DIGNOS V CA G.R. No. L-59266, February 29, 1988

FACTS The petitioners-Dignos spouses owned of a parcel of land, known as Lot No. 3453, of the cadastral survey of Opon, Lapu-Lapu City and sold the it respondent Atilano J. Jabil for the sum of P28,000.00, payable in two installments. The Dignos spouses sold the same parcel of land to spouses, Luciano Cabigas and Jovita L. De Cabigas for P35,000.00 and executed in their favor an Absolute Deed of Sale duly registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. Upon discovery of the 2nd sale of the subject land, Jabil filed a case against the petitioners in the Court of First Instance of Cebu which rendered its decision declaring the 2nd sale to the spouses Cabigas null and void ab initio and the first sale to Jabil not rescinded and directing Spouses Dignos to return the P35,000.00 to Spouses Cabigas and ordered respondent to pay the remaining balance and pay the Cabigas spouses reasonable amount for the expenses or costs of the hollow block fence. Both parties appealed to Court of Appeals. The spouses Dignos contested that the contract between them and Jabil was merely a contract to sell and not a deed of sale. CA affirmed the decision of the lower court except as to the portion ordering Jabil to pay for the expenses incurred by the Cabigas spouses for the building of a fence upon the land in question. A motion for reconsideration of said decision was filed by the petitioner spouses, but was denied by CA for lack of merit. Hence, this petition. ISSUE I. Whether or not subject contract is a deed of absolute sale or a contract Lot sell. II. Whether or not the contract of sale was already rescinded when the Dignos spouses sold the land to the Cabigas RATIO 1. The contract is a deed of absolute sale. It has been held that a deed of sale is absolute in nature although dominated as a “Deed of Conditional Sale” where nowhere in the contract in question is a proviso or stipulation to the effect that title to the property sold is reserved in the vendor until full payment of the purchase price, nor is there a stipulation giving the vendor the right to unilaterally rescind the contract the moment the vendee fails to pay within a fixed period. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals saying stated that all the elements of a valid contract of sale are present in the document and that the spouses Dignos had no right to sell the land in question because an actual delivery of its possession has already been made in favor of Jabil as early as March 1965. 2. There’s no valid rescession of contract. The court found that the spouses Dignos never notified Jabil by notarial act that they were rescinding the contract, and neither did they file a suit in court to rescind the sale. The most that they were able to show is a letter of Cipriano Amistad who, claiming to be an emissary of Jabil, informed the Dignos spouses that the respondent had no money and further advised the latter to sell the land in litigation to another party. There is no showing that Jabil properly authorized a certain Cipriano Amistad to tell petitioners that he was already waiving his rights to the land in question. Under Article 1358 of the Civil Code, it is required that acts and contracts which have for their object the extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public document. Lastly.it has been ruled, however, that "where time is not of the essence of the agreement, a slight delay on the part of one party in the performance of his obligation is not a sufficient ground for the rescission of the agreement. RULING WHEREFORE, the petition filed is Dismissed for lack of merit and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed in toto.