Roberto Laforteza et al vs Alonzo Machuca

Facts: the late Francisco laforteza owned a house and lot in metro manila. Lea
zulueta-laforteza executed a spa in favour of Roberto lafortexa and gonzalo
laforteza r authorizing them as her attorne!-in-fact authorizing them to sell the
subect propert! and sign an! document for the settlement of the estate of the
late Francisco laforteza.
Michael laforteza executed a spa in favour of Roberto laforteza authorizing the
latter to sell the subect propert!. A !ear later" dennis lafortea executed a spa in
favour of Roberto lafortexa and gonzalo laforteza r uahtorizing them to sell the
subect propert! and to sign an! document for the settlement of the estate of the
late Francisco laforteza.
#n an $% &'('" the heirs of late Francisco laforteza represented b! Roberto
laforteza and gonzalo lafortexa entered into a moa to sell with the plainti) over
the subect propert! for the sum of *%%"%%%.%% pa!able as follows:
+%, for earnest mone!" *%%"%%% upon issuance of the new cert in the name of
the late Francisco laforteza and upon execution of an extra%udicial settlement of
the decedent-s estate with the sale in favour of the plainti). plainti) paid the
earnest mone! and rentals for the subect propert!. #n sept &(" &''(" defendant
heirs wrote a letter to the plainti) furnishing the latter a cop! of the
reconstituted title to the subect propert! advising him that he had +% da!s to
produce the balance of *%%"%% under the moa which the plainti) received on the
same date.
.lainti) as,ed for an extension which was granted b! Roberto laforteza" but not
b! gonzalo laforteza. #n nov &/" &'('" the plainti) informed the defendant heirs
that he alread! had the amount covered b! a ucpb chec,. 0ut he was informed
that the subect propert! was not alread! available for sale and the! were
cancelling the moa in view of the plainti)-s failure to compl! with his contractual
obligation. After reiteration of his re1uest to pa!" the defendant insisted on
rescission. .lainti) 2led for speci2c perfomramce which was granted b! rtc and
modi2ed b! ca which ruled that the defendant should pa! /%, as moral
damages. 3ence this petition.
4ssue: whether the moa imposes reciprocal obligations.
Ruling: !es
5nder the law" a contract of sale is consensual and is perfected at the
moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the obect of the
contract and upon the price. From that moment the parties ma! reciprocall!
demand performance subect to the provision governing the form of contracts.
4n this case" there was a perfected agreement between the petitioners and
the respondent whereb! the petitioners obligated themselves to transfer the
ownership of and deliver the hosue and lot and the respondent to pa! the price
amounting to *%% thousands. All the elements of a contract of sale were thus
present.