Pormellosa vs. Land Tenure Administration 1 SCRA 375

digested by LLB 1-4 College of Law, Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Facts: The lot in controversy is a part of the Santa Clara Estate on which many families have settled through the consent of its owner, each paid a rental. In May 1941, the said Estate was acquired by the Government & was entrusted to an office known as the Rural Progress Admin., which was later abolished & its functions was transferred to the Bureau of Lands. Recently, such duties was given to the Land Tenure Administration.

The plaintiff acquired by purchase the right of occupation of the lot in question from Vicente San Jose, predecessor-in-interest. After the purchase of the Santa Clara Estate by the Government, the plaintiffs were allowed to make payments on account of the purchase price of the lot, as fenced, included two hundred (200) sq.m. Thereafter, the plaintiffs found out that the lot had been subdivided into two (2) smaller lots, No. 44 and 78. Lot No. 44 had been sold to Hermino Guzman. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint to compel the Director of Lands to execute a Deed of Sale in their favor & declare null and void the Deed of Sale of Lot No. 44, executed in favor of respondent Hemino. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff, but was reversed by the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petitioner’s complaint. Hence, this petition.

Issue: Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to purchase from the Government the lot, allegedly includes 200 sq.m.

Held: The judgment under review was affirmed.

The lot on which San Jose’s house stood had not been specified, nor had the boundaries thereof been mentioned. Significantly, the plaintiff cannot show a contract whereby the Rural Progress Admin., has sold or promised to sell them a lot of 200 sq.m. A party claiming a right granted or created by law must prove his claim by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of his opponent.

Moreover the Deed of Sale allegedly executed by Vicente San Jose in favor of Pornellosa is a mere private document and does not conclusively establish their right to the parcel of land. Acts and contracts which have for their subject the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public document.

Francisco Guttierez Repide vs. Afzetius and Afzetius, 39 Phil. 190

digested by LLB 1-4 College of Law, Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Facts: The subject of specific performance, with reference to its common law and civil law status, is to be considered on this appeal. The particular action is for the specific performance of a contract for the sale and purchase of seal estate.

The plaintiff is the owner of a certain parcel of realty, the defendants made a proposition to the plaintiff for the purchase of this property. The property was to be mortgaged to the plaintiff to rescue the payment of this balance. The plaintiff proceeded to have survey made of the land and to prepare the deed and mortgage. Expenses where incurred for these purposes. The deed was ready when the defendants were notified to appear and sign the same but they failed to this and wrote a letter to plaintiff.

Plaintiff was, and still is, willing to execute the deed in accordance with the terms agreed upon with the defendants. Accordingly, plaintiff, in his action in the court of First Instance of the City of Manila, asked judgment against the defendants condemning them to sign the deed and mortgage to the land in question, and to pay the purchase price stipulated with costs.

Issue: Whether or not the defendants are able to perform the contract is a matter of defense, and there is no special defense on that subject in the answer.

Ruling: The judgment then was in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint, without prejudice to any other remedy which the plaintiff might have, and without any finding as to the costs.

The plaintiff and appellant bases his argument or articles 1254, 1258, 1278, 1450, and 1279 of the Civil Code. The provisions of the five articles first cited and others that could be mentioned merely tend to corroborate what is self-evident, namely, the existence of a valid contract between the parties. Indisputably, there has been an offer and an acceptance, and all that remained to effectuate the contract was the execution of the deed and the mortgage.

Here we have presented a good and valid contract, bilateral in character, and free from all taint of fraud. The stability or commercial transaction requires that the rights of the seller be protected just as effectively as the right of the buyer. If this plaintiff had refused to comply with the contract, specific performance of the obligation could have been asked by the defendants. Just as surely should the plaintiff who has lived up to his bargain and who has been put to expense to do so, be permitted to coerce the defendant into going through with the contract.

The excuse of the defendants is that they do not now have the money to pay the first installment. In other words, they plead impossibility of performance. The rule of equity jurisprudence in such a case is that mere pecuniary inability to fulfill an engagement does not discharge the obligation of the contract, nor does it constitute any defense to a decree for specific performance.

Judgment reversed.