G.R. No.

L-46892 September 30, 1981

HEIRS OF AMPARO DEL ROSARIO, plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.
AURORA O. SANTOS, JOVITA SANTOS GONZALES, ARNULFO O. SANTOS,
ARCHIMEDES O. SANTOS, ERMELINA SANTOS RAVIDA, and ANDRES O.
SANTOS, JR., defendants-appellants.

GUERRERO, J.:

The Court of Appeals, 1 in accordance with Section 31 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as
amended, certified to Us the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. No. 56674-R entitled "Amparo
del Rosario, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Spouses Andres Santos and Aurora Santos,
defendants-appellants," as only questions of law are involved.

On January 14, 1974, Amparo del Rosario filed a complaint against the spouses Andres
F. Santos and Aurora O. Santos, for specific performance and damages allegedly for
failure of the latter to execute the Deed of Confirmation of Sale of an undivided 20,000
square meters of land, part of Lot 1, Psu-206650, located at Barrio Sampaloc, Tanay,
Rizal, in malicious breach of a Deed of Sale (Exhibit A or 1) dated September 28, 1964.

Amparo del Rosario died on Sept. 21, 1980 so that she is now substituted by the heirs
named in her will still undergoing probate proceedings. Andres F. Santos also died, on
Sept. 5, 1980, and he is substituted by the following heirs: Jovita Santos Gonzales,
Arnulfo O. Santos, Archimedes O. Santos, Germelina Santos Ravida, and Andres O.
Santos, Jr.

The Deed of Sale (Exh. A or 1) is herein reproduced below:

DEED OF SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

I, ANDRES F. SANTOS, of legal age, married to Aurora 0. Santos, Filipino
and resident cf San Dionisio, Paranaque, Rizal, Philippines, for and in
consideration of the sum of TWO THOUSAND (P 2,000.00) PESOS,
Philippine Currency, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do
hereby SELLS, CONVEYS, and TRANSFERS (sic) unto Amparo del
Rosario, of legal age, married to Fidel del Rosario but with legal separation,
Filipino and resident of San Dionisio, Paranaque, Rizal, Philippines that
certain 20,000 square meters to be segregated from Lot 1 of plan Psu-
206650 along the southeastern portion of said lot, which property is more
particularly described as follows:

A parcel of land (Lot 1 as shown on plan Psu-206650, situated

in the Barrio of Sampaloc, Municipality of Tanay, Province of
Rizal. Bounded on the SW., along lines 1-2-3, by Lot 80 of
Tanay Public Land Subdivision, Pls-39; on the NW., along
lines 3-4-5, by Lot 2; and along lines 5-6-7-8-9-10-11, by Lot
6; on the NE., along lines 11-12-13, by Lot 3: and along lines
13-1415, by Lot 4, all of plan Psu-206650; and on the SE.,
along line 15-1, by Lot 5 of plan Psu- 206650 ... ; containing
an area of ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY ONE THOUSAND
FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY (181,420) SQUARE METERS.
All points referred to are indicated on the plan and are marked
on the ground as follows: ...

of which above-described property, I own one-half (1/2) interest thereof

being my attorney's fee, and the said 20,000 square meters will be
transferred unto the VENDEE as soon as the title thereof has been released
by the proper authority or authorities concerned:

That the parties hereto hereby agree that the VENDOR shall execute a
Deed of Confirmation of Deed of Sale in favor of the herein VENDEE as
soon as the title has been released and the subdivision plan of said Lot 1
has been approved by the Land Registration Commissioner.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 28th day of

September, 1964, in the City of Manila, Philippines.

s/ ANDRES F. SANTOS t/ ANDRES F. SANTOS

With My Marital Consent:

s/ Aurora O. Santos (Wife) t/ Aurora O. Santos (Wife)

SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF: s/ Felicitas C. Moro s/ Corona C. Venal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) ) SS.

BEFORE ME, a Notary Public for and in Rizal, Philippines, personally

appeared Andres F. Santos, with Res. Cert. No. 4500027 issued at
Paranaque, Rizal, on Jan. 9, 1964, B-0935184 issued at Paranaque, Rizal
on April 15, 1964, and Aurora 0. Santos, with Res. Cert. No. A-4500028
issued at Paranaque, Rizal, on Jan. 9, 1964, giving her marital consent to
this instrument, both of whom are known to me and to me known to be the
same persons who executed the foregoing instruments and they
acknowledged to me that the same is their free act and voluntary deed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto signed this instrument and

affixed my notarial seal this lst day of October, 1964, in Pasig, Rizal,
Philippines.

Doc. No. 1792; Page No. 85; Book No. 19; Series of 1964.

s/ FLORENCIO LANDRITO t/ FLORENCIO LANDRITO

NOTARY PUBLIC Until December 31, 1965 2

Plaintiff claimed fulfillment of the conditions for the execution of the Deed of Confirmation
of Sale, namely: the release of the title of the lot and the approval of the subdivision plan
of said lot by the Land Registration Commission. She even enumerated the titles with
their corresponding land areas derived by defendants from the aforesaid lot, to wit:

(a) TCT 203580 30,205 sq. meters

(b) TCT 203581 19, 790 sq. meters

(c) TCT 167568 40,775 sq. meters

In a motion to dismiss, defendants pleaded, inter alia, the defenses of lack of jurisdiction
of the court a quo over the subject of the action and lack of cause of action allegedly
because there was no allegation as to the date of the approval of the subdivision plan, no
specific statement that the titles therein mentioned were curved out of Lot I and no clear
showing when the demands were made on the defendants. They likewise set up the
defense of prescription allegedly because the deed of sale was dated September 28,
1964 and supposedly ratified October 1, 1964 but the complaint was filed only on January
14, 1974, a lapse of more than nine years when it should have been filed within five years
from 1964 in accordance with Article 1149, New Civil Code.

Defendant also claimed that the demand set forth in the complaint has been waived,
abandoned or otherwise extinguished. It is alleged that the deed of sale was "only an
accommodation graciously extended, out of close friendship between the defendants and
the plaintiff and her casual business partner in the buy and sell of real estate, one Erlinda
Cortez;" 3 that in order to allay the fears of plaintiff over the non-collection of the debt of
Erlinda Cortez to plaintiff in various sums exceeding P 2,000.00, defendants, who were
in turn indebted to Erlinda Cortez in the amount of P 2,000.00, voluntarily offered to
transfer to plaintiff their inexistent but expectant right over the lot in question, the same to
be considered as part payment of Erlinda Cortez' indebtedness; that as Erlinda Cortez
later on paid her creditor what was then due, the deed of sale had in effect been
extinguished. Defendants thereby characterized the said deed of sale as a mere tentative
agreement which was never intended nor meant to be ratified by and acknowledged
before a notary public. In fact, they claimed that they never appeared before Notary Public
Florencio Landrito.

Finally, defendants alleged that the claim on which the action or suit is founded is
unenforceable under the statute of frauds and that the cause or object of the contract did
not exist at the time of the transaction.

After an opposition and a reply were filed by the respective parties, the Court a
quo resolved to deny the motion to dismiss of defendants. Defendants filed their answer
with counterclaim interposing more or less the same defenses but expounding on them
further. In addition, they claimed that the titles allegedly derived by them from Lot 1 of
Annex A or I were cancelled and/or different from said Lot I and that the deed of sale was
simulated and fictitious, plaintiff having paid no amount to defendants; and that the deed
was entrusted to plaintiff's care and custody on the condition that the latter; (a) would
secure the written consent of Erlinda Cortez to Annex A or I as part payment of what she
owed to plaintiff; (b) would render to defendants true accounting of collections made from
Erlinda showing in particular the consideration of 2,000.00 of Annex A or I duly credited
to Erlinda's account. 4

Plaintiff filed a reply and answer to counterclaim and thereafter a motion for summary
judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the defenses of
defendants fail to tender an issue or the same do not present issues that are serious
enough to deserve a trial on the merits, 5 submitting on a later date the affidavit of merits.
Defendants filed their corresponding opposition to the motion for summary judgment
and/or judgment on the pleadings. Not content with the pleadings already submitted to
the Court, plaintiff filed a reply while defendants filed a supplemental opposition.

With all these pleadings filed by the parties in support of their respective positions, the
Court a quo still held in abeyance plaintiff's motion for summary judgment or judgment on
the pleadings pending the pre-trial of the case. At the pre-trial, defendants offered by way
of compromise to pay plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00, the consideration stated in the deed
of sale. But the latter rejected the bid and insisted on the delivery of the land to her. Thus,
the pre-trial proceeded with the presentation by plaintiff of Exhibits A to Q which
defendants practically admitted, adopted as their own and marked as Exhibits 1 to 17. In
addition, the latter offered Exhibit 18, which was their reply to plaintiff's letter of demand
dated December 21, 1973.

From the various pleadings filed in this case by plaintiff, together with the annexes and
affidavits as well as the exhibits offered in evidence at the pre-trial, the Court a quo found
the following facts as having been duly established since defendant failed to meet them
with countervailing evidence:

In February, 1964, Teofilo Custodia owner of a parcel of unregistered land

with an area of approximately 220,000 square meters in Barrio Sampaloc,
Tanay, Rizal, hired Attorney Andres F. Santos "to cause the survey of the
above-mentioned property, to file registration proceedings in court, to
appear and represent him in all government office relative thereto, to
advance all expenses for surveys, taxes to the government, court fees,
registration fees ... up to the issuance of title in the name" of Custodia. They
agreed that after the registration of the title in Custodio's name, and "after
deducting all expenses from the total area of the property," Custodio would
assign and deliver to Santos "one-half (1/2) share of the whole property as
appearing in the certificate of title so issued." Exh. B or 2).

On March 22, 1964, Custodio's land was surveyed under plan Psu-226650
(Exh. D or 4). It was divided into six (6) lots, one of which was a road lot.
The total area of the property as surveyed was 211,083 square meters. The
respective areas of the lots were as follows:

Lot 1 181,420
square
meters
 Lot 2 7,238
square
meters

Lot 3 7,305
square
meters

Lot 4 5,655
square
meters

Lot 5 5,235
square
meters

Road Lot 6 4,230

square
meters

TOTAL 211,083
square
meters

xxx xxx xxx

On December 27, 1965, a decree of registration No. N-108022 was issued

in Land Registration Case No. N-5023, of the Court of First Instance of
Rizal, LRC Record No. N-27513, in favor of Teofilo Custodia married to
Miguela Perrando resident of Tanay, Rizal. On March 23, 1966, Original
Certificate of Title No. 5134 (Exh. Q or 17) was issued to Custodio for Lots
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, Psu- 206650, with a total area of 206,853 square meters.
The areas of the five (5) lots were as follows:
 Lot 1 181,420
square
meters

Lot 2 7,238
square
meters

Lot 3 7,305
square
meters

Lot 4 5,655
square
meters

Lot 5 5,235
square
meters

In April to May, 1966, a consolidation-subdivision survey (LRC) Pcs-5273

(Exh. E or 5) was made on the above lots converting them into six (6) new
lots as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

Lot 1 20,000
square
meters

Lot 2 40,775
square
meters
 Lot 3 50,000
square
meters

Lot 4 40,775
square
meters

Lot 5 50,000
square
meters

Road Lot 6 5,303

square
meters

TOTAL 206,853
square
meters

On June 22, 1966, the consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC) Pcs-5273 (Exh.

E or 5) was approved by the Land Registration Commission and by the
Court of First Instance of Rizal in an order dated July 2, 1966 (Entry No.
61037 T-167561, Exh. Q). Upon its registration, Custodio's O.C.T. No. 5134
(Exh. Q) was cancelled and TCT Nos. 167561, 167562, 167563, 167564
(Exh. G), 167565 (Exh. H and 167566 were issued for the six lots in the
name of Custodio (Entry No. 61035, Exh. Q).

On June 23, 1966, Custodio conveyed to Santos Lots 4 and 5, Pcs-5273

with a total area of 90,775 square meters (Exh. B or 2) described in
Custodio's TCT No. 167564 (Exh. G or 7) and TCT No. 167565 (Exh. H or
8), plus a one-half interest in the Road Lot No. 6, as payment of Santos'
attorney's fees and advances for the registration of Custodio's land.
Upon registration of the deed of conveyance on July 5, 1966, Custodio's
TCT Nos. 167564 and 167565 (Exhs. G and H) were cancelled. TCT No.
167568 (Exh. I or 9) for Lot 4 and TCT No. 167585 (Exh. J or 10) for Lot 5
were issued to Santos.

On September 2, 1967, Santos' Lot 5, with an area of 50,000 square meters

was subdivided into two (2) lots, designated as Lots 5-A and 5-B in the plan
Psd-78008 (Exh. F or 6), with the following areas:

Lot 5-A 30,205

square
meters

Lot 5-B 19,795square

meters

TOTAL 50,000
square
meters

Upon registration of Psd-78008 on October 3, 1967, Santos' TCT No.

167585 (Exh. J) was cancelled and TCT No. 203578 for Lot 5- A and TCT
No. 203579 for Lot 5-B were supposed to have been issued to Santos (See
Entry 6311 in Exh. J or 10). Actually, TCT No. 203580 was issued for Lot 5-
A (Exh. K or 1 1), and TCT No. 203581 for Lot 5-B (Exh. L or 12), both in
the name of Andres F. Santos.

Out of Custodio's original Lot 1, Psu-206650, with an area of 181,420

square meters, Santos was given a total of 90,775 square meters,
registered in his name as of October 3, 1967 under three (3) titles, namely:
 TCT No.
167585 for

Lot 4 Pcs- 40,775 sq.

5273 m.

(Exh. J or
10)

TCT No.
203580 for

Lot 5-A Psd- 30,205 sq.

78008 m.

(Exh. K or
11)

TCT No.
203581 for

Lot 5-B Psd- 19,795 sq.

78008 m.

(Exh. L or
12)

90,775
sq.m.

plus one-half of the road lot, Lot 6, PCS-5273, with an area of 5,303 square
meters, which is registered jointly in the name of Santos and Custodio (Exh.
B & E) 6

The court a quo thereupon concluded that there are no serious factual issues involved so
the motion for summary judgment may be properly granted. Thereafter, it proceeded to
dispose of the legal issues raised by defendants and rendered judgment in favor of
plaintiff. The dispositive portion of the decision states as follows:

WHEREFORE, defendants Andres F. Santos and Aurora Santos are

ordered to execute and convey to plaintiff Amparo del Rosario, within ten
(10) days from the finality of this decision, 20,000 square meters of land to
be taken from the southeastern portion of either Lot 4, Pcs-5273, which has
an area of 40,775 square meters, described in TCT No. 167568 (Exh. I or
9) of from their LOL 5-A. with an area of 30,205 square meters, described
in TCI No. 203; O (Exh. K or 11). The expenses of segregating the 20,000
square meters portion shall be borne fqually by the parties. rhe expenses
for the execution and registration of the sale shall be borne by the
defendants (Art. 1487, Civil Code). Since the defendants compelled the
plaintiff to litigate and they failed to heed plainliff's just demand, they are
further ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees
and the costs of this action.

SO ORDERED. 7

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the defendant's filed all appeal to the Court of
Appeals submitting for resolution seven assignments of errors, to wit:

I. The lower court erred in depriving the appellants of their right to the
procedural due process.

II. The lower court erred in holding that the appellee's claim has not been
extinguished.

III. The lower court erred in sustaining appellee's contention that there are
no other unwritten conditions between the appellants and the appellee
except those express in Exh. "1" or "A", and that Erlinda Cortez' conformity
is not required to validate the appellants' obligation.
 IV. The lower court erred in holding that Exh. "l" or "A" is not infirmed and
expressed the true intent of the parties.

V. The lower court erred in declaring that the appellants are co-owners of
the lone registered owner Teofilo Custodia.

VI. The lower court erred in ordering the appellants to execute and convey
to the appellee 20,000 sq. m. of land to be taken from the southeastern
portion of either their lot 4, Pcs-5273, which has an area of 40,775 sq.m.,
described in T.C.T. No. 167568 (Exh. 9 or 1), or from their lot No. 5-A, with
an area of 30,205 sq.m. described in T.C.T. No. 203580 (Exh. 11 or K), the
expenses of segregation to be borne equally by the appellants and the
appellee and the expenses of execution and registration to be borne by the
appellants.

VII. Thelowercourterredinorderingtheappellantstopayto the appellee the

sum of P2,000. 00 as attorney's fee and costs. 8

The first four revolve on the issue of the propriety of the rendition of summary judgment
by the court a quo, which concededly is a question of law. The last three assail the
summary judgment itself. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, with whom the appeal was
filed, certified the records of the case to this Court for final determination.

For appellants herein, the rendition of summary judgment has deprived them of their right
to procedural due process. They claim that a trial on the merits is indispensable in this
case inasmuch as they have denied under oath all the material allegations in appellee's
complaint which is based on a written instrument entitled "Deed of Sale", thereby putting
in issue the due execution of said deed.

Appellants in their opposition to the motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on
the pleadings, however, do not deny the genuineness of their signatures on the deed of
sale.
(Par. 3 of said Motion, p. 101, Record on Appeal). They do not contest the words and
figures in said deed except in the acknowledgment portion thereof where certain words
were allegedly cancelled and changed without their knowledge and consent and where,
apparently, they appeared before Notary Public Florencio Landrito when, in fact, they
claimed that they did not. In effect, there is an admission of the due execution and
genuineness of the document because by the admission of the due execution of a
document is meant that the party whose signature it bears admits that voluntarily he
signed it or that it was signed by another for him and with his authority; and the admission
of the genuineness of the document is meant that the party whose signature it bears
admits that at the time it was signed it was in the words and figures exactly as set out in
the pleading of the party relying upon it; and that any formal requisites required by law,
such as swearing and acknowledgment or revenue stamps which it requires, are waived
by him. 9

As correctly pointed out by the court a quo, the alleged false notarization of the deed of
sale is of no consequence. For a sale of real property or of an interest therein to be
enforceable under the Statute of Frauds, it is enough that it be in writing. 10 It need not be
notarized. But the vendee may avail of the right under Article 1357 of the New Civil Code
to compel the vendor to observe the form required by law in order that the instrument may
be registered in the Registry of Deeds. 11 Hence, the due execution and genuineness of
the deed of sale are not really in issue in this case. Accordingly, assigned error I is without
merit.

What appellants really intended to prove through the alleged false notarization of the deed
of sale is the true import of the matter, which according to them, is a mere tentative
agreement with appellee. As such, it was not intended to be notarized and was merely
entrusted to appellee's care and custody in order that: first, the latter may secure the
approval of one Erlinda Cortez to their (appellants') offer to pay a debt owing to her in the
amount of P2,000.00 to appellee instead of paying directly to her as she was indebted to
appellee in various amounts exceeding P2,000.00; and second once the approval is
secured, appellee would render an accounting of collections made from Erlinda showing
in particular the consideration of P2,000.00 of the deed of sale duly credited to Erlinda's
account.

According to appellants, they intended to prove at a full dress trial the material facts: (1)
that the aforesaid conditions were not fulfilled; (2) that Erlinda Cortez paid her total
indebtedness to appellee in the amount of P14,160.00, the P2,000.00 intended to be paid
by appellant included; and (3) that said Erlinda decided to forego, renounce and refrain
from collecting the P2,000.00 the appellants owed her as a countervance reciprocity of
the countless favors she also owes them.

Being conditions which alter and vary the terms of the deed of sale, such conditions
cannot, however, be proved by parol evidence in view of the provision of Section 7, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court which states as follows:

Sec. 7. Evidence of written agreements when the terms of an agreement

have been reduced to writing, it is to be considered as containing all such
terms, and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their
successors in interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than
the contents of the writing, except in the following cases:

(a) Where a mistake or imperfection of the writing, or its failure to express

the true intent and agreement of the parties, or the validity of the agreement
is put in issue by the pleadings;

(b) When there is an intrinsic ambiguity in the writing. The term "agreement"
includes wills."

The parol evidence rule forbids any addition to or contradiction of the terms of a written
instrument by testimony purporting to show that, at or before the signing of the document,
other or different terms were orally agreed upon by the parties. 12

While it is true, as appellants argue, that Article 1306 of the New Civil Code provides that
"the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient, provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order, or public policy" and that consequently, appellants and appellee
could freely enter into an agreement imposing as conditions thereof the following: that
appellee secure the written conformity of Erlinda Cortez and that she render an
accounting of all collections from her, said conditions may not be proved as they are not
embodied in the deed of sale.

The only conditions imposed for the execution of the Deed of Confirmation of Sale by
appellants in favor of appellee are the release of the title and the approval of the
subdivision plan. Thus, appellants may not now introduce other conditions allegedly
agreed upon by them because when they reduced their agreement to writing, it is
presumed that "they have made the writing the only repository and memorial of truth, and
whatever is not found in the writing must be understood to have been waived and
abandoned." 13

Neither can appellants invoke any of the exceptions to the parol evidence rule, more
particularly, the alleged failure of the writing to express the true intent and agreement of
the parties. Such an exception obtains where the written contract is so ambiguous or
obscure in terms that the contractual intention of the parties cannot be understood from
a mere reading of the instrument. In such a case, extrinsic evidence of the subject matter
of the contract, of the relations of the parties to each other, and of the facts and
circumstances surrounding them when they entered into the. contract may be received to
enable the court to make a proper interpretation of the instrumental. 14 In the case at bar,
the Deed of Sale (Exh. A or 1) is clear, without any ambiguity, mistake or imperfection,
much less obscurity or doubt in the terms thereof. We, therefore, hold and rule that
assigned errors III and IV are untenable.

According to the court a quo, "(s)ince Santos, in his Opposition to the Motion for Summary
Judgment failed to meet the plaintiff's evidence with countervailing evidence, a
circumstance indicating that there are no serious factual issues involved, the motion for
summary judgment may properly be granted." We affirm and sustain the action of the trial
court.
Indeed, where a motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings has
been filed, as in this case, supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal
knowledge, shall set forth such facts as may be admissible in evidence, and shall show
affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify as to the matters stated therein. Sworn
or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in the
affidavitshalibeattachedtheretoorservedtherewith. 15

Examining the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in the records, We find that appellants
have not submitted any categorical proof that Erlinda Cortez had paid the P2,000.00 to
appellee, hence, appellants failed to substantiate the claim that the cause of action of
appellee has been extinguished. And while it is true that appellants submitted a receipt
for P14,160.00 signed by appellee, appellants, however, have stated in their answer with
counterclaim that the P2,000.00 value of the property covered by the Deed of Sale,
instead of being credited to Erlinda Cortez, was conspicuously excluded from the
accounting or receipt signed by appellee totalling P14,160.00. The aforesaid receipt is no
proof that Erlinda Cortez subsequently paid her P2,000.00 debt to appellee. As correctly
observed by the court a quo, it is improbable that Cortez would still pay her debt to
appellee since Santos had already paid it.

Appellants' claim that their P2,000.00 debt to Erlinda Cortez had been waived or
abandoned is not also supported by any affidavit, document or writing submitted to the
court. As to their allegation that the appellee's claim is barred by prescription, the ruling
of the trial court that only seven years and six months of the ten-year prescription period
provided under Arts. 1144 and 155 in cases of actions for specific performance of the
written contract of sale had elapsed and that the action had not yet prescribed, is in
accordance with law and, therefore, We affirm the same.

The action of the court a quo in rendering a summary judgment has been taken in faithful
compliance and conformity with Rule 34, Section 3, Rules of Court, which provides that
"the judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and
admissions on file together with the affidavits, show that, except as to the amount of
damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. "

Resolving assignments of errors, V, VI, and VII which directly assail the summary
judgment, not the propriety of the rendition thereof which We have already resolved to be
proper and correct, it is Our considered opinion that the judgment of the court a quo is but
a logical consequence of the failure of appellants to present any bona fidedefense to
appellee's claim. Said judgment is simply the application of the law to the undisputed facts
of the case, one of which is the finding of the court a quo, to which We agree, that
appellants are owners of one-half (1/2) interest of Lot I and, therefore, the fifth assignment
of error of appellants is without merit.

By the terms of the Deed of Sale itself, which We find genuine and not infirmed, appellants
declared themselves to be owners of one-half (1/2) interest thereof. But in order to avoid
appellee's claim, they now contend that Plan Psu-206650 where said Lot I appears is in
the exclusive name of Teofilo Custodio as the sole and exclusive owner thereof and that
the deed of assignment of one-half (1/2) interest thereof executed by said Teofilo
Custodio in their favor is strictly personal between them. Notwithstanding the lack of any
title to the said lot by appellants at the time of the execution of the deed of sale in favor
of appellee, the said sale may be valid as there can be a sale of an expected thing, in
accordance with Art. 1461, New Civil Code, which states:

Art. 1461. Things having a potential existence may be the object of the
contract of sale.

The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed subject to

the condition that the thing will come into existence.

The sale of a vain hope or expectancy is void.

In the case at bar, the expectant right came into existence or materialized for the
appellants actually derived titles from Lot I .

We further reject the contention of the appellants that the lower court erred in ordering
the appellants to execute and convey to the appellee 20,000 sq.m. of land to be taken
from the southeastern portion of either their Lot 4, Pcs-5273, which has an area of 40,775
sq.m., described in T.C.T. No. 167568 (Exh. 9 or 1), or from their Lot No. 5-A, with an
area of 30,205 sq.m. described in T.C.T. No. 203580 (Exh. 11 or K), the expenses of
segregation to be borne equally by the appellants and the appellee and the expenses of
execution and registration to be borne by the appellants. Their argument that the
southeastern portion of Lot 4 or Lot 5-A is no longer the southeastern portion of the bigger
Lot 1, the latter portion belonging to the lone registered owner, Teofilo Custodia is not
impressed with merit. The subdivision of Lot I between the appellants and Teofilo
Custodio was made between themselves alone, without the intervention, knowledge and
consent of the appellee, and therefore, not binding upon the latter. Appellants may not
violate nor escape their obligation under the Deed of Sale they have agreed and signed
with the appellee b3 simply subdividing Lot 1, bisecting the same and segregating
portions to change their sides in relation to the original Lot 1.

Finally, considering the trial court's finding that the appellants compelled the appellee to
litigate and they failed to heed appellee's just demand, the order of the court awarding
the sum of P2,000.00 as attorney's fees is just and lawful, and We affirm the same.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby

AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against the appellants.

SO ORDERED.