Cabrera V Isaac 8

Martin, Michael Alexey D.R.
Sale of undivided interest

Sales / 2B Article 1463
Case Digest Cabrera v Ysaac
Juan Cabrera v Henry Ysaac

G.R. No. 166790, 19 November 2014
FACTS:
A parcel of land is co-owned by heirs of Spouses Ysaac. One of the co-owners is Henry Ysaac.
Henry Ysaac leases out the property to people. One of the lessees is Juan Cabrera.
Henry Ysaac needing money offered to Cabrera to buy the lot but Cabrera rejected asking for
more land for his vehicle. With this, Henry Ysaac offered the addition of other two lots which were
occupied by his other lessees. Cabrera agreed to the terms.
According to Cabrera, the two families in the other lots namely, the Espiritu and Borbe family
agreed to the purchase of Cabrera of their lots. Also while planning to pay Ysaac, Ysaac was not
present as he was in the US, so Cabrera tried paying the wife but she refused.
Ysaac then approached Cabrera stating that they need to reduce the land for their transaction
which Cabrera agreed on. While planning to pay again, Ysaac was in Manila and also his wife
would not accept Cabrera’s payment.
Ysaac’s counsel wrote to Cabrera’s counsel stating that their contract of sale was rescinded
because Cabrera failed to pay the purchase price of the land. The letter also stated that the money
Cabrera paid shall be used as advance for his rent in the lease.
To settle the letter, Cabrera went to Ysaac’s house but the latter told him that he can no longer
sell the lot as the new administrator is his brother Franklin Ysaac.
Since Cabrera cannot enforce the contract of sale, he filed for specific performance. He prayed
for the execution of their deed of sale and for the transfer of the title to his name.
Before RTC decided on the case, the heirs of Ysaac decided to sell the land to the local
government of Naga City. During trial, Borbe family denied the story of Cabrera and stated that
they did not consent to selling the land to Cabrera and that they bough the property from Naga’s
urban poor program.
RTC rules that the contract of sale between the parties was rescinded when Cabrera failed to pay
the purchase price. This is due to no evidence showing that the two families consented to the sale
of their lots and also RTC did not believe that Cabrera was willing to pay Ysaac because after the
wife refused payment, he did not inform Ysaac in any way and when he was approached, he did
not ask to pay for the purchase price again. RTC denied Ysaac’s petition
Cabrera filed to CA. CA agreed with the decision of the RTC saying that there is a perfected
contract of sale. CA also claimed that the sale is valid even if it is undivided. Ca also states that
the contract was not validly rescinded because according to Article 1592 of the Civil Code. For a
contract to be rescinded it needs to be done through a judicial or notarial act and not just a letter.
1|Page
Martin, Michael Alexey D.R. Sale of undivided interest
CA also held that the contract cannot be enforced for specific performance because to was sold
to local government of Naga. Following the rules on double sale, Naga has preferential rights
since their sale was done with a public instrument while Cabrera was orally. CA ordered the return
of the payment of the purchase price.
ISSUES:
1. Whether there is a valid of contract of sale between Cabrera and Ysaac
2. Whether the contract was rescinded
3. Whether the contract is unenforceable because Naga purchased the property
RULING:
1. There is no valid contract of sale
The object of a valid sales contract must be owned by the seller. If the seller is not the owner, the
seller must be authorized by the owner. Specific rules attach when the seller co-owns the object
of the contract. Sale of a portion of the property is considered an alteration of the thing owned in
common. Under the Civil Code, such disposition requires the unanimous consent of the co-
owners. When an alienation precedes partition, co-owner cannot sell a definite portion without
consent from other co-owners.
There was no showing that respondent was authorized by his co-owners to sell the portion of land
occupied by Juan Cabrera, the Espiritu family, or the Borbe family. Without the consent of his co-
owners, respondent could not sell a definite portion of the co-owned property.
There was also no evidence of consent to sell from the co-owners. When petitioner approached
respondent in 1995 to enforce the contract of sale, respondent referred him to Franklin Ysaac,
the administrator over the entire property. Respondent’s act suggests the absence of consent
from the co-owners. Petitioner did not show that he sought Franklin Ysaac’s consent as
administrator and the consent of the other co-owners. Without the consent of the co-owners, no
partial partition operated in favor of the sale to petitioner.
2. No the contract is not rescinded because there was no perfected contract
Absence of a contract of sale means there is no source of obligation for Cabrera and Ysaac,
Rescission is impossible because there is no contract to rescind. The issue is deemed moot and
academic.
3. No because contract of sale is not valid
The question on the double sale is also deemed moot and academic because there was no valid
sale between Cabrera and Ysaac while the sale between Ysaac and Naga is valid.
DISPOSITION:
1. CA decision is set aside
2. Contract between Ysaac and Cabrera is invalid
2|Page
Martin, Michael Alexey D.R. Sale of undivided interest
3. Ysaac is to return the payment for the purchase price

4. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are deleted.
3|Page

Cabrera V Isaac 8

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabrera V Isaac 8

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Martin, Michael Alexey D.R.

Sale of undivided interest

Juan Cabrera v Henry Ysaac

3. Ysaac is to return the payment for the purchase price

You might also like