HEIRS OF AMPARO DEL ROSARIO v.

AURORA SANTOS Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the defendants filed an appeal
with the Court of Appeals which certified the records of the case to the
G.R. No. L-46892 September 30, 1981 Supreme Court for final determination.

GUERRERO, J.: Issue:

Facts:
Amparo Del Rosario entered into a contract with Attorney Andres
Santos and his wife Aurora Santos whereby the latter sold to the former a
20,000 sq. m. of land which is to be segregated from Lot 1. Said lot forms
part of the several lots belonging to a certain Teofilo Custodio, of which lots,
Attorney Santos, by agreement with the latter, as his attorneys fees, owns
interest thereof.
Parties agreed that spouses Andres shall thereafter execute a Deed
of Confirmation of Sale in favor of Del Rosario as soon as the title has been
released and the subdivision plan of said Lot 1 has been approved by the
Land Registration Commissioner.
Due to the failure of spouses Andres to execute the deed after the
fulfillment of the condition, Del Rosario claims malicious breach of a Deed of
Sale.
(As far as it concerns Sales)
Whether the sale is valid as to the cause or object of the contract.
Decision:
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs
against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi:
Supreme Court held that the execution of the deed of sale is valid
notwithstanding the lack of any title to the lot by appellants at the time of
execution f the deed of sale in favor of appellee as there can be a sale of an
expected thing in accordance with Article 1461 of the New Civil Code:
Art. 1461. Things having a potential existence may be the object
of the contract of sale.

Defendant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss setting up the The efficacy of the sale of a mere hope or expectancy is deemed
defenses of lack of jurisdiction of the court over the subject of the action and subject to the condition that the thing will come into existence.
lack of cause of action as well as the defense of prescription.
The sale of a vain hope or expectancy is void.
They further alleged that the deed of sale was only an
accommodation graciously extended, out of close friendship between the The case at bar is not a case of a vain hope or expectancy which is
defendants and the plaintiff, hence, tantamount to waiver, abandonment or void under the law. The expectant right came into existence or materialized
otherwise extinguishment of the demand set forth in the complaint. for the appellants actually derived titles from Lot I which subsequently
became the object of subdivision.
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.

The lower court resolved to deny the motion to dismiss.

After actions by respective parties, the lower court ordered the

defendants to execute and convey to plaintiff the 20,000 sq. m. of land to be
taken either from Lot 4 or from Lot 5-A of Custodios lots, which defendants
own interest thereof.