Can You Sell Property You Don’t Yet Own? Understanding Contracts for Future Property in the Philippines

TLDR: The Philippine Supreme Court, in Mananzala v. Court of Appeals, clarified that contracts to sell property that the seller does not yet own are valid, as long as the seller acquires ownership later. This case highlights the enforceability of such agreements and the importance of understanding ‘future property’ under Philippine law.

G.R. No. 115101, March 02, 1998

Introduction

Imagine signing a contract to buy a piece of land, only to find out later that the seller didn’t actually own it at the time of the agreement. This scenario, while seemingly problematic, is addressed under Philippine law, which recognizes the concept of contracts involving ‘future property.’ The case of Mananzala v. Court of Appeals provides crucial insights into the validity and enforceability of such agreements, particularly concerning real estate transactions. This case underscores the principle that one can legally sell something they expect to own in the future, and courts will uphold these contracts when ownership is eventually acquired.

In this case, Fidela Mananzala was sued for specific performance by Corazon Arañez to compel the transfer of land based on a deed of sale executed in 1960. The central legal question was whether this deed of sale was valid, considering Mananzala only obtained full ownership of the property in 1985, after she fully paid for it to the National Housing Authority (NHA), formerly PHHC.

Legal Context: Sale of Future Property under Philippine Law

Philippine law, specifically Article 1461 of the Civil Code, explicitly addresses the sale of future property. This provision states: “Things having a potential existence may be the object of the contract of sale.” This means that a person can validly enter into a contract to sell something they do not currently own but expect to own in the future. This concept is crucial in real estate development, agricultural agreements, and various commercial transactions where future harvests, expected acquisitions, or properties still under development are subject to sale.

This legal principle stems from the broader contractual freedom recognized in the Philippines, allowing parties to define the scope and terms of their agreements, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. The law distinguishes between ‘present’ and ‘future’ property, acknowledging that commercial needs and practical realities often necessitate agreements concerning assets that are not yet in the seller’s possession or ownership at the time of contract formation.

It’s important to note that while the sale of future property is permissible, the contract must be clear about the object of the sale being future property. Additionally, the seller implicitly warrants that they will take the necessary steps to acquire ownership of the property to fulfill their contractual obligations. Failure to acquire ownership and transfer it to the buyer can lead to legal repercussions, including actions for specific performance, as seen in the Mananzala case.

Case Breakdown: Mananzala v. Court of Appeals

The story begins with Fidela Mananzala’s long-term possession of a land parcel in Quezon City since 1955, initially through a conditional sale from the PHHC. However, in 1960, the PHHC mistakenly awarded the same land to the Mercado spouses, leading to a legal battle initiated by Mananzala to assert her rights. During this period of uncertainty over ownership, on March 22, 1960, Mananzala entered into a Deed of Sale with Corazon Arañez, stipulating the land’s transfer within 30 days of Mananzala completing her payments to PHHC.

Decades later, in 1984, Mananzala finally paid the full price to the NHA (formerly PHHC), and in January 1985, she was issued a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in her name. Shortly after obtaining the title, Arañez filed a specific performance suit against Mananzala, seeking to enforce the 1960 Deed of Sale. Mananzala contested the suit, claiming forgery and fraud, and arguing the contract’s invalidity because she wasn’t the owner in 1960 and it violated PHHC rules.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed Arañez’s complaint, acknowledging Mananzala’s signature but ruling no perfected contract due to a lack of intent to sell and the fact that Mananzala wasn’t yet the owner in 1960. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision. The CA validated the 1960 Deed of Sale, citing the NBI’s finding of the genuineness of Mananzala’s signature and the presumption of regularity of a notarized document. Crucially, the CA invoked Article 1461 of the Civil Code, affirming the validity of selling future property.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision. Justice Mendoza, writing for the Second Division, addressed Mananzala’s arguments:

• Presumption of Regularity: The Court affirmed the CA’s reliance on the notarized Deed of Sale’s presumption of regularity, supported by the NBI’s verification of Mananzala’s signature. The Court noted that both the RTC and CA found the signature genuine. As Justice Mendoza stated, “Anyway, that the signature of petitioner in the deed in question is genuine is a factual finding of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals which, in the absence of very clear evidence to the contrary, this Court will not revise.”
• Validity of Sale of Future Property: The Supreme Court explicitly concurred with the CA’s application of Article 1461. The Court dismissed Mananzala’s argument that the contract was void because she wasn’t the owner in 1960. The Court implicitly recognized that the 1960 Deed of Sale was a valid contract for future property, contingent on Mananzala acquiring ownership, which she eventually did in 1985.
• Waiver of Other Defenses: The Court also noted that Mananzala had raised defenses about PHHC rules and the one-year prohibition period in her initial answer but did not actively pursue these defenses on appeal. The Supreme Court deemed these defenses waived, emphasizing procedural adherence in appellate practice.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision compelling Mananzala to convey the property to Arañez, reinforcing the validity and enforceability of contracts involving future property under Philippine law.

Practical Implications: Buying and Selling Property You Don’t Yet Own

The Mananzala v. Court of Appeals case offers significant practical implications for real estate transactions and contract law in the Philippines. It clarifies that agreements to sell property not yet owned by the seller are not inherently invalid. This ruling provides a legal framework for various commercial dealings where future acquisition or development of property is central to the transaction.

For businesses and individuals involved in real estate, this case confirms the viability of pre-selling properties or entering into contracts to sell land that is still under acquisition or development. Developers can confidently enter into pre-selling agreements for condominium units or houses even before project completion, as long as they are on track to acquire full ownership and deliver the property as agreed.

However, this case also underscores the importance of clarity and good faith in such contracts. The agreement must clearly specify that the property is future property and outline the conditions for the transfer of ownership. Buyers entering into such contracts should conduct due diligence to ascertain the seller’s capacity to acquire ownership and fulfill their obligations. Notarization of such contracts adds a layer of legal presumption of regularity, as highlighted in the Mananzala case, strengthening the enforceability of the agreement.

Key Lessons from Mananzala v. Court of Appeals:

• Validity of Contracts for Future Property: Philippine law recognizes and validates contracts for the sale of future property under Article 1461 of the Civil Code.
• Enforceability of Such Contracts: Courts will enforce contracts to sell future property once the seller acquires ownership, as demonstrated in the specific performance order against Mananzala.
• Importance of Clear Contractual Terms: Agreements must clearly identify the property as ‘future property’ and outline the conditions for ownership transfer.
• Due Diligence for Buyers: Buyers should conduct due diligence to assess the seller’s ability to acquire and transfer ownership.
• Notarization Enhances Validity: Notarization of contracts strengthens their legal standing and evidentiary value due to the presumption of regularity.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Selling Future Property in the Philippines

Q1: Is it legal to sell property that I don’t legally own yet in the Philippines?

A: Yes, it is legal under Article 1461 of the Civil Code, which allows contracts for the sale of things with potential existence, or ‘future property.’ However, the contract must clearly indicate that it involves future property.

Q2: What happens if the seller fails to acquire ownership of the future property?

A: If the seller fails to acquire ownership, they will breach the contract. The buyer can pursue legal remedies, such as specific performance (if acquisition is still possible) or damages for breach of contract.

Q3: What kind of property can be considered ‘future property’ in a sale?

A: ‘Future property’ can include various types of assets not yet owned by the seller, such as land still under process of titling, properties under development, future harvests, or expected inheritances. In real estate, it commonly refers to properties a developer plans to acquire or build.

Q4: Is a contract to sell future property automatically valid if it’s notarized?

A: Notarization creates a presumption of regularity and due execution, making it stronger evidence in court. However, it doesn’t automatically validate a contract if other legal requirements are not met (like consent, object, cause). But, as seen in Mananzala, notarization is a significant factor in upholding the contract’s validity.

Q5: As a buyer, what precautions should I take when buying future property?

A: Buyers should conduct thorough due diligence on the seller’s capacity to acquire ownership. This includes verifying the seller’s rights or claims to the property, the process for acquiring title, and any potential obstacles. It’s also advisable to have a well-drafted contract with clear terms and seek legal advice.

Q6: Can a seller be compelled to transfer future property if they acquire it later?

A: Yes, as illustrated in Mananzala v. Court of Appeals, courts can order specific performance, compelling the seller to transfer the property to the buyer once the seller obtains ownership, provided the contract is valid and enforceable.

Q7: Does the one-year prohibition on selling awarded PHHC/NHA lots apply to contracts of sale for future property?

A: While the Mananzala case touched upon this, the Court did not rule on it directly due to waiver. Generally, restrictions on selling awarded lots are meant to prevent speculation. Whether a contract for future sale executed within the prohibition period but intended for transfer after the period is valid requires careful legal analysis, considering the specific rules and purpose of the restriction.

ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Contract Law in the Philippines. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.