P. 1
Pingol vs CA

Pingol vs CA

|Views: 125|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Aning Anadon Dacumos on Oct 05, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





PINGOL VS CA FACTS: In 1969, Pingol, the owner of a lot (Lot No.

3223) in Caloocan City, executed a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE OF ONE-HALF OF AN UNDIVIDED PORTION OF [his] PARCEL OF LAND in favor of Donasco (private respondent), payable in 6 years. In 1984, Donasco died and was only able to pay P8,369 plus P2,000 downpayment, leaving a balance of P10,161. The heirs of Donasco remained in possession of such lot and offered to settle the balance with Pingol. However, Pingol refused to accept the offer and demanded a larger amount. Thus, the heirs of Donasco filed an action for specific performance (with Prayer for Writ of Prelim. Injunction, because Pingol were encroaching upon Donasco’s lot). Pingol averred that the sale and transfer of title was conditional upon the full payment of Donasco (contract to sell, not contract of sale). With Donasco’s breach of the contract in 1976 and death in 1984, the sale was deemed cancelled, and the heirs’ continuous occupancy was only being tolerated by Pingol. ISSUE: WON the action filed by the heirs of Donasco has prescribed. HELD: NO. Although the complaint filed by the Donascos was an action for specific performance, it was actually an action to quiet title. Under the law, there are six requisites to be complied with in an action to quiet title. In the case at bar, all the requisites are present. First, the heirs of Donasco have an equitable title on the said property because of the transfer of ownership to Francisco, their father, by Vicente. Second, there exists a cloud in the heirs’ title because the TCT of the property was still registered in the name of Vicente Pingol. Third, the cloud exists by reason of Vicente’s TCT. Fourth and fifth, Vicente’s TCT is valid in its face however in truth and in fact it is ineffective because the ½ portion of Vicente’s property was already sold to Francisco. Sixth, it is prejudicial to the heirs because the strength of Vicente’s title is stronger than the heirs and the latter may be ejected by Vicente.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->