Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila,  Hon. Magno Gatmaitan,  presiding, sentencing the defendants-appellants to execute a deed  of sale, in favor of plaintiff or his assigns, of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 5702 and 5701, containing 315 hectares,  more or less, located in Samal,  Bataan, in  favor of plaintiff-appellee Rodrigo Coloso or his assigns, upon payment of the sum of P60,000, in accordance with a contract of agreement Annex "A" appended to the complaint.  The plaintiff-appellee had also appealed from that portion of the decision dismissing his complaint for damages. This appeal was the subject of our decision in Coloso vs. De Jesus,  et al., G. R. No. L-16411, promulgated August 31, 1963.

On February 12,  1955, in the City of Manila, Florentina N. Vda.  de Jesus entered into  a contract with Rodrigo Coloso wherein she granted the latter the exclusive right to manage  her 315 hectares of  land  in Samal, Bataan, for  the purpose of introducing permanent improvements thereon,  such as trees,  irrigation system, annual crops, etc. at his  own expense;  further authorizing  Coloso to manage the work on the land,  appoint  tenants and hire persons  and enter  into contracts of tenancy with  them, etc.  Under the contract Coloso was to share with Florentina Vda. de  Jesus all  the crops over the land.  It was further agreed that Coloso should commence work and introduce improvements on the  land within  two years, and upon his failure to do so the contract will be without force and  effect; and that Coloso should have the option to purchase the properties within a period of 10 years from the date of the contract, De Jesus agreeing to execute a deed of absolute sale of the properties upon the  payment  of the price agreed upon of ?60,000 which Coloso might secure from  any financing  institution, etc. (Annex  "A" attached  to complaint.)

About  a year after the contract was entered into, more specifically on November 28, 1956, claiming to be planting temporary crops or rice on the land subject of the contract, Coloso's tenants requested the President of the Philippines to purchase the land  from the owner for  the purpose of reselling  it to them at cost.  The letter was  endorsed to the Land Tenure Administration  and steps were taken by the latter to have the land assessed with a view to determining the price at which it  could  be purchased.  The chairman of the committee formed for that  purpose on October 10, 1957  approved  a resolution  recommending that the price of the property be raised from the assessed value of P120 per hectare to P700 per hectare "due to the various  improvements  introduced  into  the  property, the construction of feeder roads leading to the property, etc." It so happened that the purchase was  not effected although Coloso agreed to the  price of P700  per  hectare because  the representative of the owner, Lilia de  Jesus Sevilla, demanded a price of P2,000 per hectare.  And upon the failure of the negotiation for the purchase of the land Coloso brought an action demanding damages for the failure of the, plan to have the land purchased  by the Land Tenure Administration.  The lower Court dismissed the action for damages for which reason Coloso appealed. We affirmed the decision  dismissing the action for damages in G. R. No. L-16411, supra.

The present appeal is prosecuted by the administratrix of Florentina N. Vda. de Jesus and her   heirs against that part of the decision ordering them to execute a deed of sale of the property in favor of plaintiff-appellee Coloso, upon payment by the latter of the agreed price of P60,000.  In their appeal defendants-appellants question the finding of the court below to the effect that Coloso had made improvements consisting of the clearing of the lands, had introduced an irrigation system, etc.  Very little need be  said to disprove the defendants-appellants'  contention  in  this respect.  The petition of the share croppers of the land who had made kaingin thereon after planting palay, wherein they declare that they had planted  temporary crops on the land, is evidence that the land had been cleared in such a way as to permit the planting of palay crops.  Planting of such crops could have been  impossible unless the trees were cleared away because the land was originally a wooded area.  The resolution of the committee  appointed by the Land Tenure Administration to assess the property to the effect that the price to be offered be increased to P700 per hectare "due to various improvements introduced into the property," also corroborates the finding of the court below that the  plaintiff  had   introduced improvements  on  the property.   Furthermore, Coloso, testified   that he had spent not less than P20,000 in clearing the land, and opening an irrigation system leading to the land. It was further demonstrated that the witness who testified  for defendants that no improvements were made on the land had no opportunity  to see how the land was because  he did not go there at the time  when the improvements were  already made, and did not go around  the properties, which  was necessary  in order to find out if improvements were made thereon.   We, therefore, find that the ruling of the court below that Coloso complied with his obligation to introduce improvements on the land was fully justified.

In the second assignment of error of  defendants-appellants it is argued that  the plaintiff-appellee did not  perfect  his rights under the contract  Exhibit "B" because he failed  in  the following  respects: to introduce improvements, to  consult with the owner  concerning the management of the land, to render an accounting on the crops, to introduce  the improvements within two years, and to pay P20,000.   We  find no merit in  this argument.   The facts found by the trial court which, we have set forth  above, show that the plaintiff-appellee had substantially complied with his obligation to clear the land and make improvements thereon.  As to the payment of P60,000, the decision  orders  conveyance of the property only upon payments  of said sum of P60,000.   There cannot be any  objection, therefore,  to the decision  appealed from.

The last assignment of error is  a result of the previous ones and need not be considered.

Wherefore,  the  decision appealed from  should be, as it is  hereby, affirmed, with costs  against defendants-appellants.

Bengzon, C. J.,  Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera,  Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.