Earnest Money as Proof of Perfected Sale: Why Sellers Can’t Unilaterally Rescind

TLDR: In Philippine law, earnest money signifies a perfected contract of sale, not just an option to buy. This Supreme Court case clarifies that sellers cannot unilaterally rescind a contract and forfeit payments simply because a buyer missed payment deadlines, especially if the contract of sale is already perfected. Sellers must either seek specific performance or judicial rescission and must return payments made by the buyer upon rescission.

[ G.R. No. 112330, August 17, 1999 ] SPS. HENRY CO AND ELIZABETH CO AND MELODY CO, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND MRS. ADORACION CUSTODIO, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, TRINIDAD KALAGAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

nn

Introduction: More Than Just an Option

n

Imagine agreeing to buy a house, putting down a significant amount as earnest money, only to be told later that you’ve lost your chance because of a slight delay in payment, and worse, your money is forfeited. This scenario highlights the crucial difference between an option contract and a perfected contract of sale in Philippine law, especially in real estate transactions. The case of Sps. Henry Co and Elizabeth Co and Melody Co v. Court of Appeals and Mrs. Adoracion Custodio delves into this distinction, providing clarity on when a property sale becomes binding and the rights and obligations of both buyers and sellers.

n

In this case, Mrs. Adoracion Custodio intended to purchase a property from the Co spouses. After an initial agreement and payment of earnest money, payment delays occurred. The Cos attempted to rescind the agreement and forfeit Custodio’s payments. The central legal question became: Was there a perfected contract of sale, and could the Cos unilaterally rescind it and forfeit Custodio’s payments?

nn

Legal Context: Option vs. Sale and the Role of Earnest Money

n

Philippine law recognizes two distinct preliminary agreements in property transactions: the option contract and the contract of sale. An option contract is essentially a privilege granted to a potential buyer to purchase a property within a specific period at an agreed price. It is a preparatory contract, separate and distinct from the sale itself and must be supported by a consideration, often called option money. If the buyer decides not to proceed, the option expires, and the option money is typically forfeited.

n

On the other hand, a contract of sale is perfected the moment there is a meeting of minds on the property and the price. Article 1458 of the Civil Code defines a contract of sale:

n

“Article 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.”

n

Crucially, earnest money plays a significant role in distinguishing between these two. Article 1482 of the Civil Code states:

n

“Article 1482. Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be considered as part of the price and as proof of the perfection of the contract.”

n

This means that if a buyer gives earnest money and it is accepted by the seller, it’s generally interpreted as evidence that both parties have moved beyond just an option and have entered into a binding contract of sale. This has significant implications for the rights and obligations of both parties, especially concerning rescission.

nn

Case Breakdown: From Verbal Agreement to Courtroom Battle

n

The story began with a verbal agreement in October 1984 between Adoracion Custodio and the Co spouses for the purchase of a house and lot for $100,000. Shortly after, Custodio paid $1,000 and P40,000 as earnest money. Payment terms were set for December 1984 and January 1985. Custodio made a partial payment of $30,000 in January 1985, albeit after the initial deadlines.

n

However, Custodio then faced delays in completing the full payment. In March 1985, the Cos, through their lawyer, demanded the remaining balance. When no payment was forthcoming, the Cos sent another letter in August 1986, stating Custodio had lost her “option to purchase” and offered her another property, warning that failure to purchase this second property would lead to forfeiture of previous payments.

n

Custodio, through her counsel, responded in September 1986, stating her readiness to pay the remaining balance for the original Beata property. When the Cos refused, Custodio filed a complaint in court.

n

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Custodio, ordering the Cos to return the $30,000 (minus the forfeited earnest money of $1,000 and P40,000). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. The Cos then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that Custodio had lost her “option” and was in default, thus justifying their rescission and forfeiture of payments.

n

The Supreme Court, however, sided with Custodio and the lower courts. The Court emphasized that the initial agreement, coupled with the acceptance of earnest money, constituted a perfected contract of sale, not merely an option. The Court cited the March 15, 1985 letter from the Cos’ lawyer, which already referred to Custodio’s “offer to buy” and its “acceptance” by the Cos. The letter also detailed the payment terms, further solidifying the existence of a perfected sale.

n

The Supreme Court highlighted:

n

n
• Perfection of Contract: “A contract of sale is a consensual contract and is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment the parties may reciprocally demand performance subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts.“

n

• Earnest Money as Proof: “Under Article 1482 of the Civil Code, earnest money given in a sale transaction is considered part of the purchase price and proof of the perfection of the sale.“

n

n

Despite Custodio’s delays, the Court noted that the Cos did not properly pursue either specific performance or judicial rescission. They mistakenly believed they could unilaterally rescind the contract and forfeit payments based on the