject Another indication of Calonso's bad faith was her own admission that she saw an
Land to several persons.
adverse claim on the title of the Subject Land when she registered the deeds of
- they filed an adverse claim with the RoD Bataan. They discovered that Sps
sale in the names of the Subsequent Buyers.
Alfredo had secured another OCT No. 284 after filing a petition in court for the
issuance of a new copy. The Sps Alfredo claimed in their petition that they lost Nov 26 1999, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
their owner's duplicate copy.
The CA added that the handwritten receipt dated 11 March 1970 is sufficient
- they wrote the Sps complaining about their acts, but the latter did not reply. proof that Sps Alfredo sold the Subject Land to Sps Borras upon payment of the
balance of the purchase price. The CA found the recitals in the receipt as
Mar 28 1994, Sps Borras amended their complaint to include the Subsequent
sufficient to serve as the memorandum or note as a writing under the SoF.
Buyers as additional defendants.

Hence, this petition for review.

WON there was a perfected CoS.
Held: Yes
A contract is perfected once there is consent of the contracting parties on the
object certain and on the cause of the obligation. In the instant case, the object
of the sale is the Subject Land, and the price certain is P15k. The trial and
appellate courts found that there was a meeting of the minds on the sale of the
Subject Land and on the purchase price of P15k.

ratified by the acceptance of benefits under the contract. Sps Alredo benefited
from the contract because they paid their DBP loan and secured the cancellation
of their mortgage using the money given by Sps Borras. They also accepted
payment of the balance of the purchase price.

Note in re: sale w/out husband's consent: That Godofredo and Carmen allowed
Armando and Adelia to enjoy possession of the Subject Land for 24 years is
formidable proof of Godofredos acquiescence to the sale. If the sale was truly
unauthorized, then Godofredo should have filed an action to annul the sale. He
The contract of sale of the Subject Land has also been consummated because the did not. The prescriptive period to annul the sale has long lapsed. Godofredos
sellers and buyers have performed their respective obligations under the
conduct belies his claim that his wife sold the Subject Land without his consent.
contract. In a contract of sale, the seller obligates himself to transfer the
ownership of the determinate thing sold, and to deliver the same, to the buyer Moreover, Godofredo and Carmen used most of the proceeds of the sale to pay
who obligates himself to pay a price certain to the seller. In the instant case, Sps their debt with the DBP. The sale redounded to the benefit of the conjugal
Alfredo delivered the Subject Land to Sps Borras, placing the latter in actual
partnership. Article 161 of the Civil Code provides that the conjugal partnership
physical possession of the Subject Land. This physical delivery of the Subject
shall be liable for debts and obligations contracted by the wife for the benefit of
Land also constituted a transfer of ownership of the Subject Land to Armando the conjugal partnership. Hence, even if Carmen sold the land without the
and Adelia. Ownership of the thing sold is transferred to the vendee upon its
consent of her husband, the sale still binds the conjugal partnership.
actual or constructive delivery. Sps Barros also turned over to Sps Borras the
documents of ownership to the Subject Land, namely the owners duplicate copy Note in re: Sps Alfredo did not deliver the title of the Subject Land to Sps Borras.
of OCT No. 284, the tax declaration and the receipts of realty tax payments.
Adelia got the title from Julie Limon, her classmate in college.
It is not necessary that the seller himself deliver the title of the property
On the other hand, Sps Borras paid the full purchase price as evidenced by the to the buyer because the thing sold is understood as delivered when it is placed
receipt dated 11 March 1970 issued by Carmen. Armando and Adelia fulfilled
in the control and possession of the vendee. To repeat, Sps Alfredo themselves
their obligation to provide the P7,000.00 to pay the DBP loan of Godofredo and introduced the Natanawans, their tenants, to Armando and Adelia as the new
Carmen, and to pay the latter the balance of P8,000.00 in cash.
owners of the Subject Land. From then on, Sps Borras acted as the landlords of
the Natanawans.
The trial and appellate courts correctly refused to apply the SoF to this case. The
existence of the receipt dated 11 March 1970, which is a memorandum of the
WON the Action already Barred by Prescription and Laches
sale, removes the transaction from the provisions of the SoF.
Held: No
The ultimate relief sought by Sps Borras is the reconveyance to them of the
The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to contracts Subject Land. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property,
either partially or totally performed. Thus, where one party has performed ones wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. The body of
obligation, oral evidence will be admitted to prove the agreement. In the
the pleading or complaint determines the nature of an action, not its title or
instant case, the parties have consummated the sale of the Subject Land, with heading. Thus, the present action should be treated as one for reconveyance.
both sellers and buyers performing their respective obligations under the
contract of sale. In addition, a contract that violates the Statute of Frauds is
A1456 of the Civil Code provides that a person acquiring property through fraud

becomes by operation of law a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the the adverse claim on Feb 81994 constituted, by operation of law, notice to the
real owner of the property. The presence of fraud in this case created an implied whole world.
trust in favor of Sps Borras. This gives them the right to seek reconveyance of
the property from the Subsequent Buyers.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the appealed decision is AFFIRMED.
Treble costs against petitioners.
To determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an action for
reconveyance, plaintiffs 'possession of the disputed property is material. An
action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years. The
ten-year prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey
the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. However,
if the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also remains in possession of
the property, the prescriptive period to recover title and possession of the
property does not run against him. In such a case, an action for reconveyance, if
nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action
that is imprescriptible.
WON the Subsequent Buyers are buyers in good faith.
Held: No
The settled rule is when ownership or title passes to the buyer, the seller ceases
to have any title to transfer to any third person. If the seller sells the same land
to another, the second buyer who has actual or constructive knowledge of the
prior sale cannot be a registrant in good faith. Such second buyer cannot defeat
the first buyers title. In case a title is issued to the second buyer, the first buyer
may seek reconveyance of the property subject of the sale.
Thus, to merit protection under the second paragraph of A1544 of the Civil Code,
the second buyer must act in good faith in registering the deed. In this case, the
Subsequent Buyers good faith hinges on whether they had knowledge of the
previous sale. Petitioners do not dispute that Armando and Adelia registered
their adverse claim with the RoD Bataan on Feb 8 1994. The Subsequent Buyers
purchased their respective lots only on Feb 22 1994 as shown by the date of their
deeds of sale. Consequently, the adverse claim registered prior to the second
sale charged the Subsequent Buyers with constructive notice of the defect in the
title of the sellers, Sps Alfredo.
It is immaterial whether Calonso, the broker of the second sale, communicated
to the Subsequent Buyers the existence of the adverse claim. The registration of