Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

Eman Recio VS Heirs of The Spouses Aguedo

This case involves an oral contract for the sale of property between Eman Recio and Alejandro, who claimed to represent the heirs of the Altamiranos. Recio had made partial payments that were acknowledged by receipts. However, the property was later sold to the Spouses Lajarca by the Altamiranos. The lower court ruled the sale to Lajarca was null and void and ordered a sale to Recio. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified that the sale between Alejandro and Recio was only valid for Alejandro's aliquot share, making Recio a co-owner with Lajarca. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals'

Uploaded by

Arvy Agustin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views2 pages

Eman Recio VS Heirs of The Spouses Aguedo

This case involves an oral contract for the sale of property between Eman Recio and Alejandro, who claimed to represent the heirs of the Altamiranos. Recio had made partial payments that were acknowledged by receipts. However, the property was later sold to the Spouses Lajarca by the Altamiranos. The lower court ruled the sale to Lajarca was null and void and ordered a sale to Recio. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified that the sale between Alejandro and Recio was only valid for Alejandro's aliquot share, making Recio a co-owner with Lajarca. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals'

Uploaded by

Arvy Agustin
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

EMAN RECIO VS HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES AGUEDO

G.R. No. 182349, July 24, 2013

“Essential Elements of a Contract of Sale”

FACTS:

The petitioner entered into an oral contract with the respondent to purchase the property
of the Altamiranos. The respondent, Alejandro claimed to represent the other heirs of the said lot.
Partial payments have been made and acknowledge by the respondent through the issuance of
receipts. Petitioner offered to pay the remaining balance of P340,000 to complete the agreed sale
price of P500,000 by Nena Recio, the mother. However, respondent Alejandro keeps on avoiding
the petitioner.

The property on issue was subsequently sold to respondents , spouses Lajarca by the
Altamiranos. The petitioner filed an Amended Complaint and annulment of the sale between the
Altamiranos and Lajarca.

The lower court favor the petitioner and declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale entered into
and by the Altamiranos and Lajarcas as NULL AND VOID and directing the defendants
Altamiranos to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the plaintiff with payment for civil
damages.

Spouses Lajarca filed an appeal assailing the above RTC decision.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision with modification that the
contract of sale between Alejandro and Recio is VALID only with respect to the aliquot share of
Alejandro in the said lot. Further, the CA declared Recio as a co-owner of the Spouses Lajarca
over the property. The civil damages awarded to Recio are affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely and seriously erred in modifying the RTC decision.

HELD:

The Court finds no reversible error with the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The core of the present petition is the validity of the verbal contract of sale between Alejandro
and the petitioner; and the Deed of Absolute Sale between the Altamiranos and the Spouses
Lajarca involving the subject property.
A valid contract of sale requires: (a) meeting of minds of the parties to transfer ownership of the
thing sold in exchange for a price; (b) the subject matter; and (c) the price certain in money or its
equivalent.

In the instant case, all these elements are present therefore the contract of sale is valid. However,
there is no evidence to show that the co-owner or other heirs consented to Alejandro’s sale
transaction with the petitioner. Hence, it was ruled that Alejandro only sold his aliquot share of
the subject property to the petitioner, having no SPA to show authorizing Alejandro to sell the
subject property.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED

You might also like