Carabeo v norberto & dingco [2011]

FACTS

·          Domingo Carabeo entered into a contract "Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa" with Sps Norberto and Susan Peaches Dingco whereby Caraveo agreed to sell his rights over a 648 sq m unregistered land in Orani, Bataan for P38,000. (initial payment of P10,000 upon signing of the contract, the remaining balance to be paid on Sept 1990).

·          Norberto & Dingco were later to claim that when they were about to hand in the balance of the purchase price, Carabeo requested them to keep it first as he was yet to settle an on-going "squabble" over the land.

·          Norberto & Dingco gave Carabeo small sums of money from time to time which totaled P9,100, on Carabeo’s request according to them; due to Norberto & Dingco’ inability to pay the amount of the remaining balance in full, according to Carabeo.

·          Despite the alleged problem over the land, they insisted on Carabeo’s acceptance of the remaining balance of P18,900 but Carabeo remained firm in his refusal, proffering as reason that he would register the land first.

·          Sometime in 1994, Norberto & Dingco learned that the alleged problem over the land had been settled and that Carabeo had caused its registration in his name on Dec 21, 1993. They offered to pay the balance but Carabeo declined, drawing them to file a complaint before the Katarungan Pambarangay. No settlement was reached, however, hence, N & D filed a complaint for specific performance before the RTC.

·          Carabeo:

o    sale was void for lack of object certain, the kasunduan not having specified the metes and bounds of the land.

o    if the validity of the kasunduan is upheld, N & D failure to comply with their obligation to pay the balance of the purchase price would render the action premature.

o    Carabeo maintained that they failed to pay the balance of P28,000 on Sept 1990 to thus constrain him to accept installment payments totaling P9,100.

Carabeo passed away after the case was submitted for decision or on Jan 31, 2001, Records do not show that Carabeo’s counsel informed the RTC  where the complaint was lodged, of his death and that proper substitution was effected in accordance with Section 16, Rule 3, Rules of Court.

Lower courts

·          RTC Ordered defendant to sell his right over 648 sq m of land pursuant to the contract dated July 10, 1990 by executing a Deed of Sale thereof after the payment of P18,900 by the plaintiffs;

·          CA affirmed.

issues/ruling

object certain of the contract

That the kasunduan did not specify the technical boundaries of the property did not render the sale a nullity. The requirement that a sale must have for its object a determinate thing is satisfied as long as, at the time the contract is entered into, the object of the sale is capable of being made determinate without the necessity of a new or further agreement between the parties.

lack of spousal consent

This was raised only on appeal, hence, will not be considered, in the present case, in the interest of fair play, justice and due process.

carabeo’s death

Carabeo’s son: death of Carabeo causes the dismissal of the action filed by N & D; resp’ cause of action being an action in personam. 

Bonilla v. Barcena: The question as to whether an action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained [of] affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and rights of property affected being incidental. 

Assuming arguendo, that the kasunduan is deemed void, there is a corollary obligation of Carabeo to return the money paid by Norberto & Dingco, and since the action involves property rights, it survives.

Trial on the merits was already concluded before Carabeo died. Since the TC was not informed of Carabeo’s death, it may not be faulted for proceeding to render judgment without ordering his substitution. Its judgment is thus valid and binding upon Carabeo’s legal representatives or successors-in-interest, insofar as his interest in the property subject of the action is concerned.

The death of a client immediately divests the counsel of authority. Thus, in filing a Notice of Appeal, Carabeo’s counsel of record had no personality to act on behalf of the already deceased client who, it bears reiteration, had not been substituted as a party after his death. The TC’s decision had thereby become final and executory, no appeal having been perfected.

Petition Denied.