DANTIS VS MAGHINANG, JR.
695 SCRA 599
Petitioner: Rogelio Dantis
Respondent: Julio Maghinang. Jr.
Ponente: J. Mendoza
FACTS:
A complaint by Rogelio Dantis, the petitioner, was filed for quieting of title and recovery of possession with
damages against the respondent, Julio Maghinang, Jr.
The petitioner alleged the following:
a) he was the registered owner of the 5,657 square meters parcel of land located in Sta. Rita, San
Miguel, Bulacan through a deed of extrajudicial partition of the estate of his deceased father,
Emilio Dantis dated December 22, 1993.
b) he was paying realty taxes on said property
c) the respondent, Julio Maghinang, Jr., had built a house on a portion of his land without any right
at all.
d) the demand against Julio Jr., to vacate the premises was ignored
e) the acts of the respondent had created a cloud of doubt over Rogelio’s title and right of possession
of his property
The respondent. Julio Maghinang, Jr., denied the allegations and claimed the following:
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)
e.)
He was actual owner of the 352 square meters of land, the house was built on
He had been openly occupying the property for almost 30 years
The lot was sold by the petitioner’s father, Emilio, to Julio, Sr.
He succeeded the ownership when his father, Julio, Sr., died dated March 10, 1968
He was entitled to separate registration of the said lot with the basis that he has documentary
evidence of sale
The judgment was in favor of Rogelio Dantis declaring him as the true and lawful owner of the
aforementioned property. The documentary evidence of sale, an affidavit executed by Ignacio Dantis,
grandfather of the petitioner, and an undated handwritten receipt of initial downpayment, submitted by
the respondent was not given probative value. Julio, Jr. moved for reconsideration and the CA found the
appeal to be impressed with merit proclaiming that the receipt was indubitable proof of the sale of the
352-square meter lot and the partial payment gave efficacy to the oral sale of the fathers, declaring Julio
Jr. the owners of the 352-square meter lot.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale between Emilio and Julio, Sr., the fathers of
the petitioner and the respondent.
2. Whether or not the petitioner, Rogelio Dantis, was the true and real owner of the parcel of land.
HELD:
1. No. There was no perfected contract of sale between Emilio and Julio, Sr. as the respondent failed
to establish by preponderance of evidence that there was a meeting of minds of the parties. The
affidavit submitted by Julio, Jr. was stated to be hearsay evidence and is not of evidentiary weight.
The undated handwritten receipt of the partial payment for the alleged oral contract of sale
submitted by the respondent was inadmissible and claimed as inadequate proof as evidence being
a mere photocopy. There was also a lack of details and description of the said lot. Moreover, Julio,
Jr.’s credibility was eroded when his testimonies was filled with improbabilities and contradictions.
As there was no proof of the meeting of the minds of the parties, the case lacks an element to be
considered as a sale.
2. Yes. Rogelio Dantis was able to establish prima facie evidence showing his exclusive ownership of
the 5,657-square meters land, including the aforementioned 352-square meter lot. It was also
shown in the records upon the death of Emilio, that Rogelio inherited the property and was
declared for realty tax purpose in his name. Julio, Jr., on the other hand, failed to produce a
preponderance of evidence that outweighs the claims of Rogelio.
Hence, the petition is GRANTED.
FIRST OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION VS. SECURITRON SECURITY SERVICES, INC.
748 SCRA 534
January 28, 2015
Petitioner: First Optima Realty Corporation
Respondents: Securitron Security Services, Inc.
Ponente: J. Del Castillo
FACTS:
The petitioner, First Optima Realty Corporation, is a domestic corporation engaged in the real estate
business and owns a 256-square meter parcel of land. Securitron Security Services, Inc., the respondents,
is a domestic corporation that took interest in the said land for their expansion. The general manager of
the respondents, Antonio Eleazar, sent a letter to the Carolina T. Young, the Executive Vice-President of
the petitioner, that addresses their interest in purchasing the subject property at P6,000 per square meter.
Unable to personally negotiate with Young, Eleazar personally went to the petitioner’s office carrying cash
offering to pay the aforementioned property. However, Young declined to accept payment stating that she
needed her sister’s advice and the approval of the Board of Directors for the transaction.
Sometime after, the respondents sent a letter accompanied with a check issued for P100,000 payable to
the petitioner. The letter and check were delivered to an ordinary receiving clerk and was issued a
provisional receipt. The amount was deposited to the petitioner’s bank account. The petitioner later sent
a letter to the respondents regarding the decline of the offer and a refund of the deposited money.
Securitron filed a civil case against First Optima for specific performance with damages to compel the
petitioner to consummate the supposed sale of the said property. The trial court ruled in favor of
Securitron accepting the deposited money as earnest money resulting to a perfected contract of sale, and
thus compelling the petitioner to comply with its obligation to the said contract of sale.
First Optima filed a petition against the respondents, Securitron Security Services, Inc., for the
consideration of the deposited money as earnest money and for the error of ruling the case as a perfected
contract of sale.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the honorable court of appeals erred in ruling the money delivered by the
respondents as earnest money
2. Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale between the petitioner and the respondent
HELD:
1. YES. According to Article 1482, earnest money given by the buyer shall be considered part of the
price and as proof of the perfection of the contract of sale. However, prior payment of earnest
money before the owner can agree to sell his property is irregular and cannot be used to bind the
seller to the obligations of a contract of sale. In this case, Young, the executive vice president of
the petitioner, declined the offer and refused cash payment from the respondents. The honorable
court of appeals failed to recognize the petitioner’s refusal to enter into an agreement with the
respondents. As the original offer was rejected, the sent letter and check were only a reiteration
of the respondents’ offer to purchase the subject property, and thus, improper to use as evidence
of a perfected contract of sale since there was no meeting of minds in the first place.
2. NO. There are three stages of the contract of sale: Negotiation, Perfection, and Consummation. In
this case, the petitioner declined the offer of the respondent to purchase the aforementioned
property, thus there was no meeting of minds. Nonacceptance of an offer does not constitute as
consent. As the negotiation lacks an element to be considered as a sale, there is no perfected
contract of sale between the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioner is not obligated to
comply with the obligations of a contract of sale.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.