G.R. No. 108169 - SPOUSES VENANCIO DAVID AND PATRICIA MIRANDA DAVID AND FLORENCIA VENTURA VDA. DE BASCO, VS. ALEJANDRO AND GUADALUPE TIONGSON. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants: "1) Ordering the defendants to execute the deeds of absolute sale covering the lots respectively sold to plaintiffs and to cause the issuance of the title covering the aforesaid lots at their own expense; "2) Ordering the defendants to pay unto the plaintiffs P15,000.00 as moral damages. "Defendants are likewise ordered to pay the costs of suit." [6] Respondents Tiongsons appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. They claimed that their failure to file an answer in due time amounted to excusable negligence. [7] They contended that the plaintiffs had not fully paid the agreed price of P120 per sq. m. They argued that the Venturas were still in arrears for P30,000.00, the Davids for P21,000.00 and Florencia for P9,880.00. Hence, the deeds of sale and certificates of title were not issued. On October 19, 1992, the Court of Appeals [8] modified the trial court's decision. Although it blamed respondents for their failure to file an answer in due time, it held that there was no perfected contracts of sale entered into by the Davids and Florencia Vda. de Basco with respondents. However, the Court of Appeals upheld the sale involving the Venturas and ordered respondents to execute a deed of sale and cause the issuance of the corresponding certificate of title in Venturas' favor. With respect to spouses David, the Court of Appeals said that there was no agreement as to the price, as well as the manner and time of payment of the installments. It held that Patricia David's testimony regarding the price, P15,000.00, payable in monthly installments of P365.00, contradicted a receipt stating: "...the balance to be paid on installment to be agreed upon later on." [9] The appellate court referred to another receipt [10] wherein only P300.00 was paid but with the following statement - "Subject to further discussion later on." It stated that there was no agreement as to the price, since it was subject to further discussion by the parties. It held that the P115.00 overpayment [11] illustrate the lack of an agreed price. The receipts failed to state the total purchase price or prove that full payment was made. Thus, there was no meeting of minds regarding the price. Consequently, there was no perfected contract of sale. In ruling against the Davids, the Court of Appeals applied the doctrine in Yuvienco v. Dacuycuy [12] that in sale of real property on installments, the statute of frauds read together with the requirements of Article 1475, must be understood and applied in the sense that the payment on installments must be in the requisite form of a note or memorandum. In other words, there must be a note or memorandum evidencing the agreement to pay on installment, otherwise, the contract is unenforceable under the statute of frauds. In the instant case, the agreement to pay in installment was not reduced in writing. As regards Florencia Ventura Vd