You are on page 1of 14


yn R" S#n $%en# ent%r#, petitioners, vs" E&E'A SOCCO($E&TRA', respondent.

Facts: The subject land was a part of a larger parcel of land partitioned into three extra-judicially by the heirs of Constancia Socco sometime in 1965 !espondent applied before the "#! the purchase of the subject land stating thatthe land was adjudicated in her fa$or %owe$er& the %eirs of !eyes protested against the application claiming that thesubject land was owned by their predecessorin-interest e$idenced by a conditional Contract to Sell executed by thebrother of the respondent and stated therein that he was to inherit the subject parcel of land The director of "#! deniedthe application on the ground that she was not the actual tiller of the land and abandoned the land for a period of '(years )n appeal to the secretary of "#!& it was re$ersed and found that petitioners* predecessor-in-interest was not theactual occupant of the said land +etitioners sought remedy from the )ffice of the +resident by appealing but the )ffice of the +resident rendered its "ecision denying petitioners* appeal and affirming the "#! Secretary*s "ecision Conse,uently& petitioners filed an appeal before the Court of #ppeals& howe$er& the Court of #ppeals affirmed thedecision of the )ffice of the +resident Issue: -hether or not petitioners ha$e a better right to the subject property o$er the respondent Held: +etitioners cannot deri$e title to the subject property by $irtue of the Contract to Sell .t was unmista/ably stated in the Contract and made clear to both parties thereto that the $endor& 0iguel ! Socco& was not yet the owner of thesubject property and was merely expecting to inherit the same as his share as a co-heir of Constancia*s estate .t was also declared in the Contract itself that 0iguel ! Socco*s con$eyance of the subject to the buyer& #rturo !eyes& was aconditional sale .t is& therefore& apparent that the sale of the subject property in fa$or of #rturo !eyes was conditioned upon the e$ent that 0iguel Socco would actually inherit and become the owner of the said property #bsent suchoccurrence& 0iguel ! Socco ne$er ac,uired ownership of the subject property which he could $alidly transfer to #rturo !eyes 1nder #rticle 1'59 of the Ci$il Code on contracts of sale& 2The thing must be licit and the $endor must ha$e a right to transfer ownership thereof at the time it is deli$ered 3 The law specifically re,uires that the $endor must ha$eownership of the property at the time it is deli$ered .t was explicit in the Contract itself that& at the time it was executed& 0iguel ! Socco was not yet the owner of the property and was only expecting to inherit it %ence& there was no $alidsale from which ownership of the subject property could ha$e transferred from 0iguel Socco to #rturo !eyes -ithoutac,uiring ownership of the subject property& #rturo !eyes also could not ha$e con$eyed the same to his heirs& herein petitioners

That until the last installment is made& the title to the property should remain with the $endor& or when the $endor reser$es the right to use and enjoy the properties until the gathering of the pending crops& or where the $endor has no control o$er the thing sold at the moment of the sale& and& therefore& its material deli$ery could not ha$e been made .n the case at bar& there is no ,uestion that the $endor had actually placed the $endee in possession and control o$er the thing sold& e$en before the date of the sale The condition that petitioner should first register the deed of sale and secure a new title in the name of the $endee before the latter shall pay the balance of the purchase price& did not preclude the transmission of ownership .n the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary& the payment of the purchase price of the good is not a condition& precedent to the transfer of title to the buyer& but title passes by the deli$ery of the goods

&iet) CA RUDO&F &IET*, I'C", petitioner, vs" THE COURT OF A++EA&S, AGA+ITO $URIO&, TI*IA'A TURATE&&O , +AO&A SA'I, respondents.
Facts: !espondent #gapito 4uriol pre$iously owned a parcel of unregistered land situated at Capsalay .sland& +ort 4arton& San 5icente& +alawan )n #ugust 15& 1966& respondent 4uriol entered into a lease agreement with 7la$ia Turatello and respondents Turatello and Sani& all .talian citi8ens& in$ol$ing one 91: hectare of respondent 4uriol*s property The lease agreement was for a period of ;5 years& renewable for another ;5 years The lessees too/ possession of the land after paying respondent 4uriol a down payment of +1(&((( (( The lease agreement& howe$er& was reduced into writing only in <anuary 196= )n >o$ember 1=& 1966& respondent 4uriol sold to petitioner !udolf ?iet8& .nc the same parcel of land for the amount of +@(&((( (( The"eed of #bsolute Sale embodying the agreement described the land as followsA # parcel of land& consisting of 7.5B 95: hectares& more or less& a portion of that parcel of land declared in the name of #gapito 4uriol& under Tax "eclaration >o ((;1& re$ised in the year 1965& together with all impro$ements thereon& situated at the .sland of Capsalay& 4arangay +ort 4arton& municipality of San 5icente& pro$ince of +alawan which segregated from the whole parcel described in said tax declaration& has the following superficial boundariesA >)!T%& Sec (1-(1=C and remaining property of the $endorC B#ST& by SeashoreC S)1T%& (1-(;(C and -BST& by (1-(16 9now Bli8abeth ?iet8: +etitioner later disco$ered that respondent 4uriol owned only four 9': hectares& and with one more hectare co$ered by lease& only three 9@: hectares were actually deli$ered to petitioner Thus& petitioner instituted on #pril @& 1969 a complaint for #nnulment of ?ease with !eco$ery of +ossession with .njunction and "amages against respondents and 7la$ia Turatello before the !TC The complaint alleged that with e$ident bad faith and malice& respondent 4uriol sold to petitioner fi$e 95: hectares of land when respondent 4uriol /new for a fact that he owned only four 9': hectares and managed to lease one more hectare to 7la$ia Turatello and respondents Ti8iana Turatello and +aola Sani The complaint sought the issuance of a restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to pre$ent 7la$ia Turatello and respondents Turatello and Sani

from introducing impro$ements on the property& the annulment of the lease agreement between respondents& and the restoration of the amount paid by petitioner in excess of the $alue of the property sold to him The trial court rendered judgment on 0ay ;=& 199;& dismissing both petitioner*s complaint and respondents* counterclaim for damages +etitioner and respondents Turatello and Sani separately appealed the !TC "ecision to the Court of #ppeals& which affirmed the dismissal of petitioner*s complaint and awarded respondents Turatello and Sani damages and attorney*s fees Issue: 1 -hether or not petitioner is entitled to the deli$ery of the entire fi$e hectares or its e,ui$alent& and ; -hether or not damages may be awarded to either party Held: +etitioner contends that it is entitled to the corresponding reduction of the purchase price because the agreement was for the sale of fi$e 95: hectares although respondent 4uriol owned only four 9': hectares #s in its appeal to the Court of #ppeals& petitioner anchors its argument on the second paragraph of #rticle 15@9 of the Ci$il Code& The Court of #ppeals "ecision& howe$er& declared as inapplicable #rticle 15@9 and instead ruled that petitioner is no longer entitled to a reduction in price based on the pro$isions of #rticle 15'; of the Ci$il Code The same rule shall be applied when two or more immo$ables are sold for a single priceC but if& besides mentioning the boundaries& which is indispensable in e$ery con$eyance of real estate& its area or number should be designated in the contract& the $endor shall be bound to deli$er all that is included within said boundaries& e$en when it exceeds the area or number specified in the contractC and& should he not be able to do so& he shall suffer a reduction in the price& in proportion to what is lac/ing in the area or number& unless the contract is rescinded because the $endee does not accede to the failure to deli$er what has been stipulated Article 1539 go$erns a sale of immo$able by the unit& that is& at a stated rate per unit area .n a unit price contract& the statement of area of immo$able is not conclusi$e and the price may be reduced or increased depending on the area actually deli$ered #ccording to #rticle 15' of the Ci$il Code& in the sale of real 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 decrease of the price although there be a greater or lesser area or number than that stated in the contract %owe$er& the discrepancy must not be substantial # $endee of land& when sold in gross or with the description 2more or less3 with reference to its area& does not thereby ipso facto ta/e all ris/ of ,uantity in the land The use of 2more or less3 or similar words in designating ,uantity co$ers only a reasonable excess or deficiency -here both the area and the boundaries of the immo$able are declared& the area co$ered within the boundaries of the immo$able pre$ails o$er the stated area In cases of conflict between areas and boundaries, it is the latter which should prevail. -hat really defines a piece of ground is not the area& calculated with more or less certainty& mentioned in its description& but the boundaries therein laid down& as enclosing the land and indicating its limits .n a contract of sale of land in a mass& it is well established that the specific boundaries stated in the contract

must control o$er any statement with respect to the area contained within its boundaries .t is not of $ital conse,uence that a deed or contract of sale of land should disclose the area with mathematical accuracy .t is sufficient if its extent is objecti$ely indicated with sufficient precision to enable one to identify it An error as to the superficial area is immaterial Thus& the obligation of the $endor is to deli$er e$erything within the boundaries& inasmuch as it is the entirety thereof that distinguishes the determinate object The sale between petitioner and respondent 4uriol in$ol$ing the latter*s property is one made for a lump sum The "eed of #bsolute Sale shows that the parties agreed on the purchase price on a predetermined area of fi$e hectares within the specified boundaries and not based on a particular rate per area .n accordance with #rticle 15';& there shall be no reduction in the purchase price e$en if the area deli$ered to petitioner is less than that stated in the contract .n the instant case& the area within the boundaries as stated in the contract shall control o$er the area agreed upon in the contract The Court rejects petitioner*s contention that the property*s boundaries as stated in the "eed of #bsolute Sale are superficial and unintelligible and& therefore& cannot pre$ail o$er the area stated in the contract 7irst& as pointed out by the Court of #ppeals& at an ocular inspection prior to the perfection of the contract of sale& respondent 4uriol pointed to petitioner the boundaries of the property %ence& petitioner gained a fair estimate of the area of the property sold to him Second& petitioner cannot now assail the contents of the "eed of #bsolute Sale& particularly the description of the boundaries of the property& because petitioner*s subscription to the "eed of #bsolute Sale indicates his assent to the correct description of the boundaries of the property Salinas vs Faustino

DO&ORES SA&I'AS, #ssisted by -er -%sb#nd, .UA' CASTI&&O , petitioner, vs" S+S" $IE'/E'IDO S" FAUSTI'O #nd I&U0I'ADA G" FAUSTI'O, respondents.
Facts: !espondent 4ien$enido S 7austino by a "eed of #bsolute Sale dated <une ;=& 196;& purchased from his se$eral co-heirs& including his first cousins 4enjamin Salinas and herein petitioner "olores Salinas& their respecti$e shares to a parcel of land in the name of their grandmother Carmen ?abitan& located in Subic& Dambales )n 0arch 15& 196;& respondent 7austino& joined by his wife& filed before the then Court of 7irst .nstance of Dambales a complaint for reco$ery of possession with damages against petitioner !espondent spouses further alleged that they allowed petitioner and co-heirs to occupy and build a house on a portion of the land on the condition that they would $oluntarily and immediately remo$e the house and $acate that portion of the land should the respondents need the land -hen they as/ed petitioner and her co-heiroccupants to remo$e the house and restore the possession of the immediately-described portion of the land& they refused& hence& the filing of the complaint +etitioner claimed that she is the owner of that portion of the land and alleges that her signature in the <une ;=& 196; "eed of Sale is forged The !TC found petitionerEs claim of forgery unsupported .t ne$ertheless dismissed the complaint The boundaries of the land indicated in the "eed of Sale are different from that of

which is claimed by the respondents B$en the tax declaration submitted by the plaintiff indicates different boundaries with that of the land indicated in the "eed of Sale ISS !: -hether or not a description of a lot area can be used as e$idence for purchase and ownership of the lot H!"#: .na contract of sale of land in a mass& the specific boundaries stated in the contract $ust control over an% state$ent with respect to the area contained within its boundaries Thus& it is the boundaries indicated in a deed of absolute sale& and not the area in s, m mentioned therein @(( @=5 s, m in the "eed of Sale in respondents fa$or that control in the determination of which portion of the land a $endee ac,uires .n concluding that 7austino ac,uired $ia the <une ;=& 196; "eed of Sale the total land area of =5@ s, m & the Court of #ppeals subtracted from the total land area of 1&@61 s, m reflected in Bxh #& which is +lan of ?ot @& 4loc/ 5-/& +sd-6;66& as prepared for 4enjamin ! Salinas containing an area of 1&@61 s, m and which was prepared on 7ebruary 1(& 196( by a pri$ate land sur$eyor& the 6;6 s, m area of the lot claimed by Salinas as reflected in Tax "eclaration >o 1(1= in her name #s will be shown shortly& howe$er& the basis of the appellate courtFs conclusion is erroneous #s the immediately preceding paragraph reflects& the +lan of ?ot @& 4/ 5-G& +sd-6; was prepared for Spouses 7austino and SalinasF first cousin co-heir 4enjamin Salinas on 7ebruary 1(& 196( -hy the appellate court& after excluding the 6;6 s, m lot co$ered by a Tax "eclaration in the name of petitioner from the 1&@61 s, m lot sur$eyed for 4enjamin + Salinas in 196(& concluded that what was sold $ia the 196; "eed of Sale to respondent 7austino was the remaining =5@ s, m & despite the clear pro$ision of said "eed of Sale that what was con$eyed was @(( @=5 s, m & escapes comprehension .t defies logic& gi$en that respondents base their claim of ownership of the ,uestioned 6;6 s, m occupied by Salinas on that <une ;=& 196; "eed of Sale co$ering a @(( @=5 s, m lot The Court of #ppeals thus doubly erred in concluding that 1: what was sold to respondents $ia the <une ;=& 196; "eed of Sale was the 1&@61 s, m parcel of land reflected in the +lan-Bxh # prepared in 196( for 4enjamin Salinas& and ;: Salinas occupied 6;6 s, m portion thereof& hence& Spouses 7austino own the remaining =5@ s, m #e "eon vs. &enita '. (n)

[G.R. No. 170405. February 2, 2010.] RAY0U'DO S" DE &EO', petitioner, vs" $E'ITA T" O'G, respondent.


Facts: )n 0arch 1(& 199@& petitioner !aymundo S de ?eon sold three parcels of land with impro$ements situated in #ntipolo& !i8al to respondent 4enita T )ng #s these properties were mortgaged to !eal Sa$ings and ?oan #ssociation& .ncorporated 9!S?#.:& petitioner and respondent executed a notari8ed deed of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage +ursuant to

this deed& respondent ga$e petitioner +'15&5(( as partial payment +etitioner& on the other hand& handed the /eys to the properties and wrote a letter informing !S?#. of the sale and authori8ing it to accept payment from respondent and release the certificates of title Subse,uently& respondent learned that petitioner again sold the same properties to one ?eona 5iloria after 0arch 1(& 199@ and changed the loc/s& rendering the /eys he ga$e her useless !espondent thus proceeded to !S?#. to in,uire about the credit in$estigation %owe$er& she was informed that petitioner had already paid the amount due and had ta/en bac/ the certificates of title )n <une 16& 199@& respondent filed a complaint for specific performance& declaration of nullity of the second sale and damages against petitioner and 5iloria& claiming that since petitioner had pre$iously sold the properties to her on 0arch 1(& 199@& he no longer had the right to sell the same to 5iloria Thus& petitioner fraudulently depri$ed her of the properties +etitioner& on the other hand& claimed that since the transaction was subject to a condition 9 i.e.& that !S?#. appro$e the assumption of mortgage:& they only entered into a contract to sell .nasmuch as respondent did apply for a loan from !S?#.& the condition did not arise Conse,uently& the sale was not perfected and he could freely dispose of the properties Issue: -hether the parties entered into a contract of sale or a contract to sell -hether or not there is double sale SA"!. .n a contract of sale& the seller con$eys ownership of the property to the buyer upon the perfection of the contract Should the buyer default in the payment of the purchase price& the seller may either sue for the collection thereof or ha$e the contract judicially resol$ed and set aside The non-payment of the price is therefore a negati$e resolutory condition -hereas& a contract to sell is subject to a positi$e suspensi$e condition The buyer does not ac,uire ownership of the property until he fully pays the purchase price 7or this reason& if the buyer defaults in the payment thereof& the seller can only sue for damages The deed executed by the parties stated that petitioner sold the properties to respondent 2 in a manner absolute and irrevocable3 for a sum of +1 1 million H1'I >othing in said instrument implied that petitioner reser$ed ownership of the properties until the full payment of the purchase price H1=I The said terms and conditions pertained to the performance of the contract& not the perfection thereof nor the transfer of ownership Settled is the rule that the seller is obliged to transfer title o$er the properties and deli$er the same to the buyer H16I .n this regard& Article 1*9+ of the Ci$il CodeH19I pro$ides that& as a rule& the execution of a notari,ed deed of sale is e-uivalent to the deliver% of a thin) sold. .n this instance& petitioner executed a notari8ed deed of absolute sale in fa$or of respondent 0oreo$er& not only did petitioner turn over the .e%s to the properties to respondent& he also authori8ed !S?#. to recei$e payment from respondent and release his certificates of title to her The totality of petitioner*s acts clearly indicates that he had un,ualifiedly deli$ered and transferred ownership of the properties to respondent Clearly& it was a contract of sale the parties entered into

7urthermore& the said condition was considered fulfilled as petitioner pre$ented its fulfillment by paying his outstanding obligation and ta/ing bac/ the certificates of title without e$en notifying respondent #rticle 1166 The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor $oluntarily pre$ents its fulfillment /(I# SA"! (0 #( &"! SA"!1 #( &"! SA"! as the disputed properties were sold $alidly on two separate occasions by the same seller to the two different buyers in good faith #rticle 15'' of the Ci$il Code pro$idesA #rticle 15'' .f the same thing should ha$e been sold to different $endees& the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may ha$e first ta/en possession thereof in good faith& if it should be mo$able property Should it be i$$ovable propert%, the ownership shall belon) to the person ac-uirin) it who in )ood faith first recorded it in the 0e)istr% of 2ropert%. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in )ood faith was first in the possession3 and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is )ood faith. 9emphasis supplied: This pro$ision clearly states that the rules on double or multiple sales appl% onl% to purchasers in )ood faith. 4eedless to sa%, it dis-ualifies an% purchaser in bad faith. !espondent was not aware of any interest in or a claim on the properties other than the mortgage to !S?#. which she undertoo/ to assume 0oreo$er& 5iloria bought the properties from petitioner after the latter sold them to respondent !espondent was therefore a purchaser in good faith %ence& the rules on double sale are applicable .n this instance& petitioner deli$ered the properties to respondent when he executed the notari8ed deedH;;I and handed o$er to respondent the /eys to the properties 7or this reason& respondent too/ actual possession and exercised control thereof by ma/ing repairs and impro$ements thereon Clearly& the sale was perfected and consummated on 0arch 1(& 199@ Thus& respondent beca$e the lawful owner of the properties.

[G.R. No. 167195. May 8, 2009.] ASSET +RI/ATI*ATIO' TRUST, petitioner, vs" T"." E'TER+RISES, respondent.

F#1ts2 en! en!"!y #rea!e$ %or !&e 'ur'o(e !o #on(erve, !o 'rov"("ona))y anage an$ !o $"('o(e a((e!( o% govern en! "n(!"!u!"on(. *&e(e a((e!( are "n !&e 'o((e(("on o% +rea!"ve ,"ne( -n#. .e!"!"oner e/e#u!e$ an ab(o)u!e $ee$ o% (a)e 0"!& re('on$en!, o% 0&"#& !&e !&"ng #on("(!( o% re%r"gera!"on un"!(. 1&en re('on$en! $e an$e$ %or "!( $e)"very, 'e!"!"oner e/e#u!e$ a ga!e 'a(( (o !&a! re('on$en! ay a#2u"re !&e !&"ng(. 3o0ever, o% !&e 16 re%r"gera!"on un"!( !o be a#2u"re$, on)y 9 0ere $e)"vere$ an$ !&e o!&er 7 0ere no!, be#au(e re('on$en! 0a( 'reven!e$ by !&e e ')oyee( o% +rea!"ve ,"ne( -n#. Re('on$en! %")e$ a #o ')a"n! %or ('e#"%"# 'er%or an#e an$ $a age( aga"n(! 'e!"!"oner
+etitioner #sset +ri$ati8ation Trust is a govern

.e!"!"oner argue$ !&a! u'on !&e e/e#u!"on o% !&e $ee$ o% (a)e "! &a$ #o ')"e$ 0"!& "!( ob)"ga!"on !o $e)"ver !&e ob4e#! o% !&e (a)e ("n#e !&ere 0a( no (!"'u)a!"on !o !&e #on!rary. -! %ur!&er argue$ !&a! be"ng a (a)e on an as-is-where-is ba("(, "! 0a( !&e $u!y o% re('on$en! !o !a5e 'o((e(("on o% !&e 'ro'er!y. .e!"!"oner #)a" e$ !&a! !&ere 0a( a)rea$y a #on(!ru#!"ve $e)"very o% !&e a#&"nery an$ e2u"' en!. *&e R*+ ru)e$ !&a! !&ere 0a( no #on(!ru#!"ve $e)"very be#au(e 'e!"!"oner $"$ no! &ave #on!ro) o% !&e !&"ng(. 3en#e, !&ey are )"ab)e %or brea#& o% #on!ra#! an$ %or $a age(. *&e (a e ru)"ng 0a( a%%"r e$ by !&e +6 u'on a''ea). ISSUE 3 2 4#s t-ere 15nstr%1ti e de!i ery6 '5" *&ere 0a( no #on(!ru#!"ve $e)"very o% !&e a#&"nery an$ e2u"' en! u'on !&e e/e#u!"on o% !&e $ee$ o% ab(o)u!e (a)e or u'on !&e "((uan#e o% !&e ga!e 'a(( ("n#e "! 0a( no! 'e!"!"oner bu! +rea!"ve ,"ne( 0&"#& &a$ a#!ua) 'o((e(("on o% !&e 'ro'er!y. Doctrine: *&e e/e#u!"on o% a 'ub)"# "n(!ru en! on)y g"ve( r"(e !o a prima facie 're(u '!"on o% $e)"very. 7u#& 're(u '!"on "( $e(!roye$ 0&en !&e $e)"very "( no! e%%e#!e$ be#au(e o% a )ega) " 'e$" en!. 18(18) -! "( ne#e((ary !&a! !&e ven$or (&a)) &ave #on!ro) over !&e !&"ng (o)$ !&a!, a! !&e o en! o% (a)e, "!( a!er"a) $e)"very #ou)$ &ave been a$e. 14(14) *&u(, a 'er(on 0&o $oe( no! &ave a#!ua) 'o((e(("on o% !&e !&"ng (o)$ #anno! !ran(%er #on(!ru#!"ve 'o((e(("on by !&e e/e#u!"on an$ $e)"very o% a 'ub)"# "n(!ru en!.

ISSUE 7 2 4O' #n as-is-where-is s#!e A&TERS t-e petiti5ner8s resp5nsibi!ity t5 de!i er t-e t-in9 6 '5" *&e '&ra(e as-is where-is ba("( 'er!a"n( (o)e)y !o !&e '&y("#a) #on$"!"on o% !&e !&"ng (o)$, no! !o "!( )ega) ("!ua!"on. 16(16) . -! "( ere)y $e(#r"'!"ve o% !&e (!a!e o% !&e !&"ng (o)$. *&u(, !&e as-is whereis ba("( ere)y $e(#r"be( !&e a#!ua) (!a!e an$ )o#a!"on o% !&e a#&"nery an$ e2u"' en! (o)$ by 'e!"!"oner !o re('on$en!. *&e $e'"#!"on $oe( no! a)!er 'e!"!"oner9( re('on("b")"!y !o $e)"ver !&e 'ro'er!y !o re('on$en! ISSUE :2 4O' t-e presen1e 5f t-e dis1!#i;er 5f <#rr#nty in t-e deed 5f #bs5!%te s#!e #bs5! es it fr5; #!! <#rr#nties, i;p!ied 5r 5t-er<ise. 'O" *&e ven$or "( boun$ !o !ran(%er !&e o0ner(&"' o% an$ $e)"ver, a( 0e)) a( 0arran! !&e !&"ng 0&"#& "( !&e ob4e#! o% !&e (a)e. 17(17) 6 'eru(a) o% !&e $ee$ o% ab(o)u!e (a)e (&o0( !&a! bo!& !&e ven$or an$ !&e ven$ee re're(en!e$ an$ warranted !o ea#& o!&er !&a! ea#& &a$ a)) !&e re2u"("!e 'o0er an$ au!&or"!y !o en!er "n!o !&e $ee$o% ab(o)u!e (a)e an$ !&a! !&ey (&a)) perform each of their respective obligations un$er !&e $ee$ o% ab(o)u!e "n a##or$an#e 0"!& !&e !er ( !&ereo%. 19( 7"n#e !&ere 0a( no a#!ua) or #on(!ru#!"ve $e)"very, !&e 0arran!y 0a( a)(o no! a$e.
ISS ! *: 4O' t-e petiti5ner is !i#b!e f5r d#;#9es, 15nsiderin9

t-e t-in9 <#s n5t in -is #1t%#! p5ssessi5n" $e)"very &a( been $e)aye$ !&roug& !&e %au)! o% e"!&er !&e buyer or (e))er !&e goo$( are a! !&e r"(5 o% !&e 'ar!y "n %au)!. *&e r"(5 o% )o(( or $e!er"ora!"on o% !&e goo$( (o)$ $oe( no! 'a(( !o !&e buyer un!") !&ere "( a#!ua) or #on(!ru#!"ve $e)"very !&ereo%. 6( 'rev"ou()y $"(#u((e$, !&ere 0a( no a#!ua) or #on(!ru#!"ve $e)"very o% !&e a#&"nery an$ e2u"' en!. *&u(, !&e r"(5 o% )o(( or $e!er"ora!"on o% 'ro'er!y "( borne by 'e!"!"oner. *&u(, "! (&ou)$ be )"ab)e %or !&e $a age( !&a! ay ar"(e %ro !&e $e)ay.

Jes 6r!. 1504 o% !&e +"v") +o$e 'rov"$e( !&a! 0&ere a#!ua)

G.R. No. ,<15155. :e#e ber 29, 1960 $OARD OF &IQUIDATORS, petitioner and appellant, vs.


FA5'S: )n <une 1'& 195;& 0elencio 0alabanan entered into an agreement with the 4oard of ?i,uidators for the salvage of surplus properties sun/ in certain waters in ?a 1nion& 4atangas and 0indoro They agreed that 0alabanan was assigned the right& title and interest in and to all the surplus properties sal$aged& and shall therefore pay the Ko$ernment for such which shall be made monthly Subse,uently& on #ugust ;1& 196'& 0alabanan filed in the C7. a petition for $oluntary insol$ency which listed the 4oard 9debt of + 1(& 6=' '=: and Bxe,uiel 7loro 9+;'&;;( 5(: as creditorsC as well as se$eral pieces of steel mattings obtained from the waters The 4oard claimed that they are the owners of the steel mattings 7loro opposed this and contended that such steel mattings are owned by Bulalio ?egaspi by $irtue of a deed of sale executed in his fa$or& executed by 7loro pursuant to a pre$ious contract between 0alabanan and 7loro 9 0arch @1& 196': The C7. declared 0alabanan as the owner of the steel mattings under his contract with the board& thus& 7loro was properly authori8ed to dispose of the mattings 9sale to ?egaspi: The 4oard contends that 0alabanan did not ac,uire ownership o$er the steel mattings for failure to comply with certain terms of the contract& allegedly constituting conditions precedent for the transfer of title Issue: 6(4 , based on the contract between 7alabanan and the &oard, deliver% of the surplus properties salva)ed 8steel $attin)s9were never intended to be delivered to 7alabanan. Held: Jes& 0alabanan ac,uired ownership from his agreement with the 4oard There is nothing in the terms of the public instrument in ,uestion from which an intent to withhold deli$ery or transfer of title may be inferred

1e are o% !&e o'"n"on, an$ (o &o)$, !&a! !&e #on!ra#! (;/&"b"! =6=) be!0een Ma)abanan an$ !&e >oar$ &a$ !&e e%%e#! o% ve(!"ng Ma)abanan 0"!& !"!)e !o, or o0ner(&"' o%, !&e (!ee) a!!"ng( "n 2ue(!"on a( (oon a( !&ey 0ere broug&! u' %ro !&e bo!!o o% !&e (ea. *&"( "( (&o0n by 'er!"nen! 'rov"("on( o% !&e #on!ra#! a( %o))o0(?
=10. F or an$ "n #on("$era!"on o% !&e a(("gn en! by !&e >@6R: @F ,-AB-:6*@R7 !o !&e +@N*R6+*@R (Ma)abanan) o% a)) r"g&!, !"!)e an$ "n!ere(! "n an$ !o a)) (ur')u( 'ro'er!"e( salvaged by !&e +@N*R6+*@R un$er !&"( #on!ra#!, !&e +@N*R6+*@R (&a)) 'ay !o !&e Govern en! N-N;*C .;7@7 (.90.00) 'er )ong !on (2,240 )b(.) o% (ur')u( 'ro'er!"e( re#overe$. =11. . ay en! o% !&e agree$ 'r"#e (&a)) be a$e on!&)y $ur"ng !&e %"r(! !en (10) $ay( o% every on!& on !&e ba("( o% re#overy re'or!( o% (un5en (ur')u( 'ro'er!"e( (a)vage$ $ur"ng !&e 're#e$"ng on!&, $u)y ver"%"e$ an$ au$"!e$ by !&eau!&or"De$ re're(en!a!"ve o% !&e >@6R: @F ,-AB-:6*@R7.=

-hile there can be reser$ation of title in the seller until full payment of the price 9#rticle 1'=6& > C C :& or& until fulfillment of a condition 9#rticle 15(5& > C C :C and while execution of a public instrument amounts to deli$ery only when from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred 9#rticle 1'96& supra:& there is nothing in the said contract which may be deemed a reser$ation of title& or from which it may clearly be inferred that deli$ery was not intended The contention that there was no deli$ery is incorrect -hile there was no physical tradition& there was one by agreement 9traditio longa manu: in conformity with #rticle 1'99 of the Ci$il Code #rt 1'99 L The deli$ery of mo$able property may li/ewise be made by the mere consent or agreement of the contracting parties& if the thing sold cannot be transferred to the possession of the $endee at the time of the sale

SA4 "(0!4:( #!/!"(27!4' 5(02(0A'I(4, petitioner, vs. 5( 0' (F A22!A"S, 2A&"( S. &A&ASA4'A, S2S. 7I; !" " and 2A5I'A :A/A""A " , respondents ;.0. 4o. 1<*<*< =anuar% <1, <>>5 FA5'S )n ;( #ugust 1966& the Spouses ?u purportedly sold two parcels of land to respondent +ablo 4abasanta& for the price of fifteen pesos 9+15 ((: per s,uare meter 4abasanta made a downpayment of 9+5(&((( ((: as e$idenced by a memorandum receipt issued by +acita ?u of the same date 4abasanta wrote a letter to +acita ?u to demand the execution of a final deed of sale in his fa$or so that he could effect full payment of the purchase price .n response& +acita ?u wrote a letter to 4abasanta wherein she reminded 4abasanta that when the balance of the purchase price became due& he re,uested for a reduction of the price and when she refused& 4abasanta bac/ed out of the sale %erein petitioner San ?oren8o "e$elopment Corporation 9S?"C: filed a 0otion for .nter$ention S?"C alleged that it had legal interest in the subject matter under litigation because on @ 0ay 1969& the two parcels of land in$ol$ed had been sold to it in a "eed of #bsolute Sale with 0ortgage .t alleged that it was a buyer in good faith and for $alue and therefore it had a better right o$er the property in litigation !espondent 4abasanta& howe$er& argued that S?"C could not ha$e ac,uired ownership of the property because it failed to comply with the re,uirement of registration of the sale in good faith %e emphasi8ed that at the time S?"C registered the sale in its fa$or on @( <une 199(& there was

already a notice of lis pendens annotated on the titles of the property made as early as ; <une 1969 %ence& petitioner*s registration of the sale did not confer upon it any right ISS !: "id the registration of the sale after the annotation of the notice of lis pendens obliterate the effects of deli$ery and possession in good faith which admittedly had occurred prior to S?"C*s /nowledge of the transaction in fa$or of 4abasantaM H!"#:4( .t must be stressed that as early as 11 7ebruary 1969& the Spouses ?u executed the )ption to 4uy in fa$or of S?"C upon recei$ing +@16&16( (( as option money from S?"C #fter S?"C had paid more than one half of the agreed purchase price& the Spouses ?u subse,uently executed on @ 0ay 1969 a "eed of #bsolute Sale in fa$or or S?"C #t the time both deeds were executed& S?"C had no /nowledge of the prior transaction of the Spouses ?u with 4abasanta Simply stated& from the time of execution of the first deed up to the moment of transfer and deli$ery of possession of the lands to S?"C& it had acted in good faith and the subse,uent annotation of lis pendens has no effect at all on the consummated sale between S?"C and the Spouses ?u A purchaser in )ood faith is one who bu%s propert% of another without notice that so$e other person has a ri)ht to, or interest in, such propert% and pa%s a full and fair price for the sa$e at the ti$e of such purchase, or before he has notice of the clai$ or interest of so$e other person in the propert%. -e rule that S?"C ,ualifies as a buyer in good faith since there is no e$idence extant in the records that it had /nowledge of the prior transaction in fa$or of 4abasanta #t the time of the sale of the property to S?"C& the $endors were still the registered owners of the property and were in fact in possession of the lands .n assailing /nowledge of the transaction between him and the Spouses ?u& 4abasanta apparently relies on the principle of constructi$e notice incorporated in Section 5< of the 2ropert% 0e)istration #ecree 82.#. 4o. 15<99 which reads& thusA Sec 5; Constructi$e notice upon registration N B$ery con$eyance& mortgage& lease& lien& attachment& order& judgment& instrument or entry affecting registered land shall& if registered& filed& or entered in the office of the !egister of "eeds for the pro$ince or city where the land to which it relates lies& be constructi$e notice to all persons from the time of such registering& filing& or entering %owe$er& the constructi$e notice operates as such by the express wording of Section 5; from the time of the registration of the notice of lis pendens which in this case was effected only on ; <une 1969& at which time the sale in fa$or of S?"C had long been consummated insofar as the obligation of the Spouses ?u to

transfer ownership o$er the property to S?"C is concerned A& A4 v ;arcia

+ER+ETUA A$UA', ET A&", plaintiffs-appellants, vs" EUSTAQUIO S" GARCIA, ET A&

FA5'S: #c,uired by ?aureano #buan the homestead passed after his death to his legal heirs& the plaintiffs herein Conse,uently& the )riginal Certificate of Title in his name was cancelled& and in lieu thereof& Transfer Certificate of Title >o T-5'66 was issued in their names )n #ugust =& 195@& plaintiffs sold the parcel of land to defendants The sale is e$idenced by a public instrument entitled O"eed of #bsolute SaleOC and by $irtue thereof& Transfer Certificate of Title >o T-59(6 was issued to defendants +laintiffs filed an action to reco$er the land& alleging that the deed of absolute sale had been executed through fraud& without consideration %owe$er& the case was subse,uently settled amicably& when the parties entered into an O#greementO dated 7ebruary ;6& 1955& under the terms of which defendants paid +5(( (( on that day as partial payment of the purchase price of the land& and promised to pay the balance of +1&5(( (( on or before #pril @(& 1955& with a grace period of thirty days The parties also stipulated in said #greement that it Oshall supersede all pre$ious agreements or contracts heretofore entered into and executed by and between plaintiff and defendants& in$ol$ing the same parcel of riceland 3 Claiming that full payment had been effected only sometime in 0ay& 1955& plaintiffs instituted the present action on 0arch '& 196( "efendants mo$ed to dismiss& on the ground that plaintiffsE right of action was already barred& because the fi$e-year redemption period had already expired The >ue$a 5i8caya court dismissed the complaint +laintiffs appealed to the Court of #ppeals& which certified the case to this Court because only a legal issue remains to be determined ISS !1: 1 -hen did the fi$e-year period 9within which plaintiffs may exercise their right of repurchase: begin to runM 0 "I4;:

7e#!"on 119 o% !&e .ub)"# ,an$ ,a0?

B$ery con$eyance of land ac,uired under the free patent or homestead pro$isions shall be subject to re-purchase by the applicant& his widow& or legal heirs& for a period of fi$e years from the date of con$eyance The law spea/s of O five %ears fro$ date of conve%ance O Con$eyance means transfer of ownershipC it means the date when the title to the land is transferred fro$ one person to another. The fi$e-year period should& therefore& be rec/oned with from the date that defendants ac-uired ownership of the land ISS !<:

; -hen did defendants legally ac,uire ownership o$er the landM 0 "I4;: Art. 1*?? of the >ew Ci$il Code pro$ides that ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the $endee upon the actual or constructi$e deli$ery thereofC and #rt 1'96 points out that ownership of the thing sold is ac,uired by the $endee from the moment it is deli$ered to him in any of the ways specified in articles 1'9= to 15(1 1nder #rt 1'96& -hen the sale is made through a public instrument L as in this case L the execution thereof shall be e,ui$alent to the deli$ery of the thing which is the object of the contract& if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot be clearly inferred This manner of deli$ery of the thing through the execution of a public document is common to personal as well as real property .t is clear& therefore& that defendants ac,uired ownership to the land in ,uestion upon the execution of the deed of sale 8Au)ust ?, 19539. Though the deed of sale was OsupersededO by the #greement of 7ebruary ;6& 1955& as to the terms and conditions of payment of the purchase price& the latter did not operate to re$est the ownership of the land in the plaintiffs The circumstance that full payment was made only& as plaintiffs allege& in 0ay& 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 .n 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 deli$ery of the thing to the buyer