G.R. No. 126444 December 4, 1998 QUIJADA vs. COURT OF APPEAL FACT !

Petitioners are the children of the late Trinidad who inherited from the same from Pedro a twohectare parcel of land subject of this case. The said land was the subject of a conditional deed of donation executed by Trinidad, with her sisters and brother, in favor of the municipality based on the condition that it shall be used as part of the campus of the proposed provincial high school. However, Trinidad sold the half of the said land to respondent Mondejar. he then verbally sold the other half to him without a deed of sale, evidenced solely by receipts of payment. The proposed provincial high school failed to materiali!e. "or this reason, the angguniang #ayan of the municipality enacted a resolution reverting land donated bac$ to the donors. Then, Mondejar sold portions of the land to other persons. The petitioners filed a complaint alleging therein that their deceased mother never disposed of the property and that at the time of the alleged sale the land still belongs to the municipality, hence, the supposed sale is null and void. %espondents claimed otherwise and averred that petitioners& action is barred by laches. The court a quo ordered judgment in favor of the petitioners. #ut this was reversed by the 'ourt of (ppeals )'(* when appealed on the ground that the sale made by Trinidad to Mondejar was valid as the former retained an inchoate interest on the lots by virtue of the automatic reversion clause in the deed of donation Hence, this petition. I UE ! +. ,-. the sale of the subject property is void /. ,-. the petitioners0 case is barred by laches. "ELD! The 'ourt (""1%M23 the decision of the '(.

-n 1ssue .o. + .o. ale, being a consensual contract, is perfected by mere consent, which is manifested the moment there is a meeting of the minds as to the offer and acceptance thereof on 4 elements5 subject matter, price and terms of payment of the price. -wnership by the seller on the thing sold at the time of the perfection of the contract of sale is not an element for its perfection. ,hat the law re6uires is that the seller has the right to transfer ownership at the time the thing sold is delivered. Perfection per se does not transfer ownership which occurs upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold. ( perfected contract of sale cannot be challenged on the ground of non-ownership on the part of the seller at the time of its perfection. .owhere in (rticle +789 )7* which provide that the properties of a municipality, whether it be those for public use or its patrimonial property are outside the commerce of men. Hence, the sale is still valid. -n 1ssue .o. / .o. Petitioners0 action is not yet barred thereby. :aches presupposes failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. Their cause of action to 6uiet title commenced only when the property reverted to the donor and;or his successors-in-interest. The time of sale made by Trinidad cannot be the rec$oning point as to when petitioners0 cause of action arose. They had no interest over the property at that time except under the deed of donation. Moreover, petitioners had previously filed an ejectment suit against private respondents only that it did not prosper on a technicality.