Scribd
Upload
163 views1 page

Sales Cases: Roberts Vs Papio (515 SCRA 346) : Petitioner Amelia S. Roberts Respondent Martin B. Papio

1. The case involved a dispute over possession of a residential lot in Makati between Amelia Roberts and Martin Papio. Originally owned by the Spouses Papio, they took out a loan using the property as collateral. When they failed to pay, they executed a Deed of Absolute Sale to Roberts, who paid off the loan. 2. Papio claimed the transaction was actually an equitable mortgage and that he had a right to redeem or repurchase the property. However, the Court found no evidence this right was reserved in the sale agreement. 3. The Court also ruled in favor of Roberts, finding she was entitled to material possession of the property, as Papio had failed to prove he had

Uploaded by

Jayson Ababa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
163 views1 page

Sales Cases: Roberts Vs Papio (515 SCRA 346) : Petitioner Amelia S. Roberts Respondent Martin B. Papio

1. The case involved a dispute over possession of a residential lot in Makati between Amelia Roberts and Martin Papio. Originally owned by the Spouses Papio, they took out a loan using the property as collateral. When they failed to pay, they executed a Deed of Absolute Sale to Roberts, who paid off the loan. 2. Papio claimed the transaction was actually an equitable mortgage and that he had a right to redeem or repurchase the property. However, the Court found no evidence this right was reserved in the sale agreement. 3. The Court also ruled in favor of Roberts, finding she was entitled to material possession of the property, as Papio had failed to prove he had

Uploaded by

Jayson Ababa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Overview: Provides an overview of the case including title, parties involved, and basic details regarding the legal dispute.

Sales Cases: Roberts vs Papio [515 SCRA 346]

ROBERTS vs PAPIO [515 SCRA 346]


GR. No. 166714 / February 09, 2007
Petitioner; Amelia S. Roberts
Respondent; Martin B. Papio
Facts:
a. Subject Lot = Residential Lot in Makati, TCT No. S-44980
b. Spouses Papio are the 1st owners
Spouses Papio executed a real estate mortgage over the subject lot, to be able to secure a lot of
P59,000.00 to the Amparo Invesment Corp. Because the Spouses failed to pay, they executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale over the Property to Amelia Roberts for P87,000.00. The P59,000.00 was paid to the
company while P26,000.00 was retained by the Papios, and the TCT was delivered to Roberts. After
that, both parties executed a 2 yrs. Contract of Lease, subject to renewal or extension at the option of
the lessor (Roberts). On 1895, Martin Papio, failed to pay the rentals but remained in possession of the
property, Roberts sent a letter informing him to vacate the property but he refused. On June 28, 1999,
Roberts filed a complaint for unlawful detainer and damages against Papio before the MTC of Makati.
Issues:
1. W/N the transaction entered between both parties, under the Deed of Absolute Sale and the
Contract
of
Lease,
is
an
equitable
mortgage.
2. W/N the petitioner (Roberts) is entitled to the material or de facto possession of the property.
Held/Ruling:
1. No, The fact of the matter is that the respondent intransigently alleged in his answer, and even in
his affidavit and position paper, Roberts had a granted him the right to redeem or repurchased the
property at anytime and for a reasonable amount and that, he had repurchased the property in July
1985 for P250,000.00 which he remitted to Roberts through an authorized representative who signed
receipts therefore, he had reacquired ownership and juridical possession of the property after his
repurchase thereof in 1985 and consequently, Roberts was obliged to execute a deed of absolute sale
over
the
property
in
his
favor.
2. The Right to repurchase is not a right granted the vendor by the vendee in a subsequent instrument
but is it a right reserved by the vendor, in the same instrument of sale as one of the stipulations of the
contract.

You might also like