The Supreme Court ruled that a document acknowledging receipt of vessels and a stated purchase price does not constitute a perfected contract of sale or a contract to sell if it lacks a clear agreement to transfer ownership and definite terms of payment. This decision emphasizes that mere acknowledgment of a purchase price is insufficient to enforce a sale, highlighting the necessity of mutual consent and established payment terms for a contract’s validity.

Unfulfilled Promises: When a Fishing Vessel Sale Agreement Misses the Boat

This case revolves around a dispute between Spouses Alfredo and Rosella Edrada (petitioners) and Spouses Eduardo and Carmencita Ramos (respondents) concerning the purported sale of two fishing vessels. On April 1, 1996, the parties executed a handwritten document stating that the vessels were in the possession of the petitioners and that documents pertaining to the sale and agreement of payments would follow, with an agreed price of P900,000. However, after the petitioners issued several postdated checks, one of which was dishonored due to a stop payment order, the respondents filed a case for specific performance, seeking the execution of a deed of sale and payment of the balance.

The petitioners countered, arguing that the document merely represented an agreement stemming from loans they extended to the respondents, allowing them to manage the vessels. They contended that after incurring expenses for repairs on the dilapidated vessels, they decided to discontinue the arrangement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, treating the document as a perfected contract of sale and ordering the petitioners to pay the balance of the purchase price, along with legal interests and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, leading the petitioners to elevate the matter to the Supreme Court.

The pivotal issue before the Supreme Court was the nature of the document dated April 1, 1996, specifically whether it constituted a perfected contract of sale or a contract to sell. The Court emphasized that a contract of sale requires the seller’s unequivocal consent to transfer and deliver a determinate thing, and the buyer’s agreement to pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. Upon examination of the document, the Court found that it lacked the essential elements of a perfected contract of sale. While the document acknowledged receipt of the vessels and their purchase price, it lacked an unequivocal agreement to transfer ownership.

The agreement only stated that “documents pertaining to the sale and agreement of payments ‘[are] to follow,’” indicating that the formal transfer of ownership and terms of payment were yet to be determined.

This stipulation highlighted a lack of mutual consent and crucial terms, preventing the document from being classified as a binding contract of sale.

Furthermore, the Court underscored that for a valid and binding contract of sale, the manner of payment of the purchase price must be established, as it is essential to the validity of the sale. Disagreement on the terms of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price.

The absence of definite payment terms in the document precluded its enforcement, as an obligation must be due and demandable for judicial enforcement. Without a stipulated period for payment, the obligation was not yet due at the time the complaint was filed. Assuming that the respondents’ claim of a payment deadline of June 30, 1996, was valid, the filing of the complaint on June 3, 1996, was premature. Even if such reevaluation would lead the court to examine issues not raised by the parties, it should be remembered that the Court has authority to review matters even if not assigned as errors in the appeal, if it is found that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case.^[15]

Returning to the true nature of the document, the Court clarified the distinction between a contract of sale and a contract to sell. A contract to sell is defined as a bilateral contract where the prospective seller, while reserving ownership of the property, binds themselves to sell it exclusively to the prospective buyer upon full payment of the purchase price. While the Court also did not classify the agreement as a “contract to sell,” it noted that for a “contract to sell,” there was no mutual promise to buy on the part of petitioners and to sell on the part of respondents. Ultimately, the absence of such creates no obligation on the part of either to render payments of transfer of ownership.

The Supreme Court determined that the lower courts erred in ordering the enforcement of a non-existent contract of sale. Given that the document in question manifested only an intention to eventually contract a sale, there were no breached rights or violated obligations that would warrant the reliefs sought in the respondents’ complaint.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the handwritten document constituted a perfected contract of sale or a contract to sell the fishing vessels. The Supreme Court found it was neither, due to the absence of mutual agreement and definite payment terms.
What did the document state?	The document acknowledged the transfer of possession of the vessels and indicated a purchase price of P900,000.00. However, it mentioned that documents pertaining to the sale and payment agreement were “to follow,” indicating future agreements.
Why did the Supreme Court rule there was no perfected contract of sale?	The Court found that the document lacked an unequivocal agreement to transfer ownership and definite terms of payment. The agreement only showed intent to create an agreement in the future and the essentials of consent of contract to sell/contract of sale.
What is the difference between a contract of sale and a contract to sell?	A contract of sale involves the immediate transfer of ownership upon agreement, while a contract to sell reserves ownership with the seller until full payment of the purchase price. Thus creating the mutual promise between both parties.
What was the basis of the respondents’ complaint?	The respondents sought specific performance, requesting the execution of a deed of sale and payment of the outstanding balance of the purchase price based on the handwritten document. Because there were no obligation or violations of rights.
What was the result of filing the complaint prematurely?	The filing of the complaint before the supposed payment due date (even if correct) was premature, because there was no maturity date on either the side of the respondents to turn over the ownership or on the side of the petitioners to render payments.
How did the Supreme Court rule on the remedies sought by the respondents?	The Court dismissed the complaint, as the absence of a perfected contract of sale precluded any cause of action for the execution of a deed of sale or payment of the purchase price. Thus the remedies was unavailing.
What did the Supreme Court say about terms of payment?	The Court stated that definite terms of payment is integral to establishing a price certain in a contract of sale and is one of the important essentials that was not included in this agreement. The failure to settle definite payments meant there was no breach or any violation of rights between parties.

This case underscores the importance of clearly defining the terms of an agreement in writing, especially concerning the transfer of ownership and payment terms. A mere intention to enter into a contract, without clearly defined obligations, does not create an enforceable agreement. It is imperative to put mutual promises between parties on paper to protect the interest and rights of the interested party.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SPS. ALFREDO R. EDRADA AND ROSELLA L. EDRADA VS. SPS. EDUARDO RAMOS AND CARMENCITA RAMOS, G.R. NO. 154413, August 31, 2005