Scribd
Upload
131 views2 pages

Recio vs. Aguedo (Case Digest)

Reman Recio entered into an oral contract with Alejandro to purchase property owned by the Altamiranos. Recio made partial payments that were acknowledged by receipts from Alejandro. However, Alejandro avoided completing the sale. The property was then sold to the Lajarcas by the Altamiranos. The lower court ruled the sale to the Lajarcas was void and ordered the property be sold to Recio. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified that the sale between Alejandro and Recio was only valid for Alejandro's aliquot share as no evidence showed the other heirs consented to the sale. The Court of Appeals decision was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme

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
131 views2 pages

Recio vs. Aguedo (Case Digest)

Reman Recio entered into an oral contract with Alejandro to purchase property owned by the Altamiranos. Recio made partial payments that were acknowledged by receipts from Alejandro. However, Alejandro avoided completing the sale. The property was then sold to the Lajarcas by the Altamiranos. The lower court ruled the sale to the Lajarcas was void and ordered the property be sold to Recio. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified that the sale between Alejandro and Recio was only valid for Alejandro's aliquot share as no evidence showed the other heirs consented to the sale. The Court of Appeals decision was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme

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

REMAN RECIO VS HEIRS OF THE SPOUSES AGUEDO

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

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