Raymundo de Leon vs. Benita Ong

CASE DIGEST: DE LEON V. ONG - G.R. NO.
170405
CASE DIGEST: DE LEON V. ONG
De Leon vs. Ong
611 SCRA 381, G.R. No. 170405 February 2, 2010
DOCTRINES:
• Ina contract of sale, the seller conveys ownership of the

property to the buyer upon the perfection of the contract. Should
the buyer default in the payment of the purchase price, the seller
may either sue for the collection thereof or have the contract
judicially resolved and set aside. The non-payment of the price is
therefore a negative resolutory condition. On the other hand, a
contract to sell is subject to a positive suspensive condition. The
buyer does not acquire ownership of the property until he fully
pays the purchase price. For this reason, if the buyer defaults in
the payment thereof, the seller can only sue for damages.
•A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of

another without notice that some other person has a right to, or
an interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the
same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of
some other person’s claim or interest in the property. The law
requires, on the part of the buyer, lack of notice of a defect in the
title of the seller and payment in full of the fair price at the time
of the sale or prior to having notice of any defect in the seller’s
title.
FACTS:
Raymundo De Leon sold three parcels of land with improvements
situated in Antipolo, Rizal to respondent Benita T. Ong for P1.1
million.
These properties were mortgaged to Real Savings and Loan

Association, Incorporated (RSLAI). The contract between De Leon and
Ong states that De Leon sells, transfers, conveys in a manner absolute
and irrevocable, unto Ong the said properties under the terms and
conditions that (1) upon full payment of Ong of the amount P415,000,
De Leon shall execute and sign a deed of assumption of mortgage in
favor of Ong without any further cost whatsoever; and that Ong shall
assume payment of the outstanding loan of P684,500 with REAL
SAVINGS AND LOAN.
Ong partially paid De Leon the P415,500. De Leon, on the other hand,
handed the keys to the properties. Thereafter, Ong undertook repairs
and made improvements on the properties.
Subsequently, Ong learned that petitioner again sold the same

properties to one Leona Viloria. Ong filed a Complaint against De Leon
and Viloria in the RTC. Ong claimed that since De Leon had previously
sold the properties to her, he no longer had the right to sell the same
to Viloria. And that they entered into a contract of sale. De Leon, on
the other hand, insisted that he entered into a contract to sell since
the validity of the transaction was subject to a suspensive condition,
that is, the approval by RSLAI of Ong’s assumption of mortgage.
RTC ruled in favor of De Leon. CA reversed and declared the second

sale void.
ISSUES:
(1) Was the contract between De Leon and Ong a contract of sale, or a
contract to sell? (2) Was the subsequent sale to Viloria valid?
HELD:
(1)
Clearly, it was a contract of sale the parties entered into. The deed
executed by the parties stated that petitioner sold the properties to
respondent "in a manner absolute and irrevocable" for a sum of P1.1
million. Nothing in said instrument implied that petitioner reserved
ownership of the properties until the full payment of the purchase
price.
Petitioner executed a notarized deed of absolute sale, which is

equivalent to the delivery of a thing sold (Art. 1498 CC), in favor of
respondent. The totality of petitioner’s acts clearly indicates that he
had unqualifiedly delivered and transferred ownership of the
properties to respondent.
(2)
This case involves a double sale as the disputed properties were sold
validly on two separate occasions by the same seller to the two
different buyers in good faith.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:
“Article1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different

vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may
have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the

person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of
Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided
there is good faith.”
In this instance, petitioner delivered the properties to respondent

when he executed the notarized deed and handed over to respondent
the keys to the properties. For this reason, respondent took actual
possession and exercised control thereof by making repairs and
improvements thereon. Clearly, the sale was perfected and
consummated on March 10, 1993. Thus, respondent became the
lawful owner of the properties.

Raymundo de Leon vs. Benita Ong

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

Raymundo de Leon vs. Benita Ong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DIGEST: DE LEON V. ONG - G.R. NO.

De Leon vs. Ong

611 SCRA 381, G.R. No. 170405 February 2, 2010

• Ina contract of sale, the seller conveys ownership of the

•A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of

These properties were mortgaged to Real Savings and Loan

Subsequently, Ong learned that petitioner again sold the same

RTC ruled in favor of De Leon. CA reversed and declared the second

Petitioner executed a notarized deed of absolute sale, which is

Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:

“Article1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the

In this instance, petitioner delivered the properties to respondent

You might also like