Carabeo V Norberto

G.R. No.
190823 April 4, 2011
DOMINGO CARABEO, Petitioner,
vs.
SPOUSES NORBERTO and SUSAN DINGCO, Respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On July 10, 1990, Domingo Carabeo (petitioner) entered into a contract denominated
as "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa"1 (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
₱38,000.
Respondents tendered their initial payment of ₱10,000 upon signing of the contract, the
remaining balance to be paid on September 1990.
Respondents were later to claim that when they were about to hand in the balance of the
purchase price, petitioner requested them to keep it first as he was yet to settle an on-going
"squabble" over the land.
Nevertheless, respondents gave petitioner small sums of money from time to time which totaled
₱9,100, on petitioner’s request according to them; due to respondents’ inability to pay the
amount of the remaining balance in full, according to petitioner.
By respondents’ claim, despite the alleged problem over the land, they insisted on petitioner’s
acceptance of the remaining balance of ₱18,900 but petitioner remained firm in his refusal,
proffering as reason therefor that he would register the land first.
Sometime in 1994, respondents learned that the alleged problem over the land had been settled
and that petitioner had caused its registration in his name on December 21, 1993 under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 161806. They thereupon offered to pay the balance but petitioner
declined, drawing them to file a complaint before the Katarungan Pambarangay. No settlement
was reached, however, hence, respondent filed a complaint for specific performance before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Balanga, Bataan.
Petitioner countered in his Answer to the Complaint that the sale was void for lack of object
certain, the kasunduan not having specified the metes and bounds of the land. In any event,
petitioner alleged that if the validity of the kasunduan is upheld, respondents’ failure to comply
with their reciprocal obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price would render the action
premature. For, contrary to respondents’ claim, petitioner maintained that they failed to pay the
balance of ₱28,000 on September 1990 to thus constrain him to accept installment payments
totaling ₱9,100.
After the case was submitted for decision or on January 31, 2001,2 petitioner passed away. The
records do not show that petitioner’s counsel informed Branch 1 of the Bataan RTC, where the
complaint was lodged, of his death and that proper substitution was effected in accordance with
Section 16, Rule 3, Rules of Court.3
By Decision of February 25, 2001,4 the trial court ruled in favor of respondents, disposing as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:
1. The defendant to sell his right over 648 square meters of land pursuant to the contract
dated July 10, 1990 by executing a Deed of Sale thereof after the payment of P18,900 by
the plaintiffs;
2. The defendant to pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.5
Petitioner’s counsel filed a Notice of Appeal on March 20, 2001.
By the herein challenged Decision dated July 20, 2009,6 the Court of Appeals affirmed that of
the trial court.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution of January 8, 2010, the
present petition for review was filed by Antonio Carabeo, petitioner’s son,7 faulting the appellate
court:
(A)
… in holding that the element of a contract, i.e., an object certain is present in this case.
(B)
… in considering it unfair to expect respondents who are not lawyers to make judicial
consignation after herein petitioner allegedly refused to accept payment of the balance of
the purchase price.
(C)
… in upholding the validity of the contract, "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa

Lupa," despite the lack of spousal consent, (underscoring supplied)
and proffering that
(D)
[t]he death of herein petitioner causes the dismissal of the action filed by
respondents; respondents’ cause of action being an action in personam. (underscoring
supplied)
The petition fails.
The pertinent portion of the kasunduan reads:8
xxxx
Na ako ay may isang partial na lupa na matatagpuan sa Purok 111, Tugatog, Orani Bataan, na
may sukat na 27 x 24 metro kuwadrado, ang nasabing lupa ay may sakop na dalawang punong
santol at isang punong mangga, kaya’t ako ay nakipagkasundo sa mag-asawang Norby Dingco at
Susan Dingco na ipagbili sa kanila ang karapatan ng nasabing lupa sa halagang ₱38,000.00.
x x x x (underscoring supplied)
That the kasunduan did not specify the technical boundaries of the property did 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.9 As the
above-quoted portion of the kasunduan shows, there is no doubt that the object of the sale is
determinate.
Clutching at straws, petitioner proffers lack of spousal consent. This was raised only on appeal,
hence, will not be considered, in the present case, in the interest of fair play, justice and due
process.10
Respecting the argument that petitioner’s death rendered respondents’ complaint against him
dismissible, Bonilla v. Barcena11 enlightens:
The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the
damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained [of] affects
primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely
incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the
person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
In the present case, respondents are pursuing a property right arising from the kasunduan,
whereas petitioner is invoking nullity of the kasunduan to protect his proprietary interest.
Assuming arguendo, however, that the kasunduan is deemed void, there is a corollary obligation
of petitioner to return the money paid by respondents, and since the action involves property
rights,12 it survives.1avvphi1
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.13
In another vein, the death of a client immediately divests the counsel of authority.14 Thus, in
filing a Notice of Appeal, petitioner’s counsel of record had no personality to act on behalf of the
already deceased client who, it bears reiteration, had not been substituted as a party after his
death. The trial court’s decision had thereby become final and executory, no appeal having been
perfected.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Carabeo V Norberto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carabeo V Norberto

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carabeo V Norberto

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

190823 April 4, 2011

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering:

2. The defendant to pay the costs of the suit.

Petitioner’s counsel filed a Notice of Appeal on March 20, 2001.

… in upholding the validity of the contract, "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa

and proffering that

The petition fails.

The pertinent portion of the kasunduan reads:8

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

You might also like