Heirs of Amparo v.

Santos

Facts:

Amparo Del Rosario (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Atty. Andres Santos (defendant) and
his wife Aurora whereby the latter sold to the former 20,000 sq. m. of land which is to be segregated
from one lot.

Said lot forms part of the several lots belonging to certain Teofilo Custodio, of which lots
Attorney Santos owns ½ interest thereof. Parties agreed that spouses Andres shall thereafter execute a
Deed of Confirmation of Sale in favor of Del Rosario as soon as the title has been released and the
subdivision plan of said Lot 1 has been approved by the Land Registration Commissioner.

Eventually, after the release of the title and the subdivision plan of said Lot 1 approved by the
Land Registration Commissioner, the spouses failed to execute the deed and Del Rosario claims a
malicious breach of a deed of sale.

Defendant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss setting up the defenses of lack of jurisdiction of
the court over the subject of the action lack of cause of action as well as the defense of prescription
alleging that the deed of sale was only an accommodation graciously extended out of the close
friendships between the defendants and the plaintiff thus it results to an abandonment of the demand
set forth in the complaint.

Issue + Held:

Whether or not the sale is valid as to the cause or object of the contract. YES

The SC held that the execution of the Deed of Sale is valid notwithstanding the lack of any title
to the lot by the defendants at the time of the execution of the Deed of Sale in favor of plaintiffs as
there can be a sale of an expected thing.

Defendants failed to substantiate the claim that the cause of action of plaintiff has been
extinguished. And while it is true that appellants submitted a receipt signed by plaintiff, the aforesaid
receipt is no proof that Erlinda Cortez subsequently paid her debt to appellee.

Defendants claim that their P2, 000.00 debt to Erlinda Cortez had been waived or abandoned is
not also supported by any affidavit, document or writing submitted to the court. As to their allegation
that the plaintiffs claim is barred by prescription, the ruling of the trial court that only seven years and
six months of the ten-year prescription period provided under Arts. 1144 and 155 in cases of actions for
specific performance of the written contract of sale had elapsed and that the action had not yet
prescribed, is in accordance with law and, therefore, the court affirms the same.