G.R. No. 92871 August 2, 1991 MARIA P. VDA. DE JOMOC, ET AL., petitioners, vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL, 10th Judicial Region, Br. 25, respondents. G.R. No. 92860 August 2, 1991 SPOUSES LIM LEONG KANG & LIM PUE KING, petitioners, vs. MAURA SO & HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Eleventh Division), respondents.

Doctrine: The contract of sale of real property even if not complete in form, so long as the essential requisites of consent of the contracting parties, object, and cause of the obligation concur and they were clearly established to be present, is valid and effective as between the parties. Public document is only needed to bind third persons. Facts: A parcel of land in Cagayan de Oro owned by late Pantaleon Jomoc was fictitiously sold to third persons in which the last transferee are the spouses Mariano and Maria So. Maria Vda de Jomoc, as administrarix of Pantaleon Jomocs estate, filed suit to recover the property. The case was decided in favor of Jomoc and was accordingly appealed by Mariano So and one Gaw Sur Cheng to the Court of Appeals. While pending appeal, Vda de Jomoc executed executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of Land with private respondent for P300,000.00. The document was not yet signed by all the parties nor notarized but in the meantime, Maura So had made partial payments amounting to P49,000.00. Mariano So, the appellant in the recovery proceeding, agreed to settle the case by executing a Deed of Reconveyance of the land in favor of the heirs of Pantaleon Jomoc. The reconveyance was in compliance with the decision in the recovery case and resulted in the dismissal of his appeal. The heirs of Jomoc executed another extra-judicial settlement with absolute sale in favor of intervenors Lim Leong Kang and Lim Pue filing claiming that they believe that So already backed-out from the agreement.. Later, Maura So demanded from the Jomoc family the execution of a final deed of conveyance. They ignored the demand. Maura So sued petitioners-heirs for specific performance to compel them to execute and deliver the proper registrable deed of sale over the lot. The lower court, finding that there was no sufficient evidence to show complainant-respondents' withdrawal from the sale. On appeal, the trial court decision was affirmed.

Issue/s: WON the sale is enforceable. Held: Since petitioners admit the existence of the extra-judicial settlement, the court finds that there was meeting of the minds between the parties and hence, there is a valid contract that has been partly executed. The contract of sale of real property even if not complete in form, so long as the essential requisites of consent of the contracting parties, object, and cause of the obligation concur and they were clearly established to be present, is valid and effective as between the parties. Public document is only needed to bind third persons. The payment made by So is a clear proof of her intention to acquire the property and the petitioners cannot claim about the respondent backing out. The sale to the intervenors Lim cannot be recognized because when they bought the property, there was already a notice of lis pendens and the sale cannot be said to be in good faith. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 13, 1989 and its resolution dated April 2, 1990 are AFFIRMED.