Opulencia vs. CA
Opulencia vs. CA
Opulencia vs. CA
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
386
moment her father died. Thus, the lack of judicial approval does
not invalidate the Contract to Sell, because the petitioner has the
substantive right to sell the whole or a part of her share in the
estate of her late father.
387
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The Facts
The antecedent facts, as succinctly narrated by Respondent
Court of Appeals, are:
_______________
388
“In a complaint for specific performance filed with the court a quo
[herein private respondents] Aladin Simundac and Miguel Oliven
alleged that [herein petitioner] Natalia Carpena Opulencia
executed in their favor a “CONTRACT TO SELL” Lot 2125 of the
Sta. Rosa Estate, consisting of 23,766 square meters located in
Sta. Rosa, Laguna at P150.00 per square meter; that plaintiffs
paid a downpayment of P300,000.00 but defendant, despite
demands, failed to comply with her obligations under the contract.
[Private respondents] therefore prayed that [petitioner] be
ordered to perform her contractual obligations and to further pay
damages, attorney’s fee and litigation expenses.
In her traverse, [petitioner] admitted the execution of the
contract in favor of plaintiffs and receipt of P300,000.00 as
downpayment. However, she put forward the following
affirmative defenses: that the property subject of the contract
formed part of the Estate of Demetrio Carpena (petitioner’s
father), in respect of which a petition for probate was filed with
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna; that at the
time the contract was executed, the parties were aware of the
pendency of the probate proceeding; that the contract to sell was
not approved by the probate court; that realizing the nullity of the
contract [petitioner] had offered to return the downpayment
received from [private respondents], but the latter refused to
accept it; that [private respondents] further failed to provide
funds for the tenant who demanded P150,000.00 in payment of
his tenancy rights on the land; that [petitioner] had chosen to
rescind the contract.
At the pre-trial conference the parties stipulated on [sic] the
following facts:
389
5. That [as] of this time, the probate Court has not yet issued
an order either approving or denying the said sale. (p. 3,
appealed Order of September 15, 1992, pp. 109-112,
record).
390
“It is apparent from the appealed order that the lower court
treated the contract to sell executed by appellee as one made by
the administratrix of the Estate of Demetrio Carpena for the
benefit of the estate. Hence, its main reason for voiding the
contract in question was the absence of the probate court’s
approval. Presumably, what the lower court had in mind was the
sale of the estate or part thereof made by the administrator for
the benefit of the estate, as authorized under Rule 89 of the
Revised Rules Court, which requires
_______________
391
392
_______________
393
The Issue
_______________
394
_______________
15 Go Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 270, 276-277, September 24,
1987; and De Borja vs. Vda. de de Borja, 46 SCRA 577, 589, August 18,
1972.
16 73 Phil. 628-629 (1942), per Moran, J.
395
_______________
396
Estoppel
Finally, petitioner is estopped from backing out of her
representations in her valid Contract to Sell with private
respondents, from whom she had already received
P300,000 as initial payment of the purchase price.
Petitioner may not renege on her own acts and
representations, to the prejudice
21
of the private respondents
who have relied on them. Jurisprudence teaches us that
neither the law nor the courts will extricate a party from
an unwise or undesirable contract he or she entered into
with all the required
22
formalities and with full awareness of
its consequences.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
_______________
20 Go Ong vs. Court of Appeals, per Paras, J., supra, p. 277; citing
Jakosalem vs. Rafols, 73 Phil. 628 (1942).
21 Laureano Investment and Development Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, 272 SCRA 253, 263, May 6, 1997; citing Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
vs. Court of Appeals, 212 SCRA 448, 457, August 10, 1992.
22 Esguerra vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 380, 393, February 3, 1997,
citing Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 226 SCRA 314, September 10, 1993.
397
——o0o——