In Brief
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the lower courts granting specific performance of a 2004 agreement to sell agricultural land. The defendants (vendors) argued the document was a loan agreement secured by the property, not a genuine sale, because it mentioned marriage expenses. The Court held that once an agreement to sell is validly executed with consideration paid, and the buyer is ready and willing to perform, specific performance must be granted. A mention of purpose within a sale agreement does not transform its character. The Court upheld concurrent findings from all lower courts on execution and payment of consideration. The defendants' new loan-document argument, raised only on appeal, could not disturb the finality of trial findings. The appeal was dismissed, though the Court directed additional equitable payment to the vendors under Article 142.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.