FACTS:

This case involves an action for specific performance and damages between the spouses Vicente and Lourdes Pingol as defendants and the heirs of Francisco N. Donasco as plaintiffs. Francisco Donasco acquired a half portion of a parcel of land from Vicente Pingol through a deed of absolute sale, but he was not able to fully pay the balance before his death. As a result, the heirs of Donasco filed a complaint against the Pingols, seeking specific performance and damages. The Pingols argued that the deed of sale should be treated as a contract to sell, not a contract of sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint, stating that the contract was deemed cancelled due to non-payment and that the action had already prescribed. However, the Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's ruling. The appellate court ordered Vicente Pingol to accept the remaining balance with interest and recognized the heirs of Donasco as the legitimate owners of the land.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the deed of sale in question is an absolute deed of sale or a conditional deed of sale.

2. Whether the failure to fully pay the agreed price is a ground for the cancellation of the sale.

3. Whether the plaintiffs' action is imprescriptible or has prescribed.

4. Whether the contract between the parties should be rescinded due to non-payment of the purchase price.

5. Whether the action of the private respondents is barred by the statute of limitations.

6. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the payment of just compensation.

7. Whether or not the petitioner's right to due process was violated.

RULING:

1. The deed of sale in question embodies a contract of sale and not a contract to sell. The clear tenor of the "DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE" indicates the intention of the vendor to part with the ownership of the land. The absence of any stipulation reserving the title until full payment supports this conclusion.

2. The failure to fully pay the agreed price is not a ground for the cancellation of the sale. The contract of sale remains valid and enforceable even if full payment of the consideration was not made.

3. The plaintiffs' action is imprescriptible since it is akin to an action to quiet title to property in one's possession.

4. The contract should not be rescinded as the vendee can still pay the unpaid balance of the purchase price, as long as no demand for rescission has been made either judicially or by a notarial act.

5. The action of the private respondents is not barred by the statute of limitations, as their complaint is not merely an action for specific performance but also an action to quiet title. An action to quiet title is imprescriptible.

6. Yes, the petitioners are entitled to the payment of just compensation.

7. No, the petitioner's right to due process was not violated.

PRINCIPLES:

• In a contract of sale, title passes to the vendee upon delivery of the thing sold, whereas in a contract to sell, ownership is reserved in the vendor until full payment of the price.

• A contract of sale may still be considered absolute even if denominated as a "Deed of Conditional Sale" if it does not contain stipulations reserving title in the seller until full payment or giving the seller the right to unilaterally resolve the contract upon non-payment within a fixed period.

• The intention of the parties in a contract of sale is determined not only by the language used in the contract but also by their acts contemporaneous and subsequent to the contract.

• In an absolute sale, the ownership of the property is transferred to the buyer upon delivery, both constructive and actual.

• The vendee in an oral contract to convey land, who has made part payment and valuable improvements, is entitled to bring suit to clear his title against the vendor.

• An action to quiet title to property in one's possession is imprescriptible.

• A person claiming title to real property, but not in possession, must act affirmatively within the time provided by the statute. However, an owner of real property in possession has a continuing right to invoke a court of equity to remove a cloud on his title.

• Acquisition of private lands for public use requires the payment of just compensation.

• Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before a person can be deprived of property.