Vda. de Catindig vs Roque [GR. No. L-25777] Case Digest

 Vda. de Catindig vs Roque

GR. No. L-25777

 

Subtopic:

Price must be real

 

Facts:

The subject property in this case is the fishpond known as Lot No. 4626 of the Malolos Cadastre, has an area of more than thirteen hectares. The co-owners of the fishpond leased it to Mrs. Catindig for a term of ten years counted from October 1, 1941 for a total rental of six thousand pesos. After the termination of the lease on September 30, 1951, Mrs. Catindig remained in possession of the fishpond because she was negotiating with the co-owners for the purchase thereof. She wanted to buy it for P52,000. On October 18, 1960 German Ramirez, one of the co-owners, executed a deed wherein he sold his 2/16 share to Mrs. Catindig for P6,500. The sale was annotated on the title on October 19, 1960.  Two weeks later, Pedro Villanueva, one of the co-owners, learned of the sale executed by German Ramirez.  That sale retroacted to April 13, 1950.

On November 18, 1960 the respondents filed this action against Mrs. Catindig to compel her to allow them to redeem the portion sold by German Ramirez.

The Court of Appeals found that: “The consideration of P52,000 was not paid by Mrs. Catindig to the co-owners because she was not able to obtain a loan, the proceeds of which would have been used to pay the co-owners who had executed simulated sales of their shares, as shown in the private documents. Because Mrs. Catindig did not pay the price of P52,000, the projected sale, "which was in truth a simulated one so as to enable her just to mortgage the property in order to secure the necessary amount with which to pay the consideration" was void ab initio.  There was no notarized deed of sale because Mrs. Catindig did not pay the price to the co-owners except German Ramirez.”

 

Issue:

Whether or not CA erred in holding that the sale of  fishpond to Catindig is void for nonpayment of the price.

 

Held:

No.

 

Ratio:

A contract of sale is void and produces no effect whatsoever where the price, which appears thereon as paid, has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor. Such a sale is non-existent (Borromeo vs. Borromeo, 98 Phil. 432) or cannot be considered consummated (Cruzado vs. Bustos and Escaler, 34 Phil. 17).

The foregoing discussion disposes of whatever legal issues were raised by appellant Catindig which are interwoven with her factual contentions, including the issue as to whether she is entitled to demand the execution of a notarized deed of sale for the 14/16 proindiviso portion of the fishpond.  She is not entitled because, as already held, the alleged sales in her favor are void.