Olegario Clarin vs Alberto Rulona

GR No. L-30786 – 127 SCRA 512 – Civil Law – Law on Sales – Perfected Contract of Sale

Olegario Clarin was the owner of a 10-hectare land in Carmen, Bohol. The same was said to be his share from the other co-owners. In 1959, he executed a Contract of Sale with Alberto Rulona. It was agreed that the purchase price would be P2,. Downpayment would be P1, and the remaining balance would be paid monthly at per month. Rulona paid the downpayment as well as the 1^st installment but then later on Clarin returned the P1, against Rulona’s will. Clarin said he could not convince the other co-owners about the selling of his share. Clarin also said there was no perfected sale between him and Rulona as he said that the sale was subject to the condition that the other co-owners should give their consent to the sale.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a perfected contract of sale.

HELD: Yes there is. During trial there were 3 documents shown. Exhibit A shows that upon payment of by Rulona, a survey of the land was authorized. Exhibit B shows that , part of the down payment was paid to Clarin and that the 1^st installment of was also made. Though these exhibits are not the Contract of Sale, they show that there was a contract of sale between Rulona and Clarin.

Construing Exhibits A and B together, it can be seen that the Clarin agreed to sell and Rulona agreed to buy a definite object, that is, 10 hectares of land which is part and parcel of Lot 20 PLD No. 4, owned in common by the Clarin and his sisters although the boundaries of the 10 hectares would be delineated at a later date. The parties also agreed on a definite price which is P2,. Exhibit B further shows that Clarin has received from Rulona as initial payment, the amount of . Hence, it cannot be denied that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties and that such contract was already partially executed when the petitioner received the initial payment of . The latter’s acceptance of the payment clearly showed his consent to the contract thereby precluding him from rejecting its binding effect.

Further, Clarin’s letter to Rulona marked Exhibit C stated;

“My dear Mr. Rulona:

Replying to your letter of recent date, I deeply regret to inform you that my daughter, Alice, who is now in Manila, could not be convinced by me to sell the land in question, that is, the ten (10) hectares of land referred to in our tentative agreement. It is for this reason that I hereby authorize the bearer, Mr. Paciano Parmisano, to return to you in person the sum of One Thousand and One Hundred (P1,) Pesos which you have paid in advance for the proposed sale of the land in question.”

The reasons given by the Clarin cannot operate against the validity of the contract in question. A contract is valid even though one of the parties entered into it against his better judgment.

Read full text