G.R. No. 225033 - SPOUSES ANTONIO BELTRAN AND FELISA BELTRAN, VS. SPOUSES APOLONIO CANGAYDA, JR. AND LORETA E. CANGAYDA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, [petitioners], their heirs, successors-in-interest and/or assigns are ordered to vacate the portion of Lot No. 11 presently occupied by them within [60 days] from receipt of x x x this Decision. However, as there was no express agreement between the parties that [respondents] may retain the sum of P29,600.00 already paid to them by [petitioners], [respondents] are hereby ordered to return the said sum to [petitioners], likewise within [60] days from receipt of this Decision. [17] (Emphasis supplied) In so ruling, the RTC characterized the oral agreement between the parties as a contract to sell. The RTC held that the consummation of this contract to sell was averted due to petitioners' failure to pay the purchase price in full. [18] Hence the RTC held that ownership over the disputed property never passed to petitioners. [19] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the RTC denied. [20] CA Proceedings Aggrieved, petitioners brought the case to the CA via ordinary appeal. Therein, petitioners argued that the oral agreement they had entered into with respondents was not a contract to sell but rather, a contract of sale which had the effect of transferring ownership of the disputed property upon its delivery. [21] Petitioners also raised, for the first time on appeal, that the sale of the disputed property constitutes a sale on installment covered by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6552, [22] otherwise known as the Maceda Law. Corollarily, petitioners argued that respondents should not be granted relief, since they failed to comply with the specific procedure for rescission of sales of real estate on installment basis set forth under the statute. [23] On October 19, 2015, the CA rendered the assailed Decision, disposing the appeal as follows: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The July 15, 2013 Decision of the [RTC], Branch 31, 11 th Judicial Region, Tagum City, Davao del Norte, in Civil Case No. 4020 is AFFIRMED. [24] The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC anent the nature of the contract entered into by the parties. [25] In addition, it rejected petitioners' invocation of the Maceda Law. According to the CA, to allow petitioners to seek protection under said law for the first time on appeal would violate the tenets of due process and fair play. [26] Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was later denied through the assailed Resolution. Thus, the present Petition now prays that the Court: (i) reverse the judgment of the CA and RTC; and (ii) direct respondents to allow them to settle their remaining balance of P5,310.00 and, subsequently, convey the disputed property in their favor. Petitioners maintain, as they did before the CA, that the oral agreement they entered into with respondents is a contract of sale, and that, as a necessary incident of such contract, ownership over the disputed property had been transferred in their favor when they took possession and built improvements thereon. [27]