GR 190016; (October, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 190016; October 2, 2013
FREDERICK VENTURA, MARITES VENTURA-ROXAS, and PHILIP VENTURA (HEIRS OF DECEASED DOLORES C. VENTURA), Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF SPOUSES EUSTACIO T. ENDAYA and TRINIDAD L. ENDAYA, namely, TITUS L. ENDAYA, ENRICO L. ENDAYA, and JOSEPHINE ENDAYA-BANTUG, Respondents.
FACTS
On June 29, 1981, Dolores Ventura entered into a Contract to Sell with spouses Eustacio and Trinidad Endaya for two parcels of land in Parañaque City. The contract stipulated a purchase price of ₱347,760.00, payable via a down payment and the balance within 15 years with 12% annual interest. It also obligated Dolores to pay real property taxes. Upon full payment, the Endayas were to execute a deed of sale. Dolores took possession and built on the properties. She passed away in 1992 before the payment period expired.
Her heirs (petitioners) filed a complaint for specific performance in 1996, claiming full payment of over ₱952,152.00, exceeding the principal and interest, as recorded in a passbook maintained by respondent Trinidad. They demanded the execution of a deed of sale. The Endayas countered that Dolores failed to pay the down payment and subsequent installments faithfully, leading to an automatic cancellation of the contract. They alleged subsequent oral restructuring agreements increasing the obligation, which petitioners denied, invoking the Statute of Frauds and the Dead Man’s Statute.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners are entitled to specific performance to compel respondents to execute a deed of absolute sale over the subject properties.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that petitioners failed to prove full compliance with their contractual obligations. A contract to sell is a conditional obligation where ownership is reserved until full payment of the purchase price. The vendor’s obligation to sell becomes demandable only upon the vendee’s complete performance. Petitioners bore the burden of proving full payment as a suspensive condition.
The Court found petitioners’ evidence insufficient. The passbook, while indicating receipts, did not conclusively prove that all payments were for the purchase price, as the contract also required payment of real estate taxes and interest on arrears. Petitioners failed to present a detailed accounting segregating payments for the principal, interest, taxes, and penalties as stipulated. Their claim of paying over ₱952,152.00 was a lump-sum assertion without a breakdown correlating to the specific contractual components. Consequently, they did not establish that the suspensive condition—full payment as contractually defined—had been fulfilled. Without such proof, the obligation to execute a deed of sale did not become demandable, and the action for specific performance must fail.