This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-06-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The CA based its ruling on the following reasons: that the petitioners raised for the first time on appeal the issue on whether the "Deed of Conveyance of Part Rights and Interests in Agricultural Land" is void ab initio under Sections 145 and 146 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu[17] (which was made applicable later to the Mountain Province and Nueva Viscaya by Act 2798, as amended by Act 2913, and then to all other cultural minorities found within the national territory by virtue of Section 120 of the Public Land Act[18]) and, hence, cannot be considered by the reviewing court;[19] that, even if this issue were considered, the records fail to show that Ting-el Dicman, though an Igorot, is a non-Christian and, hence, the foregoing laws are not applicable;[20] that there was sufficient proof of consideration for the said deed;[21] and that even if the deed were a mere contract to sell and not an absolute sale, under Borromeo v. Franco[22] the obligation on the part of the purchaser to perfect the title papers within a certain time is not a condition subsequent nor essential to the obligation to sell, but rather the same is an incidental undertaking the failure to comply therewith not being a bar to the sale agreed upon.[23] | |||||