SPS. MONTECALVO vs. HEIRS OF EUGENIA T.

PRIMERO FACTS: Petitioners filed this appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Regional Trial Court's (RTC's) dismissal of their action for specific performance where they sought to compel the respondents to convey the property su !ect of their purported oral contract of sale. The property involved in this case is a portion of a parcel of land ("#$ s%m) registered in the name of &ugenia Primero &ugenia leased the lot to 'rene (ontecalvo )he eventually entered into an un*notari+ed Agreement with 'rene with the following stipulations, o 'rene would deposit the amount of P-$.$$$.$$ which shall form part of the down payment e%uivalent to /$0 of the purchase price. o During the term of negotiation of 1$ to -/ days from receipt of said deposit. 'rene would pay the alance of the down payment. o 'n case of default in the payment of the down payment. the deposit would e returned within 2$ days from the lapse of said negotiation period and the Agreement deemed terminated. o 'f the negotiations pushed through. the alance would e paid in 2$ e%ual monthly installments from receipt of the down payment. with interest 'rene failed to pay the full down payment within the stipulated negotiation period. 3onetheless. she continued to stay on the disputed property. and still made several payments 4n the other hand. &ugenia did not return the deposit and refused to accept further payments only in 2556. 'rene caused a survey of lot and the segregation of a portion ut &ugenia opposed her claim and as7ed her to vacate the property. &ugenia and the heirs of her deceased hus and filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against 'rene and her hus and efore the (TC of 'ligan City. Parties stipulated that the issue to e resolved was whether their Agreement had een rescinded and novated. (TC dismissed the case for lac7 of !urisdiction since the issue is not suscepti le of pecuniary estimation. (TC's Decision dismissing the e!ectment case ecame final as &ugenia and her children did not appeal therefrom. 'rene and 3onilon retaliated y instituting Civil Case with the RTC of 8anao del 3orte for specific performance. to compel &ugenia to convey the lot in %uestion RTC rendered dismissed the complaint and the counterclaim for lac7 of legal and factual ases9 ordered petitioners to pay rentals due. and 260 legal interest Petitioners appealed to the CA CA rendered affirmed the RTC Decision. (otion for Reconsideration was filed ut CA denied the same for lac7 of merit ISSUES: 2. :43 A3 4RA8 C43TRACT 4; )A8& ') <'3D'3= >?P43@ TA& )&88&R.

6.

:43 A )&88&R '3 A3 4RA8 C43TRACT 4; )A8& CA3 <& C4(P&88&D T4 &B&C?T& TA& R&C?'R&D D&&D 4; )A8& A;T&R TA& A=R&&D C43)'D&RAT'43 :A) PA'D A3D P4))&))'43 TA&R&4; D&8'D&R&D T4 A3D &3E4F&D <F TA& <?F&R. 1. :43 TA& <?F&R AA) A R'=AT T4 &3;4RC& A3 4RA8 C43TRACT 4; )A8& A;T&R TA& P4RT'43 )48D ') )&=R&=AT&D <F A=R&&(&3T 4; TA& PART'&). -. :43 TA& )&88&R ') <4?3D <F TA& AA3D:R'TT&3 R&C&'PT) PR&PAR&D A3D )'=3&D <F A&R &BPR&))8F '3D'CAT'3= PAF(&3T) 4; 84T). /. :43 TA& TR'A8 C4?RT C4?8D R&3D&R A E?D=(&3T 43 '))?&) 34T D&;'3&D '3 TA& PR&*TR'A8 4RD&R. HELD: Issue No. 1 Court distinguished a contract of sale from a contract to sell in that in a contract of sale the title to the property passes to the uyer upon the delivery of the thing sold9 in a contract to sell. ownership is. y agreement. reserved in the seller and is not to pass to the uyer until full payment of the purchase price. The a sence of a provision in the Agreement transferring title from the owner to the uyer is ta7en as a strong indication that the Agreement is a contract to sell. As stated in the Agreement. the payment of the purchase price. in installments within the period stipulated. constituted a positive suspensive condition. the failure of which is not really a reach ut an event that prevents the o ligation of the seller to convey title in accordance with Article 22"- of the Civil Code. Aence. for petitioners' failure to comply with the terms and conditions laid down in the Agreement. the o ligation of the predecessor*in*interest of the respondents to deliver and eGecute the corresponding deed of sale never arose. Issue No. 2 ;or a contract of sale to e valid. the following elements must e present, (a) consent or meeting of the minds9 ( ) determinate su !ect matter9 and (1) price certain in money or its e%uivalent. ?ntil the contract of sale is perfected. it cannot serve as a inding !uridical relation etween the parties. (ore than half of the "6 receipts presented merely indicated receipt of differing sums of money and are not consistent with the allegation of the petitioners that they have paid the full amount of the purchase price The alleged oral contract of sale of the property was not proved y preponderant evidence. Aence. petitioners cannot compel the successors*in*interest of the deceased &ugenia to eGecute a deed of a solute sale in their favor.

Issue No. 3 Testimony of the surveyor shows that &ugenia was neither around when the survey was conducted nor gave her eGpress consent to the conduct of the same. The resulting su division plan. su mitted y the petitioners to the trial court to prove that &ugenia caused the segregation of the lot. cannot e appreciated.

'n civil cases. the party having the urden of proof must esta lish his case y a preponderance of evidence. The evidence presented y the petitioners. fails to convince this Court that &ugenia gave her consent to the purported oral deed of sale. Court agreed with CA that there was no contract of sale etween the parties. Aence. petitioners cannot rightfully compel the successors*in*interest of &ugenia to eGecute a deed of a solute sale

Issue No. 4 8astly. petitioners argue that the courts elow erred in imposing a P6./$$.$$ monthly rental from 25"/ onwards. since said amount is far greater than the last agreed monthly rental (Decem er 25"-) of P/$$.$$. 'n its Decision. the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC Hthat the trial court had authority to fiG a reasona le value for the continued use and occupancy of the leased premises after the termination of the lease contract. and that it was not ound y the stipulated rental in the contract of lease since it is e%ually settled that upon termination or eGpiration of the contract of lease. the rental stipulated therein may no longer e the reasona le value for the use and occupation of the premises as a result of the change or rise in values. (oreover. the trial court can ta7e !udicial notice of the general increase in rentals of real estate especially of usiness esta lishmentsH.-5 The appellate court li7ewise held that the petitioners failed to discharge their urden to show that the said price was eGor itant or unconsciona le. /$ Aence. the CA found no reason to distur the trial court's decision ordering the petitioners to pay P6./$$.$$ as monthly rentals./2 The appellate court further held that Hto deprive &ugenia of the rentals due her as the owner*lessor of the su !ect property would result to un!ust enrichment on the part of 'rene.H /6 The courts elow correctly too7 !udicial notice of the nature of the leased property su !ect of the case at ench ased on its location and commercial via ility. As descri ed in the Agreement. the property is immediately in front of )t. Peter's College. /1 (ore significantly. it is stated in the Declaration of Real Property su mitted y the petitioners as evidence in the trial court. that the property is used predominantly for commercial purposes./- The assessment y the trial court of the area where the property is located is therefore fairly grounded. ;urthermore. the trial court also had factual asis in arriving at the said conclusion. the same eing ased on the un*re utted testimony of a witness who is a real estate ro7er. :ith respect to the prevailing valuation of the property in litigation. witness Atty. Primero. a licensed real estate ro7er testified that, G G G There is no fiGed pricing for each year ecause it always depends on the environment so that if the price in 25"#. as you were referring to 25"#. it would have risen or increased from P2.$$$.$$. then it would increase to P1.$$$.$$. then it would increase to PI.$$$.$$ and again increase to P2/.$$$.$$ and right now the current price of property in that area is P6/.$$$.$$ per s%uare meter.// The RTC rightly modified the rental award to P6./$$.$$ per month. considering that it is settled !urisprudence that courts may ta7e !udicial notice of the general increase in rentals. particularly in usiness esta lishments. WHEREFORE. the petition is DENIED. The 3ovem er 6". 6$$1 Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the 4cto er 66. 6$$2 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of 8anao del 3orte. <ranch 6. is here y AFFIRMED. )4 4RD&R&D.