G.R. No. 143325; October 24, 2000
RAUL SANTOS by and through his attorneys-in-fact AMADO SANAO & ATTY. NESTOR BARBOSA, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF JOSE P. MARIANO & ERLINDA MARIANO-VILLANUEVA; & the Law Firm of SAN BUENAVENTURA, MORALEDA OBIAS and YAMBAO, respondents.
FACTS
Macario and Irene Mariano owned six parcels of land. Upon Macario’s death, his heirs—widow Irene and their two adopted children, Jose and Erlinda—executed an extrajudicial settlement. Irene was appointed as the agent to manage the estate. Without specific authorization, Irene later executed an Affidavit of Merger consolidating the titles in her name alone. In 1974, Irene married Rolando Relucio, whose marriage was later annulled due to a prior subsisting marriage. In April 1975, Irene executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over all six lots to Raul Santos, Rolando’s first cousin, for P150,000. Despite this sale, Irene continued to possess, manage, and derive income from the properties, even constructing a building on some lots. She later sold one lot to a third party and executed a second deed in 1982 covering two of the same lots to Raul. Titles were transferred to Raul only years later, with some lots eventually being sold or levied upon to other parties.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the contracts of sale executed by Irene Mariano in favor of Raul Santos were valid, perfected contracts.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the Court of Appeals’ finding that the sales were invalid due to the absence of a meeting of the minds between Irene and Raul. The legal logic centers on the distinction between the due execution of a document and the perfection of a contract. A contract of sale is perfected only upon concurrence of the essential elements: consent, object, and price. The Court found the evidence overwhelming that there was no genuine intention to sell. Irene’s continued possession, administration, and receipt of income from the properties long after the purported 1975 sale, coupled with her subsequent sale of one lot to another party, were acts inconsistent with a consummated sale. These factual findings of the lower courts, which are conclusive upon the Supreme Court in a petition for review, demonstrated a lack of consent and thus no perfected contract. The Court also rejected petitioner’s procedural objections, noting his participation in the hearings for newly discovered evidence estopped him from challenging it, and deemed his third issue on possession moot.