Heirs of Pedro Escanlar v.
CA  When lessees are sold the rights, interests, and
281 SCRA 176 | October 23, 1997 | Romero, J.
Summary:
The heirs of Cari-ans sold their hereditary rights over 2 parcels
of land to Escanlar and Holgado, (petitioners) the lessees of the
land, with the condition that they pay the purchase price on or
before May 1979 and that the it be approved by the probate
court. The petitioners failed to pay on the deadline but the Cari-
ans accepted successive installments of the balance of the
petitioners. The Cari-ans later sold 8 parcels of land, including
the subject lands, to Sps. Chua. The lower courts upheld the
validity of the sale to Sps. Chua and nullified the sale to the
petitioner for failing to pay the purchase price and not having the
probate court’s approval. The CA held that the questioned deed
in favor of petitioners is just a contract to sell, not of sale.
However, the Court held that it was a contract of sale since there
was already a transfer of ownership through the sale, even
though there was no transfer of possession. This is known as
tradition brevi manu. The Court further held that the probate
court’s approval was no longer necessary due to the
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the Cari-ans of
accepting the installments of the petitioners. The right to rescind
due to non-payment was also absent for the acceptance of the
installments past the due date constitute waiver of such right.
Finally, the Court upheld the validity of the sale to Sps. Chua
except the portions sold to the petitioners. The Court remanded
the case to the lower courts for its determination of the portions
of the land.
Doctrine:
participation of a land, they remain in possession, not in
concept of lessees anymore but as owners now through
symbolic delivery known as traditio brevi manu or
delivery with the short hand.
 Although a court approval is necessary for the effectivity
of a contract of sale, absence of such does not affect the
validity of the contract.
 The acceptance and receipt of delayed payments of
installments beyond the period stipulated constitute a
waiver of such period, and an estoppel from exercising
the right to rescind.
Provisions:
 Art. 1499, CC – The delivery of movable property may
likewise be made by the mere consent or agreement of
the contracting parties, if the thing sold cannot be
transferred to the possession of the vendee at the time of
the sale, or if the latter already had it in his possession
for any other reason.
 Art. 1477, CC – The ownership of the thing sold shall
be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructive delivery thereof.
 Art. 1592, CC – In the sale of immovable property, even
though it may have been stipulated that upon failure to
pay the price at the time agreed upon the rescission of the
contract shall of right take place, the vendee may pay,
even after the expiration of the period, as long as no
demand for rescission of the contract has been made
upon him either judicially or by a notarial act. After the
demand, the court may not grant him a new term.
Facts: because Escanlar and Holgado was not able to
secure the entire amount.
 Sps. Nombre and Victoriana Cari-an died in 1924 and o Pending complete payment, the vendees shall not
1938, respectively. assign, sell, lease, nor mortgage the rights,
o Nombre’s heirs include his nephews and interest, and participation thereof.
grandnephews. o Failure to pay the balance on or before the period
o Gregorio Cari-an, Victoriana’s late brother’s son
stipulated would forfeit the initial payment of
(her nephew) was declared as her heir.
P50k to the vendors as damages.
 After Gregorio died, his wife Generosa o The contract of sale shall only be effective upon
Martinez, and children, Rodolfo, Carmen, the approval by the CFI of Negros Occidental.
Leonardo, and Fredisminda were also
 Petitioners failed to pay by the due date but the heirs
adjuged as heirs to Vicoriana’s estate.
received at least 12 installments even after the due date.
 Leonardo Cari-an passed away, leaving
o The heirs were fully payed of their shares per
his widow Nelly Chua vda. Cari-an and
receipts given in evidence. The minor Leonell’s
their minor son Leonell, as his heirs.
share was deposited with the RTC.
 Two parcels of land denominated as Lot No. 1616 and
o Petitioners continued in possession of the lots as
1617 of the Kabankalan Cadastre with an area of 29, 350
former lessees and continued to pay rent based on
sqm. and 460, 948 sqm, respectively formed part of the their lease contract.
estate of Nombre and Cari-an.
 In the probate proceedings of Nombre and Cari-an,
 On September 1978, Gregorio’s heirs (private petitioners intervened as buyers of Cari-an’s shares in the
respondents Cari-an) executed the Deed of Sale of subject lots but was opposed by the heirs of Cari-an.
Rights, Interests and Participation of the subject lots in o Heirs of Cari-an and some heirs of Nombre sold
favor of Pedro Escanlar and Francisco Holgado their shares in eight parcels of land including the
(petitioners). The vendees were concurrently lessees of
subject lands to Sps. Chua for P1.85M
the subject lots.
 Heirs of Cari-an tried to cancel their sale of their shares
o The lots sold were the one-half of the pro-
to petitioners for the failure to pay the balance on the due
indiviso of lots nos. 1616 and 1617 of the late
date.
Victoriana Cari-an.
o Petitioners replied that the Cari-ans had no right
o It was sold for P275k. There was a balance of
to resell the subject lands for they have been paid.
P225k that shall be paid on or before May 1979
The Chuas were purchaser in bad.
  Petitioners sold their rights and interests in the subject
lands to Edwin Jayme for P735k.
 The probate court approved the sale of the eight lots to
Sps. Chua.
o Petitioners complained alleging that the Cari-ans
conspired with the Chuas on the second sale.
o Chua countered that they do not know of the
earlier sale of one-half portion of the subject
lands to the petitioners.
o The Chuas complained against Sps. Jayme for
refusing to vacate the lots despite demands.
Because of the illegal occupation, the Chuas
suffered materially from uncollected rentals.
 The sale to the petitioners was nullified because it was
not approved by the probate court as stipulated in the
deed, and it was not fully paid. The sale to Sps. Chua was
upheld.
 The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court and held
that the questioned deed is a contract to sell since it will
only be effective only upon approval by the probate court
and upon full payment of the purchase price.
Issues:
1. W/N the Deed of Sale of Rights, Interests and
Participation in favor of the Escanlar and Holgado is
a Contract to Sell. – NO. It is a Contract of Sale.
 In a contract to sell, the seller retains ownership
and it does not pass until the full payment of the
price. In this case, the Cari-ans did not reserve
unto themselves the ownership of the property
until full payment nor did they give a stipulation
that granted them the right to unilaterally rescind
the contract the moment the petitioners failed to
pay within the fixed period.
 Before the sale, the petitioners have possession
as lessees, but after the sale, they remained in
possession not as lessees but as owners through
symbolic delivery known as tradition brevi
manu.
2. W/N the Deed of Sale in favor of Escanlar and
Holgado null and void for not having been approved
by the probate court. – NO.
 The contract is valid for having its essential
requisites of consent, object, and cause. The lack
of the probate court’s approval, as merely a
restriction to the effectivity of the contract, will
not affect the contract’s validity.
 It is within the jurisdiction of the probate court to
approve the sale of properties of a deceased
person by his prospective heirs before final
adjudication. Dillena v CA
i. Although the court approval is necessary
for the validity of any disposition of the
decedent’s estate it cannot adversely
affect the substantive rights of the heirs to
dispose their share in the co-heirship or
co-ownership among the heirs.
 The contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the
Cari-ans run counter to the mandatory character
of the court’s approval.
i. The original objective of the Cari-ans was
to give effect to the sale even without
 court approval. The receipt and The Cari-ans signed their respective receipts of
acceptance of the numerous installments full payments. There were also no supporting
on the balance of the purchase price and testimony from the other heirs.
leaving the petitioners in possession of 5. W/N the subsequent sale of eight parcels of land to
the subject lands reveal the intention to Sps. Chua valid. – YES, except to the extent of what
effect the mutual transmission of rights was sold to Petitioners.
and obligations.  Petitioners, as successors-in-interest of the heirs
ii. Although it was past the due date, the of Cari-an, own half of the subject lands, there
Cari-ans continued to accept the being no exact apportionment of the shares of
payments and did not seek judicial relief each heir and no competent proof that the heirs
until three years later. received unequal shares.
iii. The requisite approval was virtually
rendered impossible by the Cari-ans Ruling: Petitions Granted. Decision of the CA is Reversed
because they opposed the motion for and Set Aside. The case is Remanded to the RTC to
approval of the sale filed by petitioners. determine exactly which one-half portion of the subject lots
will be owned by each party, at the option of petitioners. The
3. W/N the Deed of Sale may be rescined. – NO.
rental payments of the land not delivered to Sps. Chua would
 Under Art. 1592, the vendee of an immovable
also be resolved.
property may pay even after the expiration of the
period, as long as no demand for rescission of the
contract was made upon him either judicially or
by a notarial act.
 The Cari-ans made no demand for rescission nor
did they execute any notarial act. Their
acceptance and receipt of the installments past
the fixed period constitute a waiver of the right to
rescind. They are no estopped from exercising
such right.
4. W/N Escanlar and Holgado fully paid the amount.
YES.
 The sole witness failed to convince the Court that
they were not fully compensated by petitioners.