G.R. No. 207407 , September 29, 2021
RAQUEL ESTIPONA (LELANDLORD E. STO. DOMINGO) AND SPS. ALBERTO CO AND LULU CO, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTATE OF ANACLETO AQUINO AND LORNA FE ESPINOSA, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ANACLETO AQUINO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Decedent Anacleto Aquino died on April 26, 1997, leaving a last will and testament. A petition for probate was filed and granted. Among the properties included in the estate inventory was a property on E. Quintos Street, Sampaloc, Manila, covered by TCT No. 212562, with three apartment units. Before his death, Anacleto Aquino obtained two loans of P300,000 each from spouses Rafael and Raquel Estipona and spouses Jessie and Roselyn Cacanando, secured by a Real Estate Mortgage dated November 15, 1996, over Apartment Unit No. 632. The mortgage contained a provision giving the mortgagees the right of first refusal at a price of P800,000 per unit if Aquino opted to sell. On March 26, 1997, Aquino orally informed Raquel Estipona of his option to sell Unit No. 632 to her on installment for P800,000, with the P300,000 loan to be deducted. Raquel Estipona agreed, made a down payment, and issued various checks to Aquino, with total payments amounting to P544,000, leaving a balance of P256,000. Separately, on February 21, 1997, Aquino sold Apartment Unit No. 632-A to spouses Rafael and Raquel Estipona on installment, as shown in a “Sale of Real Estate on Installment Basis.” They paid P200,000 upon execution and later paid the remaining P600,000 balance to the then court-appointed administrator, Victor Espinosa. Raquel Estipona later sold this unit to spouses Alberto and Lulu Co. The administratrix of the estate, Lorna Fe Espinosa, filed ejectment cases against Raquel Estipona and the spouses Co. Consequently, Raquel Estipona and spouses Co filed “Claims Against the Estate” in the probate proceedings, praying for, among other things, an order directing the administrator to execute absolute deeds of sale for the two apartment units in their favor upon payment of the balance, and for the release of these units from the estate. The probate court dismissed their claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the probate court’s order. Petitioners elevated the case via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the claimants (petitioners) have a valid claim against the estate for the enforcement of the alleged contracts of sale over the two apartment units, which would require the execution of absolute deeds of sale and the release of these properties from the estate of Anacleto Aquino.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the claimants failed to substantiate their claims with sufficient evidence. Regarding Apartment Unit No. 632, the alleged oral sale was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, as it was a contract for the sale of real property not evidenced by any note or memorandum. The various checks presented were insufficient to constitute such a memorandum as they did not specify the terms of the sale, such as the object, price, and manner of payment. The right of first refusal in the mortgage was not properly exercised, and the payments made were not unequivocally linked to a perfected contract of sale. Regarding Apartment Unit No. 632-A, the document titled “Sale of Real Estate on Installment Basis” was not a consummated sale but merely a contract to sell, where ownership is retained by the seller until full payment of the price. Full payment was not conclusively proven, as the check presented as payment was payable to the administrator, Victor Espinosa, whose authority to receive such payment was questionable, and there was no evidence the estate actually received the funds. Furthermore, the property had already been included in a project of partition approved by the probate court and devised to the decedent’s grandchildren. A probate court cannot divest heirs or devisees of their titles to specific properties distributed by a will based on an unsubstantiated claim. The claimants’ remedy, if any, is a separate civil action against the estate for damages, not a claim for specific performance within the probate proceedings.