Ursal v. C.A. 473 SCRA 52, October 14, 2005


In January 1985, WinifredaUrsal and spouses Jesus and CristitaMoneset entered into a “Contract to Sell Lot & House”. The amount agreed upon was P130, 000.00. Moreover, Ursal is to pay P50, 000.00 as down payment and will continue to pay P3000.00 monthly starting the next month until the balance is paid off. After 6 months, Ursal stopped paying the Monesets for the latter failed to give her the transfer of certificate title.In November 1985, the Monesets executed an absolute deed of sale with one Dr.Canora. Also, the Monesets mortgaged the same property to the Rural Bank of Larena for P100, 000.00. Unfortunately, the Monesets failed to pay the P100, 000; hence, the bank filed for foreclosure.

Trial ensued and the RTC ruled in favor of Ursal. The trial court ruled that there was fraud on the part of the Monesets for executing multiple sales contracts. That the bank is not liable for fraud, but preference to redeem should be given to Ursal. The Monesets are ordered to reimburse Ursal plus to pay damages and fees. However, Ursal was not satisfied as she believed that the bank was also at fault.


Whether or not the Contract to Sell vested ownership in Ursal.


NO. A contract to sell is a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, that is, full payment of the purchase price. Moreover, the prospective seller expressly reserves the transfer of title to the prospective buyer, until the happening of an event, which in this case is the full payment of the purchase price. What the seller agrees or obligates himself to do is to fulfill his promise to sell the subject property when the entire amount of the purchase price is delivered to him.

Since the contract in this case is a contract to sell, the ownership of the property remained with the Monesets even after petitioner had paid the down payment and took possession of the property.

Digest Credit: Rhymee Lanuzo


One thought on “Ursal v. C.A. 473 SCRA 52, October 14, 2005

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: