In cases of real estate disputes, the distinction between a contract to sell and a contract of sale is crucial. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarifies that Article 1544 of the Civil Code, which governs double sales, does not apply when one agreement is a contract to sell. Specifically, failure to fully pay the purchase price in a contract to sell does not constitute a breach but prevents the transfer of ownership. This ruling protects a subsequent buyer who registers the property in good faith, even if a prior contract to sell exists, as the initial agreement remains ineffective without full payment.

Navigating Real Estate Disputes: When a Promise to Sell Doesn’t Guarantee Ownership

The case of Spouses Desiderio and Teresa Domingo v. Spouses Emmanuel and Tita Manzano revolves around a property dispute stemming from a contract to sell. The Manzanos, owners of a parcel of land, entered into an agreement with the Domingos, promising to sell the property for P900,000. The Domingos paid a reservation fee and several installments, totaling P345,000. However, they failed to meet the March 2001 deadline for full payment. Despite this, the Manzanos’ representative continued to accept payments. When the Domingos finally offered the remaining balance, Tita Manzano refused, stating the property was no longer for sale and forfeiting their payments. Subsequently, the Manzanos sold the property to Carmelita Aquino, who registered it under her name. This led the Domingos to file a complaint for specific performance, seeking to compel the Manzanos to honor the original agreement.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the Domingos, declaring that their agreement with the Manzanos was a contract of sale. The RTC applied Article 1544 of the Civil Code, which addresses situations where the same property is sold to different buyers. According to Article 1544, ownership goes to the buyer who first takes possession in good faith (for movable property) or who first registers the property in good faith (for immovable property). The RTC deemed Aquino a buyer in bad faith because she knew of the Domingos’ prior claim through an annotated adverse claim on the original title. This knowledge was considered equivalent to registration, thus favoring the Domingos.

However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, holding that the agreement between the Manzanos and the Domingos was a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. The CA emphasized a crucial clause in the agreement:

‘Ayon sa aming napagkasunduan, ililipat lamang ang Titulo ng lupa na may no. 160752 at bahay pag nabayaran ko ng lahat ng (P900,000.00) Nine Hundred thousand pesos hanggang Marso ng 2001.’

This passage, according to the CA, clearly indicated that ownership would only transfer upon full payment of the P900,000 by March 2001. The CA highlighted that the Manzanos retained ownership and never transferred possession to the Domingos, further supporting the classification as a contract to sell.

The CA then addressed the applicability of Article 1544, stating that it only applies to instances of double sales, not where one contract is a contract to sell. The CA cited Cheng v. Genato, which clarified that Article 1544 requires two valid sales transactions with conflicting interests from the same seller. In a contract to sell, the transfer of ownership is contingent upon the fulfillment of a condition, such as full payment. Without full payment, no sale is consummated, and Article 1544 does not apply. The CA also referenced Spouses Nabus and Tolero v. Spouses Pacson, which involved a similar scenario where a buyer failed to pay on time, and the seller subsequently sold the property to a third party. The Supreme Court in Nabus upheld the rights of the third party, emphasizing that in a contract to sell, full payment is a suspensive condition, the non-fulfillment of which prevents the obligation to sell from arising.

Building on this principle, the CA concluded that Aquino, as a subsequent buyer, could not be deemed in bad faith because the Domingos had not fulfilled the condition of full payment. As the CA pointed out, the ruling in Spouses Cruz and Cruz v. Spouses Fernando and Fernando citing Coronel v. Court of Appeals enlightens:

‘In a contract to sell, there being no previous sale of the property, a third person buying such property despite the fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property. There is no double sale in such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because there is no defect in the owner-seller’s title per se, but the latter, of course, may be sued for damages by the intending buyer.’

Thus, the CA validated the sale to Aquino and her title to the property, while ordering the Manzanos and their representative to reimburse the Domingos for their payments, plus interest, and to pay nominal damages and attorney’s fees.

In its final decision, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s ruling, emphasizing the significance of distinguishing between a contract to sell and a contract of sale. The Court reiterated that in a contract to sell, payment of the price is a positive suspensive condition. Failure to fulfill this condition renders the contract ineffective, preventing the prospective buyer from compelling the seller to transfer title. Because the Domingos failed to pay the full purchase price, there was no sale to speak of. Therefore, Article 1544, which applies to double sales, was not applicable. Aquino, having paid the full price and registered the property, had a superior right.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of a contract to sell, particularly the condition of full payment. It also clarifies that a buyer in a contract to sell cannot claim ownership against a subsequent buyer who registers the property in good faith, unless the condition of full payment has been met. The Court also noted that in Abarquez v. Court of Appeals, while the agreement was a contract to sell, the land was delivered to the buyer, who took possession and constructed a house. That factual situation is clearly different from the case at hand. While in the Filinvest case, the Court therein held that a notice of adverse claim is a “warning to third parties dealing with the property that someone claims an interest in it or asserts a better right than the registered owner,” this is not true as regards petitioners, As already stated, petitioners’ failure to pay the price in full rendered their contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect, thus nullifying any claim or better right they may have had.

FAQs

What is the key difference between a contract to sell and a contract of sale?	In a contract to sell, ownership is retained by the seller until full payment of the purchase price, whereas in a contract of sale, ownership transfers upon agreement and delivery of the property. The intention of the parties is the primary consideration.
Does Article 1544 of the Civil Code apply to contracts to sell?	No, Article 1544, which governs double sales, does not apply to contracts to sell because the first sale is not perfected until the full payment of the purchase price. It only applies when there are two completed sales.
What happens if a buyer fails to pay the full purchase price in a contract to sell?	Failure to pay the full purchase price is not a breach of contract but an event that prevents the transfer of ownership to the buyer, rendering the contract ineffective. The seller is not obligated to transfer the title.
Can a buyer in a contract to sell claim ownership against a subsequent buyer if they haven’t paid in full?	No, a buyer who hasn’t paid the full purchase price cannot claim ownership against a subsequent buyer who purchases the property in good faith and registers it under their name. The subsequent buyer is protected.
What is the effect of an adverse claim on a property subject to a contract to sell?	An adverse claim serves as notice to third parties that someone claims an interest in the property. However, it does not guarantee ownership if the claimant has not fulfilled the conditions of the contract to sell, such as full payment.
What remedies are available to a buyer who fails to complete a contract to sell?	While specific performance is not an option, the buyer is typically entitled to a reimbursement of the payments they have made, to prevent unjust enrichment of the seller. They may also be awarded damages in certain cases.
What constitutes bad faith on the part of a subsequent buyer?	Bad faith generally involves knowledge of a prior existing right or interest in the property. However, in the context of a contract to sell, merely knowing about a prior contract does not automatically constitute bad faith if the prior buyer has not fulfilled the conditions of the contract.
Why was the annotation of an adverse claim not considered equivalent to registration of ownership in this case?	The annotation of an adverse claim was not equivalent to registration because there was no sale to speak of; the buyers failed to pay the purchase price in full rendering the contract to sell ineffective and without force and effect, thus nullifying any claim or better right they may have had.

This case highlights the importance of understanding the nuances between different types of real estate contracts. While a contract to sell provides a pathway to ownership, it does not guarantee it until all conditions are met. This ruling provides clarity for buyers and sellers, emphasizing the need for clear contractual terms and diligent compliance.

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: Spouses Desiderio and Teresa Domingo, G.R. No. 201883, November 16, 2016