Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Parties to a contract
1.) JUAN LAO and CANDELARIA C.
LAO, petitioners, vs. HON. MELECIO A. GENATO, as
Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance, Branch I,
Misamis Occidental, SOTERO A. DIONISIO, JR., as
Administrator of the Intestate Estate of ROSENDA
ABUTON, SOTERO B. DIONISIO III, WILLIAM L. GO,
ERLINDA DIAZ, represented by RESTITUTO N.
ABUTON, Attorney-In-Fact, ESTER AIDA D. BAS,
Heirs of ROSALINDA D. BELLEZA, represented by
FELICENDA D. BELLEZA, Attorney-In-Fact,
LUZMINDA D. DAJAO, ADELAIDA D. NUEZA,
represented by Atty. MAURICIO O. BAS, SR.,
Attorney-In-Fact, and FLORIDA A.
NUQUI, respondents.
( SPECIAL CAPACITY GUARDIANS , AGENTS ,
ADMINISTRATORS )
Felipe G. Tac-an for petitioners.
Alaric P. Acosta for private respondent as Administrator.
Eligio O. Dajao for respondent Ester Aida D. Bas.
Ramon C. Berenquel for respondent William L. Go.
DECISION
CUEVAS, J :
p
llcd
AUTHORIZING THE
acknowledged before
prcd
cdll
to herein
llcd
stating
"xxx xxx xxx
LexLib
on
( OBLIGATIONS OF ADMINISTRATOR )
Sotero Dionisio, Jr. is the Administrator of the estate of his
deceased mother Rosenda Abutan. As such Administrator, he
occupies a position of the highest trust and confidence. He is
required to exercise reasonable diligence and act in entire good
faith in the performance of that trust. Although he is not a
guarantor or insurer of the safety of the estate nor is he expected
to be infallible, yet the same degree of prudence, care and
judgment which a person of a fair average capacity and ability
exercises in similar transactions of his own, serves as the
standard by which his conduct is to be judged. ( DILIGENCE OF
GFF )
In the discharge of his functions, the administrator should act
with utmost circumspection in order to preserve the estate and
guard against its dissipation so as not to prejudice its creditors
and the heirs of the decedents who are entitled to the net residue
thereof.
In the case at bar, the sale was made necessary "in order to
settle other existing obligations of the estate". This purpose is
clearly manifested in the Motion for Authority to Sell
10
filed by
11
12questioning
13
LexLib
2.)DAVID
DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J :
p
LLjur
prLL
LLphil
LLjur
prLL
cdrep
llcd
cdphil
prcd
LLphil
The fact that the properties were first mortgaged and only
subsequently acquired in an auction sale long after the
termination of the intestate proceedings will not remove it from
the scope of the prohibition. To rule otherwise would be to
countenance indirectly what cannot be done directly.
There is no gainsaying that petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, as
an heir, could encumber the property adjudicated to him; that the
Complaint in the Annulment Case did not contain any specific
allegation of fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment
appealed from as opined by the Court of Appeals in the Appealed
Case; and that the auction sale of the properties to Respondent
Amonoy was judicially confirmed and ownership and possession
of the Controverted Parcels ultimately transferred to him.
Nonetheless, considering that the mortgage contract, entered
into in contravention of Article 1491 of the Civil Code,supra, is
expressly prohibited by law, the same must be held inexistent
and void ab initio (Director of Lands vs. Abagat, 53 Phil. 147).
"Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void
from the beginning:
(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;
xxx xxx xxx
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
LLpr
3.)
THE DIRECTOR OF
DECISION
MAKASIAR, J :
p
Cdpr
"AGREEMENT
"KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
"That I, MAXIMO ABARQUEZ, plaintiff in Case No. R-6573
of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, make known
through this agreement that for the services rendered by
Atty. Alberto B. Fernandez, who is my lawyer in this case,
if the appeal is won up to the Supreme Court, I promise
and will guarantee that I will give to said lawyer one-half
(1/2) of what I may recover from the estate of my father
in Lots No. 5600 and 5602 which are located at Bulacao,
Pardo, City of Cebu. That with respect to any money
which may be adjudged to me from Agripina Abarquez,
except 'Attorney's Fees', the same shall pertain to me and
not to said lawyer.
cdrep
prLL
cdphil
LexLib
LexLib
Insular Lumber Co., supra, citing the case of Ulanday vs. Manila
Railroad Co., supra:
LibLex
Fernandez after the case was won on appeal because only then
did the assignment of the one half (1/2) portion of the lots in
question became effective and binding. So that when he filed his
affidavit of adverse claim his interest was already an existing
one. There was therefore a valid interest in the lots to registered
in favor of Atty. Fernandez adverse to Maximo Abarquez.
Moreover, the interest or claim of Atty. Fernandez in the lots in
question arose long AFTER THE ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
which took place many years ago. And, there is no other provision
of the Land Registration Act under which the interest or claim
may be registered except as an adverse claim under Section 110
thereof. The interest or claim cannot be registered as an
attorney's charging lien. The lower court was correct in denying
the motion to annotate the attorney's lien. A charging lien under
Section 37, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited only
to money judgments and not to judgments for the annulment of a
contract or for delivery of real property as in the instant case.
Said Section provides that:
LLphil
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; NATIONAL PATRIMONY; SALE OF
LAND TO ALIENS VOID. The sale of the land in question in
1936 by Epifania to Ong King Po, a Chinese, was in existent and
void from the beginning (Art. 1409 (7), Civil Code) because
it was a contract executed against the mandatory provision of the
1933 Constitution, which is an expression of public policy to
conserve lands for the Filipinos.
****2. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBSEQUENT SALE TO A QUALIFIED
VENDEE VALID; PRECLUDES RECOVERY BY ORIGINAL
VENDOR. The litigated property has been sold by the Chinese
vendee and is now in the hands of a naturalized Filipino, the
respondent. It is no longer owned by a disqualified vendee,
Respondent, as a naturalized citizen, was constitutionally
qualified to own the subject property. There would be no more
public policy to be served in allowing petitioner Epifania to
recover the land as it is already in the hands of a qualified
person.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; VENDOR HELD GUILTY OF LACHES IN CASE AT BAR.
While strictly speaking, Ong King Po, respondent's vendor had
no rights of ownership to transmit, it is likewise inescapable that
petitioner Epifania had slept on her rights for 26 years from 1936
to 1962. By her long inaction or inexcusable neglect, she should
be held barred from asserting her claim to the litigated property
(Sotto vs. Teves, 86 SCRA 157).
4. CIVIL LAW; DAMAGES; ACTUAL DAMAGES RECOVERABLE IN
CASE AT BAR. The award of actual damages in respondent's
favor of P10,000.00 is justified. Respondent was deprived of the
possession of his land and the enjoyment of its fruits from March,
1962. The Court of Appeals fixed respondent's share of the sale of
DECISION
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J :
p
As the facts stand, a parcel of coconut land was sold by its Filipino
owner, petitioner Epifania, to a Chinese, Ong King Po, and by the
latter to a naturalized Filipino, ( CUENCO ) respondent herein.
- In the meantime, the Filipino owner had unilaterally
REPUDIATED THE SALE SHE HAD MADE TO THE CHINESE
and had resold the property to another Filipino.
(ISSUE) The basic issue is: Who is the rightful owner of the
property? WON THE RESPONDENT INACB IS THE RIGHTFUL
OWNER , DESPITE ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP TO PROP OF SALE IS
VOID .
HELD:
There should be no question that the sale of the land in question
in 1936 by Epifania to Ong King Po was inexistent and void from
the beginning (Art. 1409 [7], Civil Code)
because it was a
Had this been a suit between Epifania and Ong King Po, she could
have been declared entitled to the litigated land on the basis, as
claimed, of the ruling in Philippine Banking Corporation vs. Lui
She,
reading:
". . . For another thing, and this is not only cogent but
also important. Article 1416 of the Civil Code provides as
But the factual set-up has changed. The litigated property is now
in the hands of a naturalized Filipino. It is no longer owned by a
disqualified vendee. Respondent, as a naturalized citizen, was
constitutionally qualified to own the subject property. There would
be no more public policy to be served in allowing petitioner
Epifania to recover the land as it is already in the hands of a
qualified person. Applying by analogy the ruling of this Court in
Vasquez vs. Giap and Li Seng Giap & Sons:
LexLib
10
DECISION
BARRERA, J :
p
ISSUE : WON The death of the principal does not render the act of
an agent unenforceable
HELD :
We find all the contentions of plaintiff-appellant untenable.
Starting with her claim that the second deed executed on
December 1, 1931 by Luis Herrera was a lease contract instead of
a deed of sale as asserted by defendant Luy Kim Guan, we find
that the only evidence in support of her contention is her own
testimony and that of her husband to the effect that the
deceased Luis Herrera showed the said document to them, and
they remembered the same to be a lease contract on the three
properties for a period of 20 years in consideration of P2,000.00.
Their testimony was sought to be corroborated by the declaration
of the clerk of Atty. Enrique A. Fernandez, who allegedly notarized
the document. Outside of this oral testimony, given more than 23
years after the supposed instrument was read by them, no other
signed by the
said Lot No. 4467 in the names of Luy Kim Guan and Lino
Bangayan in undivided equal shares.
With respect to Lot No. 1740, the same was sold by Luy Kim
Guan, in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of Luis Herrera, on
September 11, 1939 to Lui Chay (See Exh. 2) who, in August,
1941, mortgaged the same (Exh. 4) to the Zamboanga Mutual
Loan and Building Association (See TCT No. 3162 [Exh. 3] issued
in the name of Lui Chay). Later on, Lui Chay sold the entire lot to
defendant Lino Bangayan by virtue of the deed of sale dated
January 31, 1947 (Exh. E), and as a consequence thereof, TCT No.
2567 was issued in the name of said vendee. (See Exh. 1). As a
result of these various transactions, duly recorded in the
corresponding office of the Register of Deeds, and covered by
appropriate transfer certificates of title, the properties are now
registered in the following manner: Lot No. 1740, in the name of
Lino Bangayan; Lot No. 4465, in the name of Carlos Eijansantos;
and Lot No. 4467, in the names of Lino Bangayan and Luy Kim
Guan in undivided equal shares.
In the face of these documentary evidence presented by the
defendants, the trial court correctly upheld the contention of the
defendants as against that of plaintiff-appellant who claims that
the second deed executed by Luis Herrera in 1931 was A LEASE
CONTRACT. It is pertinent to note what the lower court stated in
this regard, that is, if the second deed executed by Luis Herrera
was a lease contract covering the 3 lots in question for a period
of twenty (20) years, there would have been no purpose for him
to constitute Luy Kim Guan as his attorney-in-fact to administer
and take charge of the same properties already covered by the
lease contract.
citizen.
5.)VICENTE
DECISION
GUTIERREZ, JR., J :
p
cdrep
LLpr
Herrera v. Luy Kim Guan (1 SCRA 406) reiterated the above ruling
by declaring that where land is sold to a Chinese citizen, who
later sold it to a Filipino, the sale to the latter cannot be
impugned.
The appellants cannot find solace from Philippine Banking
Corporation v. Lui She (21 SCRA 52) which relaxed the pari delicto
doctrine to allow the heirs or successors-in-interest, in
appropriate cases, to recover that which their predecessors sold
to aliens.
LexLib
7.)
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J :
p
ISCaTE
in the
bidder,
Holly
Corporation. Petitioner
is
Properties
ordered
to
Realty
return
to
Petitioner
filed
Reconsideration
(Emphasis supplied)
the
insofar
present
as
he
was
Motion
ordered
for
to
Partial
return
to
to
the
BUYER
the
Deed
of
Absolute
UNIT
and
appurtenant
to
to
the
such
corresponding Condominium
common
UNIT,
areas
and
the
Certificate
of
and
other
comply
documents
with
all
and
shall
requirements
understood
that all
title,
rights
and
of
the
Condominium
Corporation,
having
(Emphasis supplied)
jurisdiction
aEcHCD
or
shareholdings
in
the
condominium
to
exceed
the
limits
imposed
by
As
as
unit
owner
was
simply
member
of
the
HESCcA
FACTS :
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J :
p
dated
TAIDHa
The facts:
Jacobus Bernhard Hulst (petitioner) and his spouse Ida
Johanna Hulst-Van Ijzeren (Ida), DUTCH NATIONALS, entered into a
Contract to Sell with PR Builders, Inc. (respondent), for the
purchase of a 210-sq. m. residential unit in respondent's
townhouse project in Barangay Niyugan, Laurel, Batangas.
When RESPONDENT failed to comply with its verbal promise to
complete the project = the spouses Hulst filed before the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) a complaint for
rescission of contract with interest, damages and attorney's fees,
docketed as HLRB Case No. IV6-071196-0618.
- On April 22, 1997, HLURB Arbiter Ma. Perpetua Y. Aquino
(HLURB Arbiter) rendered a Decision
in favor of
EacHCD
DHcTaE
Sheriff Jaime B.
TAcDHS
DTCSHA
10
In a Notice of Sale dated March 27, 2000, the Sheriff set the
public auction of the levied properties on April 28, 2000 at 10:00
a.m.
11
12
13
TcaAID
14
At 4:15 p.m. of the same day, while the Sheriff was at the HLURB
office to remit the legal fees relative to the auction sale and to
submit the Certificates of Sale
15
16
Four months later, or on August 28, 2000, the HLURB Arbiter and
HLURB Director issued an Order setting aside the sheriff's levy
on respondent's real properties,
17
reasoning as follows:
18
(Emphasis Supplied).
THCSEA
19
20
21
22
properly
cEaSHC
23
24
TCIEcH
IEaATD
25
or corporations at least
26
Aliens,
27
Article 1409 (1) and (7) of the Civil Code, all contracts whose
cause, object or purpose is contrary to law or public policy and
those expressly prohibited or declared void by law are inexistent
and void from the beginning. Article 1410 of the same Code
provides that the action or defense for the declaration of the
inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. A void contract is
equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect.
create, modify or extinguish a juridical relation.
28
29
It does not
SITCcE
30 (
32
31)
return of that which may have been given under a void contract
to: (a) the innocent party (Arts. 1411-1412, Civil Code);
(b) the
33
34
(c)
35
(d) the
36
37
for whose benefit the law has been intended such as in price
39
38
aTHCSE
40
41
42
DTcHaA
43
44
moral and
45
the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the socalled nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any
party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire
after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and
inequitable.
46
47
48
49
50
52
53
54
55
custody of the law, and thereby render it liable to the lien of the
execution, and put it out of the power of the judgment debtor to
divert it to any other use or purpose.
56
57
***In the present case, the HLURB Arbiter and Director gravely
abused their discretion in setting aside the levy conducted by the
Sheriff for the reason that the auction sale conducted by the
sheriff rendered moot and academic the motion to quash the
levy.
The HLURB Arbiter lost jurisdiction to act on the motion to quash
the levy by virtue of the consummation of the auction sale.
Absent any order from the HLURB suspending the auction sale,
the sheriff rightfully proceeded with the auction sale. The winning
bidder had already paid the winning bid. The legal fees had
already been remitted to the HLURB. The judgment award had
already been turned over to the judgment creditor. What was left
to be done was only the issuance of the corresponding
certificates of sale to the winning bidder. In fact, only the
signature of the HLURB Director for that purpose was
needed
58
59
sale under the Rules have been fully complied with to warrant the
issuance of the corresponding certificates of sale.)
And even if the Court should go into the merits of the assailed
Order, the petition is meritorious on the following grounds:
Firstly, the reliance of the HLURB Arbiter and Director, as well as
the CA, on Barrozo v. Macaraeg
Appeals
61
60
is misplaced.
62
63
64
65
66
upon and bought each of the levied properties for the total
amount of P5,450,653.33 in full satisfaction of the judgment
award and legal fees.
67
Secondly, the Rules of Court do not require that the value of the
property levied be exactly the same as the judgment debt; it can
be less or more than the amount of debt. This is the contingency
addressed by Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. In the levy
of property, the Sheriff does not determine the exact valuation of
the levied property. Under Section 9, Rule 39, in conjunction with
Section 7, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, the sheriff is required to
do only two specific things to effect a levy upon a realty: (a) file
with the register of deeds a copy of the order of execution,
together with the description of the levied property and notice of
execution; and (b) leave with the occupant of the property copy
of the same order, description and notice.
68
69
Because it is
70Section
71
73
project after it shall have been fully developed, that is, on the
assumption that the residential units appraised had already been
built. The Appraiser in fact made this qualification in its Appraisal
Report: "[t]he property subject of this appraisal has not been
constructed. The basis of the appraiser is on the existing model
units."
74
not push through, the projected value did not become a reality.
Thus, the appraisal value cannot be equated with the fair market
value. The Appraisal Report is not the best proof to accurately
show the value of the levied properties as it is clearly self-serving.
Therefore, the Order dated August 28, 2000 of HLURB Arbiter
Aquino and Director Ceniza in HLRB Case No. IV6-071196-0618
which set aside the sheriff's levy on respondent's real properties,
was clearly issued with grave abuse of discretion. The CA erred in
affirming said Order.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision
dated October 30, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
60981 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order dated August
28, 2000 of HLURB Arbiter Ma. Perpetua Y. Aquino and Director
Belen G. Ceniza in HLRB Case No. IV6-071196-0618 is
declared NULL andVOID. HLURB Arbiter Aquino and Director
Ceniza are directed to issue the corresponding certificates of sale
in favor of the winning bidder, Holly Properties Realty
Corporation. Petitioner is ordered to return to respondent the
amount of P2,125,540.00, without interest, in excess of the
proceeds of the auction sale delivered topetitioner. After the
finality of herein judgment, the amount of P2,125,540.00 shall
earn 6% interest until fully paid.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, Chico-Nazario, Nachura and Reyes. JJ., concur.
1.)
AURORA
Spouses
HERMOSO
and
SOCORRO
DE
LEON,respondents.
Simplicio M. Sevilleja for petitioner.
Villamar A. Tolete for respondents.
SYNOPSIS
Respondent Hermoso de Leon INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER
Marcelino de Leon the subject parcel of land by virtue of a Deed
of Extra-judicial Partition. Sometime in the early 1960s,
- respondents engaged the services of a certain Atty. Florencio
Juan to take care of the documents of the properties of his
parents. Atty. Juan let them sign voluminous documents.
= After the death of Atty. Juan, some documents surfaced and
HIEASa
DcITaC
SYLLABUS
1. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACTS; SALES; REAL RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP IS
TRANSFERRED ONLY BY TRADITION OR DELIVERY OF THE THING
SOLD TO THE BUYER. A contract of sale is consensual. It is
perfected by mere consent, upon a meeting of the minds on the
offer and the acceptance thereof based on subject matter, price
and terms of payment. AT
OF
NOTARIAL
DOCUMENTS;
WITHOUT
THE
ACCOUNT
OF
THE
NOTARY
REGARDING
THE
DUE
CSIcTa
SCETHA
DTcASE
AEIcSa
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J :
p
AHacIS
The Case
Before us is a Petition for Review
Court, seeking to set aside the February 9, 2001 Decision and the
August 31, 2001 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-
The
assailed
Resolution
denied
Reconsideration.
The Facts
petitioner's
Motion
for
ownership,
possession,
injunction,
preliminary
Partition
in
favor
of
Rodolfo
de
Leon
was
presumptively authentic.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
(CA) In reversing the RTC, the CA held that laches did not bar
respondents from pursuing their claim. Notwithstanding the
delay, laches is a doctrine in equity and may not be invoked to
resist the enforcement of a legal right.
The appellate court also
RIGHTS) held that since Rodolfo de Leon was not the owner of the
land at the time of the sale, he could not transfer any land rights
to petitioner.+ FORGERY It further declared that the signature of
The Issues
Petitioner raises the following issues for our consideration:
ISSUE : Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale by
Rodolfo de Leon (deceased) over the land in question in
favor of petitioner was perfected and binding upon the
parties therein?
"2. Whether or not the evidentiary weight of the Deed of
Extrajudicial
Partition
with
Quitclaim,
executed
by
more
than
[a]
preponderance
of
evidence
of
respondents?
"3. Whether or not the possession of petitioner including
her predecessor-in-interest Rodolfo de Leon over the land
in question was in good faith?
"4. And whether or not the instant case initiated and filed
by respondents on February 24, 1993 before the trial
court has prescribed and respondents are guilty of
laches?"
10
11
12
TSEAaD
13
- BUT ONLY DURING It is during the delivery that the law requires
the seller to have the right to transfer ownership of the thing
sold.
14
15
16
17Therefore,
we need to
resolve the issue of the authenticity and the due execution of the
Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim in his favor.
Second Issue:
authentic,
because
it
was
notarized
and
executed
in
18
19
To
20
21
22
23
24
will readily
reveal that the latter is a forgery. As aptly held by the CA, such
variance cannot be attributed to the age or the mechanical acts
of the person signing.
25
26
or
adverse
possession.
27
Neither
can
29
28
30
31
32
33
doctrine,
its
equitable considerations.
34
application
35
Since laches is an
is
controlled
by
36
Thus, the
2,)SAMPAGUITA
DECISION
DE CASTRO, J :
p
cdrep
LibLex
prLL
Cdpr
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Acting C.J. (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez,
Guerrero
DECISION
VILLAMOR, J.
DECISION
GRIO-AQUINO, J :
p
prLL
The principal issue in this case is who should bear the loss of the
motorcycle. The answer to this question would depend on
ISSUE: whether there had already been a transfer of ownership of
the motorcycle to private respondent at the time it was
destroyed.
Norkis' theory is that:
". . . After the contract of sale has been perfected (Art.
1475) and even before delivery, that is, even before the
ownership is transferred to the vendee, the risk of loss is
shifted from the vendor to the vendee. Under Art. 1262,
the obligation of the vendor to deliver
a determinate thing becomes extinguished if the thing is
lost by fortuitous event (Art. 1174),PROVIDED : that is,
without the fault or fraud of the vendor and before he has
incurred delay (Art. 1165, par. 3). If the thing sold
is generic, the loss or destruction does not extinguish the
obligation (Art. 1263). A thing is determinate when it is
particularly designated or physically segregated from all
others of the same class (Art. 1460). Thus, the vendor
becomes released from his obligation to deliver the
determinate thing sold while the vendee's obligation to
pay that price subsists. If the vendee had paid the price
in advance the vendor may retain the same. The legal
effect, therefore, is that the vendee assumes the risk of
loss by fortuitous event (Art. 1262) after the perfection of
the contract to the time of delivery." (Civil Code of the
Philippines, Ambrosio Padilla, Vol. 5, 1987 Ed., p. 87.)
cdphil
cdphil
5.)
PHILIPPINE SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPOR
ATION, petitioner, vs. THE AUDITOR GENERAL,
PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, respondent.
Magno L. Dajao for petitioner.
First Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor
Sumilang V. Bernardo for respondent.
SYNOPSIS
The Auditor General disallowed petitioner's request for refund of
real estate tax on the Sapang Palay estate for the year 1961
which petitioner paid under protest. The estate was purchased by
the PHHC, as authorized by the President, from petitioner for the
cdasia
SYLLABUS
1. GOVERNMENT
CONTRACTS
victims
does
not
need
the
prior
approval
by
REAL
PROPERTY;
TRANSFER
OF
OWNERSHIP;
is
the
responsibility
of
the
purchaser
after
the
FROM
REAL
PROPERTY
TAX.
The
PHHC
is
DECISION
ANTONIO, J :
p
TWENTY
THREE
(P3,386,223.00)
administrators
or
assigns,
the
for
registration
expenses.
In
the
meantime,
the
said
PHHC
to
proceed
immediately
with
the
manner
signifying
an
agreement
that
the
under the
Land
Registration
Act (Act
No.
496)
****It
is
now
CLAIMED
IN
THIS
APPEAL
THAT
THE
SALE
SHALL
FIRST
BE
APPROVED
BY
passed
its
Resolution
No.
700
approving
and
Marketing
Corporation,
the
approval
by
of
Presidential
directive
to
solve
and
control over the thing sold at the moment of the sale, and,
therefore, its material delivery could not have been made. 5
ACTUAL
REGISTRATION.
NOTICE
IS
EQUIVALENT
TO
subsequent
alienations
by
the
vendor,
and
is
ESTATE
TAX
AFTER
SUCH
TRANSFER
IS
THE
11
by
D E C I SAQ
AION
FISHER, J :
p
It is not enough to
aTEHIC
SYLLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS; UNLAWFUL DETAINER;
OWNER'S PERMISSION OR TOLERANCE MUST HAVE BEEN
PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING OF INTRUDER'S OCCUPATION
OF THE PREMISES; CASE AT BAR. In its Complaint, petitioner
alleged that, having acquired the subject property from Barbara
Galino on it was the true and absolute owner thereof; that Galino
had sold the property to Respondent Cruz on that after the sale,
the latter immediately occupied the property, an action that was
merely tolerated by petitioner; and that, in a letter given to
respondent on April 12, 1999, petitioner had demanded that the
former vacate the property, but that she refused to do so.
Petitioner thereupon prayed for judgment ordering her to vacate
the property and to pay reasonable rentals for the use of the
premises, attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. The above
allegations appeared to show the elements of unlawful detainer.
They also conferred initiatory jurisdiction on the MTCC, because
the case was filed a month after the last demand to vacate
hence, within the one-year prescriptive period. . . To justify an
action for unlawful detainer, the permission or tolerance must
have been present at the beginning of the possession. However,
what was actually proven by petitioner was that possession by
respondent had been illegal from the beginning. While the
Complaint was crafted to be an unlawful detainer suit,
PETITIONER'S REAL CAUSE OF ACTION WAS FOR FORCIBLE ENTRY,
WHICH HAD ALREADY PRESCRIBED. Consequently, the MTCC had
no more jurisdiction over the action.
TcEaDS
SHECcT
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J :
p
and
ISDCaT
In a Decision
Issues
Petitioner submits the following issues for our consideration:
"1. The Honorable Court of Appeals had clearly erred in
not holding that [r]espondent's occupation or
possession of the property in question was merely
through the tolerance or permission of the herein
[p]etitioner;
"[2.] The Honorable Court of Appeals had likewise erred in
holding that the ejectment case should have been a
forcible entry case where prior physical possession
is indispensable; and
"[3.] The Honorable Court of Appeals had also erred when
it ruled that the herein
ISSUE : WON [r]espondent's possession or occupation of
the said property is in the nature of an exercise of
ownership which should put the herein [p]etitioner
on guard."
First Issue:
Alleged Occupation by Tolerance
Petitioner faults the CA for not holding that the former merely
tolerated respondent's occupation of the subject property. By
raising this issue, petitioner is in effect asking this Court to
reassess factual findings. As a general rule, this kind of
reassessment cannot be done through a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, because this
Court is not a trier of facts; it reviews only questions of
law.
10
11
12
OTHERWISE, IF THE
doctrine. And for two reasons. First. Forcible entry into the
land is an open challenge to the right of the possessor.
Violation of that right authorizes the speedy redress in
the inferior court provided for in the rules. If one year
from the forcible entry is allowed to lapse before suit is
filed, then the remedy ceases to be speedy; and the
possessor is deemed to have waived his right to seek
relief in the inferior court. Second, if a forcible entry
action in the inferior court is allowed after the lapse of a
number of years, then the result may well be that no
action for forcible entry can really prescribe. No matter
how long such defendant is in physical possession,
plaintiff will merely make a demand, bring suit in the
inferior court upon a plea of tolerance to prevent
prescription to set in and summarily throw him out of
the land. Such a conclusion is unreasonable. Especially if
we bear in mind the postulates that proceedings of
forcible entry and unlawful detainer are summary in
nature, and that the one year time bar to suit is but in
pursuance of the summary nature of the action."
14
In this case, the Complaint and the other pleadings do not recite
any, averment of fact that would substantiate the claim of
petitioner that it permitted or tolerated the occupation of the
property by Respondent Cruz. The Complaint contains only bare
allegations that 1) respondent immediately occupied the subject
property after its sale to her, an action merely tolerated by
petitioner;
15
16
17
wll be considered ILLEGAL from the beginning = forcible entry ) INCAB THE
PRESCCRIPTIVE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR IN FILING FORCIBLE ENTRY
While both causes of action deal only with the sole issue of
physical or de facto possession,
18
19
20
21
23
22
it
24
that after
25
26petitioner
had demanded
that the former vacate the property, but that she refused to do
so.
27
vacate the property and to pay reasonable rentals for the use of
the premises, attorney's fees and the costs of the suit.
28
The appellate court, therefore, did not err when it ruled that
petitioner's Complaint for unlawful detainer was a mere
subterfuge or a disguised substitute action for forcible entry,
which had already prescribed. To repeat, to maintain a viable
action for forcible entry, plaintiff must have been in prior physical
possession of the property; this is an essential element of the
suit.
29
****Third Issue:
Alleged Acts of Ownership
Petitioner next questions the CA's pronouncement that
respondent's occupation of the property was an exercise of a
right flowing from a claim of ownership. It submits that the
appellate court should not have passed upon the issue of
ownership, because the only question for resolution in an
ejectment suit is that of possession de facto.
Clearly, each of the parties claimed the right to possess the
disputed property because of alleged ownership of it. Hence, no
error could have been imputed to the appellate court when it
passed upon the issue of ownership only for the purpose of
resolving the issue of possession de facto.
30
vendee."
31
ASETHC
32
33
34Pasagui
v. Villablanca
35
had
36
37
months later.
38
claim over the unregistered property and was inimical to the right
of petitioner.
Indeed, the above circumstances derogated its claim of control
and possession of the property.
Order of Preference in Double Sale of Immovable
Property
The ownership of immovable property sold to two different buyers
at different times is governed by Article 1544 of the Civil Code,
which reads as follows:
"Article 1544. . . .
"Should it be immovable property, the ownership
shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good
faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
"Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall
pertain to the person who in good faith was first in
possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person
39
40
is not
41
42Second,
possessors in
good faith are those who are not aware of any flaw in their title or
mode of acquisition.
43Third,
44
Fourth, good
faith is always presumed; upon those who allege bad faith on the
part of the possessors rests the burden of proof.
45
INCAB- Earlier, we ruled that the subject property had NOT BEEN
DELIVERED TO PETITIONER; hence, it did not acquire
possession either materially or symbolically. As between the
two buyers, therefore, respondent was first in actual
possession of the property.
Petitioner has not proven that respondent was aware that her
mode of acquiring the property was defective at the time
she acquired it from Galino. At the time, the property
which WAS PUBLIC LAND had not been registered in the
name of Galino; thus, respondent relied on the tax declarations
thereon. As shown, the former's name appeared on the tax
declarations for the property until its sale to the latter in 1998.
Galino was in fact occupying the realty when respondent took
over possession. Thus, there was no circumstance that could
have placed the latter upon inquiry or required her to further
investigate petitioner's right of ownership.
Disqualification from Ownership of Alienable Public
Land
Private corporations are disqualified from acquiring lands
of the public domain, as provided under Section 3 of Article XII
of the Constitution, which we quote:
"Sec. 3. Lands of the public domain are classified into
agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national
parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be
further classified by law according to the uses to which
they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public
domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private
corporations or associations may not hold such alienable
lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period
not exceeding twenty-five years, and not to exceed one
thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may
not lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire
not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase,
homestead, or grant. . . ." (Italics supplied)
46
47
48
On the other hand, petitioner has not presented proof that, at the
time it purchased the property from Galino, the property had
ceased to be of the public domain and was already private land.
The established rule is that alienable and disposable land of the
public domain held and occupied by a possessor personally or
through predecessors-in-interest, openly, continuously, and
exclusively for 30 years is ipso jure converted to private
property by the mere lapse of time.
49
50
Well-
51
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J :
p
cECTaD
HCIaDT
10
reads:
1. DISMISSING the claims of Elena Socco-Beltran, duly
represented by Myrna Socco for lack of merit;
2. ALLOCATING Lot No. 6-B under Psd-003-008565 with an
area of 360 square meters, more or less, situated
Zamora Street, Dinalupihan, Bataan, in favor of the
heirs of Arturo Reyes.
3. ORDERING the complainant to refrain from any act
tending to disturb the peaceful possession of herein
respondents.
11
12
13
HEacDA
14
15
16
17
18Respondent
19
but the
records do not ascertain the identity of her legal heirs and her
legatees.
20
cAECST
21
22
CaTcSA
24
26
SIacTE
27
In San Miguel Corporation, the Court reiterated the rule that the
open, exclusive, and undisputed possession of alienable public
land for the period prescribed by law creates the legal fiction
whereby land ceases to be public land and is, therefore, private
property. It stressed, however, that the occupation of the land for
30 years must be conclusively established. Thus, the evidence
offered by petitioner therein tax declarations, receipts, and the
sole testimony of the applicant for registration, petitioner's
predecessor-in-interest who claimed to have occupied the land
before selling it to the petitioner = were considered insufficient to
satisfy the quantum of proof required to establish the claim of
possession required for acquiring alienable public land.
28
29
30
aTEScI
31
32
33
Respondent
has continuously paid for the realty tax due on the subject
property, a fact which, though not conclusive, served to
strengthen her claim over the property.
34
35
AcSIDE
Moreover, the Court notes that the records have not clearly
established the right of respondent's representative, Myrna
Socco-Arizo, over the subject property. Thus, it is not clear to this
Court why the DAR issued on 8 July 2005 a CLOA
36
over the
37
case and to administer the subject property for her benefit. There
is nothing in the Special Power of Attorney to the effect that
Myrna Socco-Arizo can take over the subject property as owner
thereof upon respondent's death. That Miguel V. Socco,
respondent's only nephew, the son of the late Miguel R. Socco,
and Myrna Socco-Arizo's brother, executed a waiver of his right to
inherit from respondent, does not automatically mean that the
subject property will go to Myrna Socco-Arizo, absent any proof
that there is no other qualified heir to respondent's estate. =
Thus, this Decision does not in any way confirm the
issuance of the CLOA in favor of Myrna Socco-Arizo, which
may be assailed in appropriate proceedings.
clearly unfounded civil action is not among the grounds for moral
damages. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way
of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the
moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages. With the
deletion of the award for moral damages, there is no basis for the
award of exemplary damages.
DECISION
TINGA, J :
p
dated
in Civil Case
No. 2164 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 48, of Palawan
and Puerto Princesa City with the modification that herein
respondents Tiziana Turatello and Paola Sani are entitled to
damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing and as prayed for
by the defendants, the instant complaint is hereby
DISMISSED. Defendant's counterclaim is likewise
DISMISSED. Plaintiff, however, is ordered to pay
defendant Turatello and Sani's counsel the sum of
P3,010.38 from August 9, 1990 until fully paid
representing the expenses incurred by said counsel when
the trial was cancelled due to the non-appearance of
plaintiff's witnesses. With costs against the plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment on May
27, 1992, dismissing both petitioner's complaint and respondents'
counterclaim for damages. Petitioner and respondents Turatello
and Sani separately appealed the RTC Decision to the Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's complaint
and awarded respondents Turatello and Sani damages and
attorney's fees. The dispositive portion of the Court of
Appeals Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby
AFFIRMED, with the following modification:
Plaintiff-appellant Rudolf Lietz, Inc. is hereby (1) ordered
to pay defendants-appellants Turatello and Sani, the sum
of P100,000.00 as moral damages; (2) P100,000.00 as
ISCTcH
AHCETa
10
11
estate, made for a lump sum and not at the rate of a certain sum
for a unit of measure or number, there shall be no increase or
12
13
14
TEDAHI
15
16
With
the deletion of the award for moral damages, there is no basis for
the award of exemplary damages.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari is
GRANTED in PART. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA-G.R. CV
No. 38854 is 1
DECISION
CARPIO-MORALES, J :
p
ISCTcH
SCHIcT
AND
DCSTAH
On respondents' appeal,
December 20, 2001,
ESDHCa
CDcaSA
10
(Underscoring supplied)
12
11
she
13(Underscoring
in the
original)
14
HSDCTA
TEacSA
- The trial court in fact noted in its Pre-trial Order that "the
parties cannot agree as to the identity of the property sought
to be recovered by the plaintiff."
15
16
(Emphasis and
italics supplied.)
****Even the boundaries of the 628 sq. m. area covered by Tax
Declaration No. 1017 in petitioner's name and those alleged by
respondents to be occupied by petitioner are different.
17
Whereas,
18
11.)
RAYMUNDO
BENITA T. ONG,
S.
DE
respondent.
CORONA, J :
p
Benita
MORTGAGED
to
T.
Ong.
Real
As
these
Savings
and
properties
Loan
were
Association,
Incorporated (RSLAI),
- petitioner and respondent executed a notarized deed of
absolute sale with assumption of mortgage
stating:
HUNDRED
Philippine
THOUSAND
currency,
acknowledged
the
from
PESOS
receipt
(P1.1
whereof
[RESPONDENT]
to
million),
is
hereby
the
entire
of
THOUSAND
FOUR
FIVE
HUNDRED
HUNDRED
FIFTEEN
(P415,000),
of
mortgage
without
any
in
favor
further
of
cost
whatsoever;
2. That [respondent] shall assume payment of the
outstanding loan of SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY
FOUR
THOUSAND
(P684,500)
LOAN,
with
Cainta,
supplied)
FIVE
HUNDRED
REAL
Rizal
PESOS
SAVINGS
.
AND
(emphasis
cTACIa
respondent
improvements
on
the
undertook
properties.
repairs
5
and
Respondent
made
likewise
Court (RTC) of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74. She claimed that since
petitioner had previously sold the properties to her on March 10,
1993, he no longer had the right to sell the same to Viloria. Thus,
petitioner fraudulently deprived her of the properties.
AcSEHT
assumption
of
mortgage),
they
only
entered
into
respondent
appealed
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
complaint.
the
parties
entered
into
contract
of
sale.
11
dated
November
11,
2005.
10
Hence,
this
obligation,
the
condition
never
materialized.
DTSaHI
12
13
15
16
17
19
18
In this
turn
over
the
keys
to
the
properties
to
delivered
and
transferred
ownership
of
the
20
and
then
to
Viloria
on
two
separate
However, the second sale was not void for the sole
aTcSID
21
The law
purchased
the
properties,
knowing
they
were
assume
the
balance
of
petitioner's
outstanding
Since
respondent's
obligation
to
assume
petitioner's
to
assume.
Moreover,
Viloria
bought
the
properties
from
22
exercised
control
thereof
by
making
repairs
and
cECaHA
WHEREFORE, the July 22, 2005 decision and November 11, 2005
resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59748 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION insofar as respondent
|||
DECISION
TINGA, J :
p
and resolution
of contract.
DAcSIC
(petitioner) was a
CDAEHS
10
TaDAHE
11
12
13
It is necessary
that the vendor shall have control over the thing sold that, at the
moment of sale, its material delivery could have been
made.
14
15
16
It is merely
descriptive of the state of the thing sold. Thus, the as-is whereis basis merely describes the actual state and location of the
machinery and equipment sold by petitioner to respondent. The
depiction does not alter petitioner's responsibility to deliver the
property to respondent.
( EF OF DISCLAIMER ) Anent the third issue, petitioner maintains
that the presence of the disclaimer of warranty in the deed of
absolute sale absolves it from all warranties, implied or
otherwise. The position is untenable.
The vendor is bound to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as
well as warrant the thing which is the object of the
sale.
17
18
sale shows that both the vendor and the vendee represented
and warranted to each other that each had all the requisite power
and authority to enter into the deed of absolute sale and that
they shall perform each of their respective obligations under the
deed of absolute in accordance with the terms thereof.
19
As
aIcHSC
20
21
22
( INCAB )
23
Moreover, Art. 1504 of the Civil Code provides that where actual
delivery has been delayed through the fault of either the buyer or
seller the goods are at the risk of the party in fault. The risk of
loss or deterioration of the goods sold does not pass to the buyer
until there is actual or constructive delivery thereof. As previously
discussed, there was no actual or constructive delivery of the
machinery and equipment. Thus, the risk of loss or deterioration
of property is borne by petitioner. Thus, it should be liable for
the damages that may arise from the delay.
SHDAEC
24
25
**
and Brion,
JJ., c
(Asset Privatization Trust v. T.J. Enterprises, G.R. No. 167195,
[May 8, 2009], 605 PHIL 563-573)
|||
DECISION
REYES, J. B. L., J :
p
bind the other creditors, who may refile the same claim
independently, with diverse proofs, and possibly give rise to
contradictory rulings by the courts.
The order appealed from is hereby affirmed in so far as it
declares the disputed goods to be the property of the
insolvent; but without prejudice to the right of the assignee in
insolvency to take whatever action may be proper to attack
the alleged fraudulent transfer of the steel matting to Eulalio
Legaspi, and to make the proper parties account for the
difference between the number of pieces of steel matting
stated in the insolvent's recovery report, Annex "B"? (13,107),
and that stated in his inventory (11,167). Costs against
appellant.
Pars, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
(Board of Liquidators v. Floro, G.R. No. L-15155, [December 29,
1960], 110 PHIL 482-489)
|||
14.)
SAN LORENZO DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, PABLO S. BABASANTA, SPS. MIGUEL
LU and PACITA ZAVALLA LU, respondents.
DECISION
TINGA, J :
p
that the second sale be cancelled and that a final deed of sale be
issued in his favor.
cEAIHa
against his
complaint.
On 19 January 1990, herein petitioner San Lorenzo Development
Corporation (SLDC) filed a Motion for Intervention
before the
trial court. SLDC alleged that it had legal interest in the subject
matter under litigation because on 3 May 1989, the two parcels
of land involved, namely Lot 1764-A and 1764-B, had been sold to
it in a Deed of Absolute Sale with Mortgage.
It alleged that it
was a buyer in good faith and for value and therefore it had a
better right over the property in litigation.
respondent
10
cAECST
11
12
However, in
13
the Spouses Lu
14
DIcSHE
15
16
HTCISE
17
price for which the property was being sold, this deficiency was
supplied by Pacita Lu's letter dated 29 May 1989
18
wherein she
19
which is
20
21
22
In a contract of sale,
the vendor has lost and cannot recover ownership until and
unless the contract is resolved or rescinded; whereas in a
contract to sell, title is retained by the vendor until the full
payment of the price, such payment being a positive suspensive
condition and failure of which is not a breach but an event that
prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from
becoming effective.
23
24Consignation
25
demand performance.
26
27
28
Code, "ownership and other real rights over property are acquired
and transmitted by law, by donation, by testate and intestate
succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by
tradition." Contracts only constitute titles or rights to the transfer
or acquisition of ownership, while delivery or tradition is the
mode of accomplishing the same.
29
aHSCcE
Explicitly, the law provides that the ownership of the thing sold is
acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in
any of the ways specified in Article 1497 to 1501.
30
The word
31
32
33
traditio
34
35
36
37
38
39
ACTIcS
Did the registration of the sale after the annotation of the notice
of lis pendens obliterate the effects of delivery and possession in
good faith which admittedly had occurred prior to SLDC's
knowledge of the transaction in favor of Babasanta? NO
We do not hold so.
It must be stressed that as early as 11 February 1989, the
Spouses Lu executed the Option to Buy in favor of SLDC upon
receiving P316,160.00 as option money from SLDC. After SLDC
had paid more than one half of the agreed purchase price of
P1,264,640.00, the Spouses Lu subsequently executed on 3 May
1989 a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor or SLDC. At the time both
deeds were executed, SLDC had no knowledge of the prior
transaction of the Spouses Lu with Babasanta. Simply stated,
from the time of execution of the first deed up to the moment of
transfer and delivery of possession of the lands to SLDC, it had
acted in good faith and the subsequent annotation of lis
pendens has no effect at all on the consummated sale between
SLDC and the Spouses Lu.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property of
another without notice that some other person has a right to, or
interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price for the
same at the time of such purchase, orbefore he has notice of the
claim or interest of some other person in the
property.
40
41
In
42serves
44
43
of SLDC's averment in
45
EHSITc
46
The law speaks not only of one criterion. The first criterion is
priority of entry in the registry of property; there being no priority
of such entry, the second is priority of possession; and, in the
absence of the two priorities, the third priority is of the date of
title, with good faith as the common critical element. Since SLDC
acquired possession of the property in good faith in contrast to
Babasanta, who neither registered nor possessed the property at
any time, SLDC's right is definitely superior to that of
Babasanta's.
At any rate, the above discussion on the rules on double sale
would be purely academic for as earlier stated in this decision,
the contract between Babasanta and the Spouses Lu is not a
contract of sale but merely a contract to sell. In Dichoso v.
Roxas,
47
apply to a case where there was a sale to one party of the land
itself while the other contract was a mere promise to sell the land
or at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the
same land. Accordingly, there was no double sale of the same
land in that case.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The
decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31,
of San Pedro, Laguna is REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
(San Lorenzo Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
124242, [January 21, 2005], 490 PHIL 7-27)
|||
the Public Land Law the five- year period for legal redemption
starts from the date of the execution of the deed of conveyance,
even if full payment of the purchase price is not made or said
date unless there is a stipulation in the agreement that ownership
will not vest in the vendees until full payment of the price.
DECISION
BENGZON, C.J :
p
manu permissible under Articles 1499 and 1501 of the New Civil
Code.
The circumstance that full payment was made only, as plaintiffs
allege, in May, 1955, does not alter the fact that ownership of the
land passed to defendants upon the execution of the agreement
with the intention of letting them hold it as owners. In the
absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, the payment of
the price is not a condition precedent to the transfer of
ownership, which passes by delivery of the thing to the buyer.
DECISION
GUTIERREZ, JR., J :
p
Despite the offer of full payment by the petitioner to Libra for the
tractor, the immediate release could NOT BE EFFECTED BECAUSE
WILFREDO DY HAD OBTAINED FINANCING NOT ONLY FOR SAID
TRACTOR BUT ALSO FOR A TRUCK AND LIBRA INSISTED ON FULL
PAYMENT FOR BOTH.
The petitioner was able to convince his sister, Carol Dy-Seno, to
purchase the truck so that full payment could be made for both.
On November 22, 1979,= a PNB check was issued in the amount
of P22,000.00 in favor of Libra, thus settling in full the
indebtedness of Wilfredo Dy with the financing firm.
-Payment having been effected through an out-of-town check,
Libra insisted that it be cleared first before Libra could
release the chattels in question.
Meanwhile, Civil Case No. R-16646 entitled "Gelac Trading, Inc. v.
Wilfredo Dy", a collection case to recover the sum of P12,269.80
was pending in another court in Cebu.
On the strength of an alias writ of execution issued on December
27, 1979, the provincial sheriff was able to seize and levy on the
tractor which was in the premises of Libra in Carmen, Cebu. The
tractor was subsequently sold at public auction where GELAC
TRADING WAS THE ALONE BIDDER. - Later, Gelac sold the
tractor to one of its stockholders, Antonio Gonzales.
It was only when the check was cleared on January 17, 1980 that
the petitioner learned about GELAC having already taken custody
of the subject tractor. Consequently, the petitioner filed an action
to recover the subject tractor against GELAC Trading with the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.
On April 8,1988, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of the
petitioner. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
prLL
Article 1496 of the Civil Code states that the ownership of the
thing sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is
delivered to him in any of the ways specified in Articles 1497 to
1501 or in any other manner signing an agreement that the
possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. We
agree with the petitioner that Articles 1498 and 1499 are
applicable in the case at bar.
Article 1498 states:
"Art. 1498. When the sale is made through a public
instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to
the delivery of the thing which is the object of the
contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or
cannot clearly be inferred."
xxx xxx xxx
In the instant case, actual delivery of the subject tractor could not
be made. However, there was constructive delivery already upon
the execution of the public instrument pursuant to Article 1498
and upon the consent or agreement of the parties when the thing
sold cannot be immediately transferred to the possession of the
vendee. (Art. 1499)
The respondent court avers that the vendor must first have
control and possession of the thing before he could transfer
llcd
bar, the petitioner was fully aware of the existing mortgage of the
subject tractor to Libra. In fact, when he was obtaining
Libra's consent to the sale, he volunteered to assume the
remaining balance of the mortgage debt of Wilfredo Dy
which Libra undeniably agreed to.
cdphil
The respondents further claim that at that time the sheriff levied
on the tractor and took legal custody thereof no one ever
protested or filed a third party claim.
It is inconsequential whether a third party claim has been filed or
not by the petitioner during the time the sheriff levied on the
subject tractor. A person other than the judgment debtor who
claims ownership or right over levied properties is not precluded,
however, from taking other legal remedies to prosecute his claim.
(Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Court of Appeals, supra)
This is precisely what the petitioner did when he filed the action
for replevin with the RTC.
Anent the second and third issues raised, the Court accords great
respect and weight to the findings of fact of the trial court. There
is no sufficient evidence to show that the sale of the tractor was
in fraud of Wilfredo and creditors. While it is true that Wilfredo
and Perfecto are brothers, this fact alone does not give rise to the
presumption that the sale was fraudulent. Relationship is not a
badge of fraud (Goquiolay v. Sycip, 9 SCRA 663 [1963]).
Moreover, fraud can not be presumed; it must be established by
clear convincing evidence.
LexLib
17.)SPECIALRULES
DECISION
MELO, J :
p
llcd
TOTAL: P101,474.00
Cdpr
prcd
3
3333