G.R. No. L-17197. September 29, 1962
MANUEL S. GALVEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. VALENTINA TAGLE VDA. DE KANGLEON, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
applied to the Rural Progress Administration for the purchase of a home lot in
the La Faja Del Mar Estate as a result of which that office adjudicated to him
Lot No. 7, Block No. 4, situated at Baclaran, Parañaque, Rizal, with an area of
574 sq. m. On August 13, 1950, Ricardo Gonzales Lloret, then manager of the
Rural Progress Administration, sent Kangleon a letter informing him of the
adjudication and enclosing therewith a sales memorandum which contains all the
pertinent data regarding the lot. Kangleon did not reply to said letter nor pay
the first installment of the purchase price of the lot allotted to him.
Thinking that Kangleon had abandoned his right to purchase the lot and upon
receiving report that Venancio Presingular and his companions were residents of
the Baclaran estate and were applicants of the same Lot No. 7, manager Lloret,
without any previous notice to Kangleon, sold on December 29, 1950 to
Presingular and companions the lot for P6,864.00 at the rate of P12.00 per
square meter. At the time the sale was executed Executive Order No. 376, dated
November 28, 1950, issued by the President of the Philippines, abolishing the
Rural Progress Administration and transferring all its powers, duties and
functions to the Bureau of Lands, was already in force, although the officers of
the Rural Progress Ad ministration continued to hold office until December 31,
1950.
On March 26, 1951, Venancio Presingular and his companions sold all their
rights, title and interest in the lot to spouses Manuel S. Galvez and Ester R.
Galvez for the sum of P20,000.00, but, probably realizing that the manager of
the Rural Progress Administration had no longer power to sell the lot as
aforesaid, Venancio Presingular secured another agreement to sell covering the
same lot at the same rate of F12.00 per square meter from the Director of Lands
on October 26, 1951, said agreement stating that it cancels and replaces the
agreement to sell executed on December 29, 1950.
In 1952, Kangleon came to know that the lot allotted to him was sold to
Venancio Presingular by the manager of the Rural Progress Administration. He
filed a protest with the Director of Lands which at that time had already taken
over the powers, duties and functions of the defunct Rural Progress
Administration, and on November 4, 1953, the Director of Lands rendered his
decision on the conflict ruling that the sale made by the manager of the defunct
Rural Progress Administration on December 29, 1950 to Venancio Presingular was
void because at the time it was executed the Rural Progress Administration was
already abolished, but that the sale of October 26, 1951 made by the Director of
Lands to Presingular was valid. The Director of Lands dismissed the protest of
Kangleon for lack of merit. Kangleon appealed from this decision to the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources who rendered his decision in the
form of an order on June 1, 1954.
In his decision the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources held that
Lot. No 7 was really allotted by the Rural Progress Administration to Kangleon
but that the latter did not pay the first installment of the purchase price of
the lot; that with the exception of his letter to the general manager of the
Rural Progress Administration, Kangleon did not show such degree of interest as
to convince that office that he was determined to purchase the lot; and that
because perhaps of that lack of interest which amounted to negligence, the
manager of the Rural Progress Administration executed an agreement to sell in
favor of Presingular and his companions covering the same lot on December 29,
1950.
The decision upheld the legality of the sale made by the manager of the Rural
Progress Administration to Venancio Presingular on December 29, 1950 on the
ground that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources has no
administrative supervision over the Rural Progress Administration, aside from
the fact that the action taken by said manager was that of a de facto
officer and as such it is valid. The decision concluded by giving Kangleon the
option to purchase the lot from Manuel Galvez by paying to him the amount of
P20,000.00 the latter had paid as purchase price within 90 days on condition
that if Kangleon should not pay said amount within the stated period the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources will execute a deed of sale in
favor of Manuel Galvez. Kangleon did not exercise the option given to him by
this official and instead proceeded to contest his decision in court.
In view of Kangleon’s failure to pay the amount of P20,000.00, the Secretary
of Agriculture and Natural Resources executed on June 23, 1955 a deed of sale in
favor of Manuel Galvez and his wife based upon the deed of sale of March 26,
1951 executed by Venancio Presingular and his companions in favor of said
spouses. Galvez recorded this sale in the office of the register of deeds and a
transfer certificate of title was issued to him and his wife on June 23,
1955.
On June 15, 1955, Kangleon commenced the present action before the Court of
First Instance of Rizal seeking to enforce the contract of sale allegedly
entered into between him and the defunct Rural Progress Administration, as well
as the annulment of the sale made of the lot to Venancio Presingular and his
companions and, later, to spouses Galvez, which action, however, was later
converted into a petition for certiorari for a judicial review of the
administrative adjudication made by the Rural Progress Administration, the
Director of Land and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Kangleon asked for the execution in his favor of a deed of sale of the lot after
he had paid the purchase price of P12.00 per square meter, or a total amount of
P6,864.00.
The court a quo in its decision rendered on June 22, 1957 declared
the adjudication made by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources in
favor of the Galvez spouses illegal, holding that plaintiff Kangleon had a
preferential right to purchase the lot. Upon payment by Kangleon to the Land
Tenure Administration within 30 days after the decision has become final of the
purchase price at the rate of P12.00 per sq. m., or the total sum of P6,864.00,
the Land Tenure Administration should execute a deed of sale covering said lot
in favor of plaintiff. The court declared null and void the previous deeds of
sale executed in connection with said lot while it ordered the register of deeds
to cancel the transfer certificate of title issued in favor of the Galvez
spouses.
In due time, defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Kangleon
died on February 27, 1958, or during the pendency of the appeal, and so he was
substituted by his widow. In a split decision of 3 to 2, the Court of Appeals
decided to affirm in toto the decision of the lower court. The case was
taken to this Court on a petition for review.
The only errors which in our opinion need to be discussed in this instance as
decisive of the different issues raised in petitioners’ brief may be boiled down
to two, to wit: (1) whether a perfected contract of sale was generated between
the Rural Progress Administration, thru its manager Lloret in favor of Kangleon,
with respect to the lot in question; and (2) assuming that there was a perfected
contract to sell in favor of Kangleon, whether the Rural Progress
Administration, thru its manager Lloret, as well as the Director of Lands and
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, gravely abused their
discretion in subsequently selling the same to Presingular and his companions,
and later on, to the Galvez spouses.
- The instant action for specific performance was instituted by the late
Kangleon on the assumption that a perfected contract of sale executed in his
favor by the Rural Progress Administration, thru its manager Lloret, relative to
the lot in controversy. The court a quo sustained his contention, and
the Court of Appeals affirmed it. This is now assigned as error.
The Court of Appeals, in sustaining the contention of Kangleon, declared:
“Under the facts and law, the majority is of the opinion that there was a
perfected contract of sale between the late Kangleon and the Rural Progress
Administration regarding the lot in dispute. The award of the lot to Kangleon
was approved by the Board of Directors of the Rural Progress Administration,
according to Ramon Fernandez, a member of the Board. Acting upon a resolution of
the Board, Lloret wrote to Kangleon on October 30, 1950 (Exhibit B), enclosing
therein a Sales Memorandum containing all the pertinent date regarding the
lot.”
With respect to Kangleon’s alleged acceptance of the price of the lot which
was allegedly adjudicated to him, i.e., P13.00 per sq. m., the Court of Appeals
pointed out that he had gone twice “to see Lloret about his willingness to make
the initial payment, and this circumstance suffices to show Kangleon’s
conformity with the price of P13.00 per square meter.” Hence, it affirmed the
decision of the trial court holding that there was already a meeting of the
minds between Kangleon and the Rural Progress Administration with respect to the
subject matter and the price thereof and ordered the respondent officials to
execute the corresponding deed of sale covering the land in controversy in favor
of Kangleon, similar to the one executed in favor of Presingular.
In assailing this particular holding of the Court of Appeals, petitioners
point out that there was no clear agreement between Kangleon and the Rural
Progress Administration as to price as evidenced by the circumstancethat the
alleged payments tendered by the former to the latter on account of the purchase
price of the lot could not be accepted by the Rural Progress Administration as
the land was still under water and has yet to be filled up and the cost of
filling it up will have to be added to the price thereof. Hence, they insist, in
view of this disagreement as to price, the contract of sale could not have been
perfected between Kangleon and the Rural Progress Administration.
Petitioners’ contention is tenable. The fact that the Rural Progress
Administration allotted the land in question to Kangleon in a sales memorandum
containing all the pertinent data regarding the lot which was forwarded to him
did not create a perfected contract of sale in his favor, in the same manner as
this Court did not consider the so-called “Deed of Sale” involved in a similar
case as one generating a perfected contract of sale between the parties but a
mere application to purchase the land. Thus, in Alvarez, et al. vs. Board of
Liquidators, et al.,[1] this Court made
the following observation:
“* * * The agreement which the Board denominated ‘contract of sale,’ is
not really a deed of actual sale, but should be considered as a mere application
on the part of Tomas Alvarez. After the approval of such application it was
still necessary to have Alvarez’ qualification investigated as well as whether
or not he has complied with the provisions of the laws regarding the disposition
of lands by the Board of Liquidators. The ‘contract of sale’ so-called was
not an ordinary deed of sale of properties but, as shown by the above-quoted
stipulations, was merely an application subject to revocation in case the
applicant is found not to possess the qualifications necessary. The Board found
that Alvarez is not qualified because he did not actually occupy the land but
merely served as a dummy of another who was disqualified to get this lot, having
already purchased one lot from the Board of Liquidators. The argument,
therefore, that the Board of Liquidators had no power under the circumstances to
order the cancellation of the sale is without foundation either in law or in
fact.” (Italics supplied)
If in the Alvarez case, supra, the controverted deed of sale which
embodied all the essential elements of a contract of sale by installment was
considered by this Court merely as an application to buy the land, and not a
perfected contract of sale, there is more cogent reason to conclude that the
sales memorandum sent to Kangleon in the instant case has not ripened into that
juridical relation. In fact, not even a contract to sell the lot was executed by
Kangleon and the Rural Progress Administration. Hence, neither party could
compel the other to go through with the transaction because the same is not
binding upon them. Indeed, under this premise, the Rural Progress Administration
could not have compelled Kangleon to purchase the property through an action for
specific performance simply because the latter had gone twice to the office of
the former offering to pay the price of the lot, in the same manner that
Kangleon could not compel the Rural Progress Administration, as he now seeks in
the instant case, to sell the lot to him simply because a sales memorandum
containing the pertinent data relative to the lot in dispute was forwarded to
him. Evidently, the court a quo as well as the Court of Appeals, erred
in concluding that under the circumstances a perfected contract of sale had
already existed between Kangleon and the Rural Progress Administration.
- Assuming that there was a perfected contract to sell in favor of Kangleon
with respect to the lot in dispute, did the Rural Progress Administration, as
well as the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, gravely abuse their discretion
in subsequently selling the same
lot to Presingular and his companions, and, later on, to Galvez spouses?
It is not disputed that the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
found in his decision that the lot in controversy was really allotted by the
Rural Progress Administration to Kangleon but that the latter did not pay the
first installment of the purchase price of the lot; that Kangleon did not show
such degree of interest as to convince the Rural Progress Administration that he
was determined to purchase said lot; and that because of this lack of interest
which amounted to negligence, the manager of said office, upon receiving
information that Presingular and his companions were residents of the Baclaran
estate and applicants of the same lot, executed an agreement to sell the lot in
their favor on December 29, 1950. These findings of fact are binding upon the
courts and may not now be disturbed unless it can be shown that the official
concerned acted arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion.[2] Since it appears that Kangleon failed to
pay the first installment of the purchase price of the land, or failed to show
such degree of interest as to convince the Rural Progress Administration that he
was determined to purchase it, as in fact he evinced lack of interest which
amounted to negligence, respondent officials were justified in selling the lot
to Presingular and his companions, and, later on, to Galvez spouses, who
apparently acted in good faith not knowing that over the same there existed a
controversy between the government and Kangleon.
Moreover, it should be noted that the lot in dispute is part of the La Faja
Del Mar Estate which was acquired by the government for purposes of homesite in
the light of the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 539, and considering their
underlying policy that in the application for home lots preference should be
given to occupants over other private individuals, the decision to sell the lot
to Presingular and companions must have been reached considering that they were
the ones in possession thereof while Kangleon had other properties of his own he
being then the Secretary of National Defense. On the other hand, Kangleon cannot
find comfort nor anchor his claim on Republic Act 65, which gives preference to
veterans of the last world war to purchase public land or government-owned, it
appearing that the preference given by said Act merely refers to agricultural
farms or subdivisions and not to lands for homesite purposes as the La Faja Del
Mar Estate. There are, therefore, sufficient reasons that justify the sale of
the lot to Presingular and his companions as was done by the Rural Progress
Administration.
Having reached the conclusion that there was no perfected contract of sale
between Kangleon and the Rural Progress Administration and that respondent
officials did not commit an abuse of discretion in selling the lot to
Presingular and his companions, and, later on, to Galvez spouses, we do not deem
it necessary to discuss the other issues raised by petitioners in their
brief.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The action for specific
performance, as well as the amended and supplemental complaint filed by
respondents’ predecessor-in-interest, are hereby dismissed. No costs.
Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and
Makalintal, JJ., concur.
[1] G.R. No. L-14834, promulgated January 31,
1962.
[2] Julian vs. Apostol, 52 Phil., 422;
Ortua vs. Singson Encarnacion, 59 Phil., 440; De Guzman vs. De Guzman, et al.
104 Phil., 24; Denopol vs. Director of Lands, et al., 106 Phil., 666; Ingaran,
et al. vs. Ramelo, et al., 107 Phil., 498; Pajo, et al. vs. Ago, et al., 108
Phil., 905.