Cruz v.

Fernando
FACTS: Cruz executed a Kasunduan with the Gloriosos for the consideration of the rear portion of a lot. The Kasunduan
provides that the lot will be sold at a P40 per sq m. That the portion of the lot to be sold is the rear portion of it. That upon
selling, the Cruz will transfer their house from the front portion to the rear portion of the land once it is bought. That they
will have a right of way from the front portion going to the back end of the lot. The Cruz never gave anything to the
Gloriosos for there was an alleged failure to have the land surveyed. Due to non-payment, the Gloriosos instead sold the
whole lot (back and rear portion) to the Fernandos. After repeated demands, the Fernandos filed a case in court for accion
publiciana demanding the Cruz to vacate the lot and to pay a rental of P500.00. The RTC ruled in favor of the Fernandos.
The CA affirmed the RTC ruling.
ISSUE: Whether or not what transpired between the Cruzes and the Gloriosos was a contract of sale.
HELD: Ownership was never transferred to the Cruzes. This is because the manner of payment of the purchase price is an
essential element before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist. Although the Civil Code does not expressly state
that the minds of the parties must also meet on the terms or manner of payment of the price, the same is needed, otherwise
there is no sale. It was evident in the contract that they will transfer the house to the rear portion once they were able to
buy it.
The absence of any formal deed of conveyance is a strong indication that the parties didnt intend immediate transfer of
ownership. Petitioners dont have a superior right of ownership or possession to speak of. Their occupation of the
property was merely through the tolerance of the owners. Evidence on record shows that petitioners and their
predecessors were able to live and build their house on the property through the permission and kindness of the
previous owner. They have no title or at the very least, a contract of lease over the property. Based as it is was on mere
tolerance, petitioners possession could neither ripen into ownership nor operate to bar any action by respondents
to recover absolute possession thereof. A person who occupies the land of another at the latters forbearance or
permission without any contract between them is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon
demand.