You are on page 1of 4

[G.R. No. L-31271. April 29, 1974.

]
ROMEO
MARTINEZ
and LEONOR SUAREZ,
spouses,
petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
SECRETARY and UNDERSECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS &
COMMUNICATIONS, respondents-appellees.
FACTS: Spouses Martinez are the registered owner of a parcel of
land (fish pond) in Lubao, Pampanga covered by a TCT. The
spouses, then, constructed dike on the property to control the flow
of the water
1. The municipal officials of Pampanga ordered the spouses to
remove the dikes and prevented the latter from enjoying
the property one the ground that the subject property is a
public river
2. To avoid any untoward incident, the parties agreed to
submit the matter to the Committee on Rivers and
Streams. Said committed declared that the subject
property was not a public river, but a private fishpond
owned by the spouses
3. Despite the decision, the municipal officials of Lubao,
refused the recognize the same and as such, the spouses
Martinez instituted a civil case before CFI Pampanga
against the municipal officials of Lubao praying that the
latter be enjoined from molesting them in their possession
of their property and in the construction of the dikes
therein. CFI Pampanga sitting as Land Registration court
held in favor of the spouses
4. During the pendency of the case, the Secretary of Public
Works ordered another investigation of the said parcel of
land, directing the spouses to remove the dikes they had
constructed
ISSUE: WON the spouses are innocent purchasers of the subject
property
HELD: No. Before purchasing a parcel of land, it cannot be
contended that the appellants who were the vendees did not know
exactly the condition of the land that they were buying and the
obstacles or restrictions thereon that may be put up by the
government in connection with their project. Nevertheless, they
willfully and voluntarily assumed the risks attendant to the sale of
said lot. One who buys something with the

knowledge of defect or lack of title in his vendor

cannot claim that the acquired the same in good


faith.
The ruling that a purchaser of a registered property cannot go
beyond the record to make inquiries as to the legality of the title of
the registered owner, but may rely on the registry to determine if
there is no lien or encumbrances over the same, cannot be availed
of as against the law and accepted principle that rivers are parts of
the public domain for public use and not capable of private
appropriation or acquisition by prescription.
A simple possession of a certificate of title under the Torrens
system does not necessarily make the possessor a true owner of all
the property described therein. If a person obtains title under
the Torrens system which includes by mistake or oversight,
lands which cannot be registered under the Torrens
system, he does not by virtue of said certificate alone
become the owner of the land illegally included.
CAB: The Land Registration Court has no jurisdiction over nonregisterable properties, such as public navigable rivers which are
parts of the public domain, and cannot validly adjudge the
registration of title in favor of a private applicant. Hence, the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga as regards the
Lot No. 2 of Certificate of Title No. 15856 in the name of
petitioners-appellants may be attacked at any time, either directly
or collaterally, by the State which is not bound by any prescriptive
period provided for by the Statute of Limitations (Art 1108, par. 4,
new Civil Code). The right of reversion or reconveyance to the
State of the public properties fraudulently registered and which are
not capable of private appropriation or private acquisition does not
prescribe.

[G.R. No. L-21263. April 30, 1965.]


LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY, plaintiffappellee, vs. PERFECTO A. TABORA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS: In 1955, Perfecto Tabora purchased a complete set of
American
Jurisprudence
from
Lawyers
Cooperative
Publishing Co for a total of P1,682.40 (including shipping). Tabora
made a partial payment of P300, leaving a balance of P1,382.40,
which was to be paid on an installment basis
1. The contract provides that the title to and ownership
of the books shall remain with the seller until the
purchase price shall have been fully paid. Loss or
damage to the books after the delivery to the books
after the delivery to the buyer shall be borne by the
buyer
2. The books were delivered to Tabora on May 15, 1955. On
the same date, however, a fire razed Taboras office and as
a result, Taboras books and other documents were
destroyed
3. Tabora defaulted on the monthly payments. As such, the
Lawyers Cooperative filed an action before CFI Manila for
the recovery of the balance of the obligation
4. In his answer, Tabora pleaded force majeure as a
defense. He alleged that the books were destroyed during
that fire and since the loss was due to force majeure, he
cannot be held responsible for the loss
5. The trial court held in favor of Lawyers Cooperative and
ordered Tabora to pay P1,382.40 plus damages
6. Taboras argument: since the title to and the ownership of
the books shall remain with the seller until the purchase
price is fully paid, and the books were destroyed
immediately after the transaction, the seller should be the
one to bear the loss, for, as a rule, the loss is always borne
by the seller
ISSUE: WON the seller is liable for the loss in this case
HELD: No. In a contract of sale where the seller agreed that the
ownership of the books sold shall remain with it until the purchase
price shall have been fully paid, it is held that such

stipulation cannot make the seller liable in case

of loss, not only because such was agreed


merely to secure performance by the buyer of
his obligation but also because in the very
contract it was agreed that the loss or damage
to the books after delivery to the buyer shall be
borne by the buyer. Such stipulation is sanctioned by Art
1504 NCC which provides:
(1)

Where delivery of goods has been made to the buyer


or to a bailee for the buyer, in pursuance of the
contract and the ownership in the goods has been
retained by the seller merely to secure performance by
the buyer of his obligations under the contract, the
goods are at the buyer's risk from the time of such
delivery.

Neither can Tabora find comfort in the claim that since the books
were destroyed by fire without any fault on his part he should be
relieved from the resultant obligation under the rule that an obligor
should be held exempt from liability when the loss occurs thru a
fortuitous event. The rule that an obligor should be held exempt
from liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event only
holds true when the obligation consists in the delivery of a
determinate thing and there is no stipulation holding him liable
even in case of fortuitous event. It does not apply when the
obligation is pecuniary in nature and the obligor binds
himself to assume the loss after delivery of the goods to
him. In other words, the obligor agreed to assume any risk
concerning the goods from the time of their delivery, which
is an exception to the rule provided for in Art 1262 NCC.

that the notice of sale had been sent in writing to the other coowners. A sale may not be presented to the registrar of deeds for
registration unless it be in the form of a duly executed public
instrument. Moreover, the law prefers that all the terms and
conditions of the sale should be definite and in writing.
[G.R. No. L-36083. September 5, 1975.]
Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, SR., and ROSARIO SALAS, and
Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, JR., and GAUDELIA VEGA,
petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FILOMENA
JAVELLANA, respondents.
FACTS: A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all
surnamed Horilleno.
1. 5 of the siblings gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez,
who succeeded her father as a co-owner, for the sale of the
land to father and son Doromal.
2. One of the co-owners, Filomena Javellana, however did not
gave her consent to the sale even though her siblings
executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners went on
with the sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the
Doromals was issued.
3. Respondent Javellana offered to repurchase the land for
P30,000 as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners
declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase.
4. Petitioner spouses Doromal also contend that the P30,000
price was only placed in the Deed of Sale to minimize
payment of fees and taxes and as such, respondent should
pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.
ISSUE: WON the period to repurchase has already lapsed

For purposes of the co-owner's right to


redemption granted by Art 1620 NCC, the notice
in writing which Art 1623 requires to be made to
the other co-owners and from receipt of which
the 30-day period to redeem should be counted
is a notice not only of a perfected sale but of the
actual execution and delivery of the deed of
sale. This is implied from the latter portion of Art 1623 which
HELD: No.

requires that before a register of deeds can record a sale by a coowner, there must be presented to him an affidavit to the effect

Art 619 NCC bestows unto a co-owner the right to redeem and "to
be surrogated under the same terms and conditions stipulated in
the contract," and to avoid any controversy as to the terms and
condition under which the right to redeem may be exercised, it is
the best that the period therefor should not be deemed to have
commenced unless the notice of disposition is made after the
formal deed of disposal has been duly executed. Where it is
beyond dispute that the legal redemptioner has never been
notified in writing of the execution of the deed of sale by which the
buyers acquired the subject property and has never been shown a
copy of the deed through a written communication by either any of
the purchasers or any of her co-owners-vendees, it is immaterial
when the legal redemptioner might have actually come to know
about said deed.
ISSUE: WON the legal redemptioner should pay the actual price
paid (P115,250) and not the price stated in the Deed of Sale
HELD: No. Where the price actually paid for a parcel of land is
P115,250, but "the consideration of P30,000 only was placed in the
deed of sale minimize the payment of registration fees, stamps
and sale tax," the redemption price should be that

stated in the deed of sale. The Supreme Court


will not sanction the buyers' pragmatic posture
that the redemption price should be the price
actually paid. Being patently violative of public policy and
injurious to public interest, the seemingly widespread practice of
understanding consideration of transactions for the purpose of
evading taxes and fees due to the government must be
condemned and all parties guilty thereof must be made to suffer
the consequences of their ill-advised agreement to defraud the
state.
CAB: vendors and purchasers understate the purchase price of the
things sold to minimize the payment of registration fees, stamps
and sale tax. They are in pari delicto in committing tax

evasion and should not receive any consideration from any


court in respect to the money paid for the sale. Their
situation is similar to that of parties to an illegal contract.