OBLICON

2nd semester, A.Y.

2014-2015

Quijada v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No.: 126444
Ponente: Martinez, J.
Date: December 4, 1998
Petitioner: Children of the late Trinidad Corvera Vda. De Quijada (Alfonso Quijada, Cresente Quijada, Reynelda Quijada, Demetrio Quijada, Eliuteria
Quijada, Eulalio Quijada)
Respondent: Court of Appeals, Regalado, Modejar, Rodulfo Goloran, Alberto Asis, Segundino Ras, Ernesto Goloran, Celso Abiso, Fernando Bautista,
Antonio Macasero, and Nestor Maguinsay
FACTS:
1.

Trinidad was one of the heirs of the late Pedro Cordova. She inherited from the latter a 2-hectar parcel of land in San Agustin, Talacogon,
Agusan del Sur.
2. In 1956, Trinidad Quejada together with her sisters and brother executed a conditional deed of donation of the 2 hectare parcel of land
subject of the case in favor of the Municipality of Talacogon
Condition of the deed of donation: the parcel of land shall be used solely and exclusively as part of the campus of the proposed provincial
high school in Talacogon.
3. In 1962, Trinidad sold 1 hectare of the subject parcel of land to defendant-appellant Regalado Mondejar. She also verbally sold the remaining
1 hectare of the land again to Regalado Modejar without the benefit of a written deed of sale and evidenced solely by receipts of payment.
4. In 1980, the heirs of Trinidad filed a complaint for forcible entry against Regalado Modejar. This was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
5. In 1987, the provincial high school failed to materialize, the Sangguniang Bayan of the municipality of Talacogon enacted a resolution
reverting the 2-hectares of land donated back to the donors. In the meantime, Regalado Mondejar sold portions of the land to defendantappellants, Fernando Bautista, Rodolfo Goloran, Efren Guden and Ernesto Goloran.
6. Petitioners filed this action. They allege that their mother never sold, conveyed, transferred or disposed of the property in question to any
person or entity; that at the time of the alleged sale to Mondejar, the land still belongs to the Municipality of Talacogon.
7. Answer of respondents: the sale was valid and the plaintiffs action is barred by laches or has prescribed.
8. RTC: judgment in favor of plaintiffs.
a. Quejada had no legal title or right to sell the land to defendant Mondejar, the same not being hers to dispose because ownership
belongs to the municipality of Talacogon.
b. The deed of sale executed by Quijada did not carry with it conformity and acquiescence of her children, more so that she was
already 63 y.o. at the time and a widow.
9. CA: reversed and set aside judgement of court a quo. The sale was valid as Quijada retained an inchoate interest on the lots by virtue of
automatic revision clause in the deed of donation.
10. DISPO: Affirm the decision of CA. SALE IS VALID.
ISSUE1: WON the contract of sale between Quijada and Modejar is valid. YES.
HELD/RATIO1:
Courts discussion on deed of donation and resolutory condition: Quijada was not the owner of the parcel of land when the sale was
perfected.

The condition of the deed of donation, not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, was validly imposed in
the donation.

When the Municipality accepted the donation, it became the new owner of the donated propertydonation being a mode of acquiring and
transmitting ownership, notwithstanding the condition imposed by the done. The donation is perfected once the acceptance by the done is
made known to the donor.

In the present case, the resolutory condition is the construction of the school. A resolutory condition is NOT a condition precedent or a
suspensive condition. At the time the sales were made, in 1962 towards 1968, the alleged seller Trinidad could NOT have sold the lots
since she had earlier transferred ownership thereof by virtue of the deed of donation. So long as the resolutory condition subsists and is
capable of fulfillment, the donation remains effective and the donee continues to be the owner subject only to the rights of the donor or
his successors-in-interest under the deed of donation. Since no period was imposed by the donor on when the done must comply with the
condition, the donee remains to be the owner so long as he has tried to comply with the condition within a reasonable period. Only when the
Municipality manifested a resolution that it cannot comply with the condition of building a school, that the ownership of the donated property
reverted to the donor.

Donor only has an inchoate interest (in progress, neither ripe, vested nor perfected) in the property during the time that ownership of the land
was not yet reverted to her. Such inchoate interest may be the subject of contracts including contract of sale. In the case at bar, Quijada sold
the land itself. It would have been different if she only sold her interests over the property under the deed of donation which is subject to the
possibility of reversion of ownership.
Courts discussion on SALE: Ownership of the subject of the sale by the seller is not an element of a sale. The sale is valid.
Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee

OBLICON
2nd semester, A.Y.
2014-2015

Sale is perfected by mere consent, manifested by mere meeting of the minds as to the offer and acceptance thereof of 3 elements:
(1) subject matter
(2) price
(3) terms of payment of the price
Ownership by the seller on the thing sold at the time of the perfection of the contract of sale is NOT an element for its perfection. The law only
requires that the seller has the right to transfer ownership at the time the thing sold is delivered. Perfection per se does not transfer
ownership which occurs upon the actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold. A perfected sale cannot be challenged on the ground of
non-ownership on the part of the seller at the time of its perfection. Hence, the sale is valid.

Batac, Endaya, Lingat, Santos, Saturnino, Villafuerte, Yee