G.R. No. 157287; February 12, 2008
WT CONSTRUCTION, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. ULRIC R. CAÑETE, Presiding Judge, RTC, Mandaue City, Branch 55, and the ESTATE OF ALBERTO CABAHUG, thru its Administratrix, JULIANA VDA. DE CABAHUG, respondents.

FACTS

The Estate of Alberto Cabahug, through its administrator Ciriaco Cabahug, entered into an Agreement for Sale of Land with petitioner WT Construction, Inc. to sell a parcel of land for P8,691,000. Petitioner paid a 50% downpayment. The contract stipulated that the balance was payable “immediately after the land is free from all occupants/obstructions,” and authorized petitioner to enter and improve the property upon payment. Petitioner later filed an ejectment case to clear the occupants. It was discovered that Ciriaco did not inform his co-heirs and misappropriated the downpayment, leading to his removal as administrator.
The new administratrix demanded payment of the balance from petitioner. Petitioner refused, citing the contractual condition requiring the land to be free of occupants first. The probate court then ordered petitioner to either opt for rescission or pay the balance of P4,259,400, less expenses incurred in the ejectment case, within a specified period. A writ of execution was subsequently issued to enforce payment.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court, acting as a probate court, gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of execution to compel petitioner to pay the balance of the purchase price despite the unresolved ejectment of occupants and a pending action for quieting of title over a portion of the property.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The probate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The contractual condition for payment—that the land be free from occupants—was intended for the benefit of the buyer, petitioner, who could waive it. By entering the property, introducing improvements, and initiating its own ejectment suit, petitioner effectively waived this condition and elected to pursue the contract. Consequently, its obligation to pay the balance became due.
The probate court validly enforced this obligation. The sale was authorized by the court to generate funds for estate taxes, placing the transaction within its jurisdiction. The power to enforce the resulting contractual obligations is a necessary incident to its authority to order the sale for settling estate debts. Petitioner’s claim that the balance should be reduced by unproven ejectment expenses was rendered moot, as it failed to substantiate these expenses within the period granted by the probate court. The pending quieting of title action did not preclude execution, as it involved a separate claim against the estate’s title, not the enforcement of the perfected contract of sale between the estate and petitioner.