d2015member

Sps Dalion v. CA (1990) Petitioners: Spouses Dalion Respondents: CA and Sabesaje, Jr. Ponente: Medialdea, J. Doctrine: A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent. No particular form is required for its validity. Short version: A land was registered in Dalions name. He allegedly sold this to Sabesaje. Dalion denies the sale ever happened (saying his signature was forged) and also says that assuming the signature was valid, sale is still invalid because it was not executed in a public document. SC says Dalions argument is wrong. In a contract of sale, no particular form is required. A land in Southern Leyte was declared in the name of Segundo Dalion. Sabesaje sued to recover ownership this land based on a private document of absolute sale, allegedly executed by Segundo Dalion. Dalion, however, denied the sale, saying that: o The document was fictitious o His signature was a forgery, and o That the land is conjugal property, which he and his wife acquired in 1960 from Saturnina Sabesaje as evidenced by the "Escritura de Venta Absoluta." The spouses denied the claims of Sabesaje that after executing a deed of sale over the parcel of land, they had pleaded with Sabesaje to be allowed to administer the land because Dalion did not have livelihood. Spouses Dalion admitted, however, administering 5 parcels of land in Southern Leyte, which belonged to Leonardo Sabesaje, grandfather of Sabesaje, who died in 1956. The Dalions never received their agreed 10% and 15% commission on the sales of copra and abaca. Sabesaje's suit, they say, was intended merely to harassand forestall Dalion's threat to sue for these unpaid commissions. TC decided in favor of Sabesaje and ordered the Dalions to deliver the parcel of land in a public document. CA affirmed.

Issue: Was the contract of sale valid? Is a public document needed for transfer of ownership? Held: Yes. No. Ratio: Re: validity of the contract People who witnessed the execution of the deed positively testified on its authenticity. They stated that it had been executed and signed by the signatories. Re: Public document The provision of NCC 1358 on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. That this be embodied in a public instrument is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land Dalion argued: o That the sale is invalid because it is embodied in a private document. o That "acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinction of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public instrument." (NCC 1358 par. 1) A contract of sale is a consensual contract, which means that the sale is perfected by mere consent. o No particular form is required for its validity. o Upon perfection of the contract, the parties may reciprocally demand performance (NCC 1475, NCC), i.e., the vendee may compel transfer of ownership of the object of the sale, and the vendor may require the vendee to pay the thing sold (NCC 1458). The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered Dalion to deliver to Sabesaje the parcel of land and to execute corresponding formal deed of conveyance in a public document. Under NCC 1498, when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution is equivalent to the delivery of the thing. o Delivery may either be actual (real) or constructive. Thus delivery of a parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee in control and possession of the land (real) or by embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive). Decision affirmed.