G.R. No. 230934 , December 02, 2020
HEIRS OF THE LATE APOLINARIO CABURNAY, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF TEODULO SISON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners’ predecessor, Apolinario Caburnay, entered into an agreement with Teodulo Sison in 1994 for the purchase of a parcel of land for P150,000.00, with payments made in installments evidenced by handwritten receipts. Apolinario’s family took possession. Teodulo was first married to Perpetua, who died in 1989. In 1992, he married Perla Sison, who did not consent to the 1994 sale. Teodulo died in 2000 before the final balance was paid. Apolinario died in 2005. Respondents, Teodulo’s heirs, later executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of the estates of Teodulo and Perpetua, awarding the subject property to respondent Jesus Sison, who obtained a new title. Petitioners, upon discovery, sought to pay the balance and compel execution of a deed of sale, but respondents refused, claiming Apolinario was merely a caretaker and that no valid sale existed.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint. It found the receipts genuine but declared the sale null and void, presuming the property was conjugal property of Teodulo and his first wife Perpetua, and there was no evidence of Perpetua’s consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the property regime between Teodulo and his second wife Perla. It ruled the property formed part of the absolute community of property between Teodulo and Perla, and Perla’s lack of consent rendered the sale void.

ISSUE

Whether the contract between Teodulo Sison and Apolinario Caburnay is a valid contract of sale, and if so, to what extent it may be given effect.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition in part. The Court held the contract was a valid contract of sale, not a mere contract to sell, as the receipts indicated a perfected agreement with partial execution through delivery of possession. The property, acquired before Teodulo’s second marriage, is excluded from the absolute community with Perla under Article 92(3) of the Family Code, as Teodulo had legitimate descendants (his children with Perpetua) from his first marriage. Thus, Perla’s consent was not required. The property instead formed part of the conjugal partnership of gains of Teodulo’s first marriage to Perpetua. Upon Perpetua’s death, her half share passed to her heirs, and Teodulo owned the other half plus a share in Perpetua’s estate. Teodulo could only validly sell his own interest. Applying the principle of “Quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest” (When a thing is of no force as I do it, it shall have as much force as it can), the sale is valid but effective only to the extent of Teodulo’s undivided interest in the property at the time of the sale. Petitioners are entitled to a conveyance of that proportionate share upon payment of the balance of the purchase price, with a corresponding reduction in price. The case was remanded to the trial court for determination of Teodulo’s exact share and the adjusted price.