21. NIEVES SELERIO AND ALICIA SELERIO, PETITIONERS, V. TREGIDIO B. BANCASAN, RESPONDENT.
Nature of Action: Recover of Possession
Facts: Nieves Selerio (Nieves) is the claimant, occupant, and possessor of a parcel of land. On
September 18, 1993, Nieves executed a Deed of Transfer and Waiver of Rights, Interests and
Improvements (Deed) over the subject land in favor of respondent Tregidio Bancasan (Bancasan)
conveying, ceding, and selling the property including all improvements found thereon. Nieves
supposedly sold the subject property to Bancasan for P200, 000.00; and the former acknowledged to
have received 50% of the amount from the latter. In the Deed, the parties agreed that the 50% balance
of the total consideration shall be paid only when Nieves and her family shall have vacated the subject
premises which shall not go beyond April 30, 1994. After the supposed conveyance, however, Jose
Selerio, and Cecilia Ababo filed a case for Partition, Accounting of Property Income and Attorney's Fees
against Nieves and Bancasan and others claiming to be the illegitimate children of Nieves’ husband. In
that case, the parties executed a Compromise Agreement on September 2, 1997 duly approved by the
RTC wherein the parties agreed to proceed with the sale over the subject property. On February 2, 2007,
Bancasan, through counsel, sent a letter to petitioners demanding the latter to vacate the subject
property but demand remained unheeded. Consequently, on February 28, 2007, Bancasan filed a
Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Damages and Attorney's Fees against Nieves and the latter’s
daughter-in-law, Alicia Selerio (Alicia), alleging that he is entitled to the possession of the property by
virtue of the Deed executed in his favor.
For the petitioners, Nieves, among others, claimed that there was no absolute transfer of rights
considering that there are conditions set therein; and that the Deed must be appreciated as similar to a
contract to sell rather than a contract of sale due to the conditions set therein.
The RTC held that there was no sale perfected as Nieves never delivered the property and respondent
never fully paid the price. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC Order and declared that there was a
perfected contract of sale based on the express terms of the Deed. Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not there was a perfected sale
Held: Yes. It is elementary that a contract of sale is perfected by mere consent. In Beltran v. Spouses
Cangayda, Jr., the Court held: a contract of sale is consensual in nature, and is perfected upon the
concurrence of its essential requisites, thus: under Article 1318 of the New Civil Code are: (1) consent of
the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of
the obligation which is established. Thus, contracts, other than real contracts are perfected by mere
consent which is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the
cause which are to constitute the contract. Once perfected, they bind other contracting parties and the
obligations arising therefrom have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in
good faith. The parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but
also to the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and
law.
Being a consensual contract, sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing
which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally
demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts. A perfected
contract of sale imposes reciprocal obligations on the parties whereby the vendor obligates himself to
transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing to the buyer who, in turn, is obligated to
pay a price certain in money or its equivalent. Failure of either party to comply with his obligation
entitles the other to rescission as the power to rescind is implied in reciprocal obligations.
