#10 DOMINGO CARABEO, Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES NORBERTO and SUSAN
DINGCO, Respondents.
FACTS:
On July 10, 1990, Domingo Carabeo (petitioner) entered into a contract denominated as
“Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa” (kasunduan) with Spouses Norberto and Susan
Dingco (respondents) whereby petitioner agreed to sell his rights over a 648 square meter parcel
of unregistered land situated in Purok III, Tugatog, Orani, Bataan to respondents for P38,000.
Upon the signing of the contract, the respondents paid an initial amount of P10,000 and the
remaining balance would be paid on September 1990. Despite the respondents insistence of
paying the remaining balance of P19,800, the petitioner remained firm in his refusal. He
reasoned that he would register the land first. However, when the dispute was finally settled and
the registration of the land was made, the petitioner still declined to accept the payment. Thus,
forcing the respondents to file a complaint before the Katarungan Pambarangay. Nevertheless,
the parties were not able to reach a settlement. Hence, the filing of a complaint for specific
performance before the RTC.
In the petitioner’s answer in the complaint, he alleged that the sale was void for lack of object
certain. The kasunduannot having specified the metes and bounds of the land. In addition to that,
he alleged that assuming that the validity of the kasunduan is upheld, the respondent failed to
comply with their reciprocal obligation in paying the balance of the P28,000 on September 1900.
Thus, forcing him to accept the installment payments.
After the case was submitted for decision, the petitioner passed away. However, the records do
not show that petitioner’s counsel informed the lower court of his death and that proper
substitution was effected. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents ordering them to sell their
rights over the land and to pay the costs of suit. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the elements of a valid contract are present in this case.
Whether or not there is a valid contract despite the absence of spousal consent
HELD:
Petition is denied
The elements of a valid contract are present in this case.
Even though the kasunduan did not specify the technical boundaries of the property, it does not
render the sale a nullity. The requirement that a sale must have for its object a determinate thing
is satisfied as long as, at the time the contract is entered into, the object of the sale is capable of
being made determinate without the necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties.
Thus, in the present case, the respondents are pursuing a property right arising from the
kasunduan, whereas petitioner is invoking nullity of the kasunduan to protect his proprietary
interest. Since the action involves property rights, it survives. Assuming arguendo, however, that
the kasunduan is deemed void, there is a corollary obligation of petitioner to return the money
paid by respondents.
It bears noting that trial on the merits was already concluded before petitioner died. Since the
trial court was not informed of petitioner’s death, it may not be faulted for proceeding to render
judgment without ordering his substitution. Its judgment is thus valid and binding upon
petitioner’s legal representatives or successors-in-interest, insofar as his interest in the property
subject of the action is concerned.
Therefore, the petition is denied.
