A. A. ADDISON vs. MARCIANA FELIX and BALBINO TIOCO
AIC (November 28, 1988)
G.R. No. L-12342            August 3, 1918
Facts: Petitioner Addison sold four parcels of land to Defendant
spouses Balbino Tioco and Marciano Felix The defendant Felix paid,
at the time of the execution of the deed, the sum of P3,000 on
account of the purchase price, and bound herself to pay the
remainder in installments, after the issuance to her of a certificate of
title under the Land Registration Act.  old in which her mother paid the consideration. She contends that
It was also stipulated that the purchasers may rescind the
contract of purchase and sale within one year from the date of the
certificate of title in favor of Marciana Felix.
Issue: Won there was a valid delivery of the thing sold
Held: NO, The record shows that the plaintiff did not deliver the thing
sold. With respect to two of the parcels of land, he was not even able
to show them to the purchaser; and as regards the other two, more
than two-thirds of their area was in the hostile and adverse
possession of a third person.
DANGUILAN V.
FACTS:
A residential and farm lot in Cagayan owned by Dominggo Melad
were being claimed by petitioner Felix Danguilan and respondent
Apolonia Melad. Apolonia contends that she acquired the property
when Dominggo Melad sold it to her when she was just three years
she just moved out of the farm only when in 1946 Felix Danguilan
approached her and asked permission to cultivate the land and to
stay therein.
ISSUE:
WON there is a valid sale
HELD:
Private respondent did not take possession of the disputed
properties and indeed waited until 1962 to file this action for recovery
of the lands from the petitioner. If she did have possession, she
transferred the same to the petitioner in 1946, by her own sworn
admission, and moved out to another lot belonging to her step-
brother. In short, she failed to show that she consummated the
contract of sale by actual delivery of the properties to her and her
actual possession thereof in concept of purchaser-owner. Ownership
does not pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery.
CALIXTO PASAGUI vs. ESTER T. VILLABLANCA
G.R. No. L-21998 November 10, 1975
FACTS:
Appellants are alleging that they bought from appellees a parcel of
agricultural land situated in Hamindangon, Pastrana, Leyte; that the
corresponding document of sale was executed, notarized on the
same date, and recorded in the Registry of Deeds of Tacloban,
Leyte;
that defendant spouses Ester T. Villablanca and Zosimo Villablanca,
"illegally and without any right, whatsoever, took possession of the
above property harvesting coconuts from the coconut plantation
thereon, thus depriving plaintiffs" of its possession
ISSUE:
Whether there was a valid deed of sale.
HELD:
No. It is true that the execution of the deed of absolute sale
in a public instrument is equivalent to delivery of the land subject of
the sale. This presumptive delivery only holds true when there is no
impediment that may prevent the passing of the property from the
hands of the vendor into those of the vendee
DY v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 92989
July 8, 1991
FACTS:
Wilfredo Dy bought a truck and tractor from Libra Finance
Corporation. Both truck and tractor was also mortgage to Libra as
security for a loan and as such, they took possession of it.
Meanwhile, a collection suit was filed against Wilfredo Dy by Gelac
Trading Inc. On the strength of a writ of execution, the sheriff was
able to obtain the tractor on the premises of Libra. It was sold in a
public auction in which Gelac Trading was the lone bidder. Gelac
subsequently sold it to one of their stockholders.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the
ownership of the tractor still belongs to Wilfredo Dy.
RULING:
Yes. In the  case at 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.
POWER COMMERCIAL V. CA (June 20, 1997)
FACTS:
Since there are lessees occupying the subject land, part of the deed
of sale is a warranty of respondents that will defend its title and
peaceful possession in favor of the petitioners. The property is
mortgage to PNP and as such, petitioners filed a request to assume
responsibility of the mortgage. Because of petitioners failure to
produce the required papers, their petition was denied.
Petitioners allege that the contract should be rescinded because of
failure of delivery.
ISSUE:
WON the contract is recissible due to breach of contract.
HELD:
There is no breach of contact in this case since there is no provision
in the contract that imposes the obligation to the respondents to eject
the people occupying the property.
There was also a constructive delivery because the deed of sale was
made in a public document. Prior physical delivery or possession is
not legally required and the execution of the deed of sale is deemed
equivalent to delivery.
VILLARTA V. CA (May 29, 1987)
FACTS:
Respondent Rosalinda Cruz entrusted to petitioner Victoria Villarta
seven pieces of jewelry on November 1968. On December of the
same year, Villarta exchanges one jewelry to another and issued a
post-dated check in favor of Cruz. Cruz deposited the check but it
was dishonored for lack of funds.
ISSUE:
WON the transaction is a “sale or return”
HELD:
The transaction is not a sale or return but a sale on approval or sale
on acceptance.
When Cruz gave the jewelry to Villarta on November, the clear
intention is to make the latter choose which item she wanted to buy.
There was no meeting of the minds yet at this point and hence, it
cannot be considered as delivery.
STA.ANA V. HERNANDEZ (January 17, 1966)
FACTS:
Spouses Jose Santa Ana, Jr. and Lourdes Sto. Domingo sold a land
in Bulacan to respondent Rosa Hernandez.
Petitioners-spouses caused the preparation of the subdivision plan
but Hernandez didn’t agree to the partition. As such, petitioners-
spouses filed a case alleging that Hernandez is occupying in excess
of 17000 square meter of the land sold. Hernandez claims that the
excess area is part of the land she bought.
ISSUE:
WON the excess area occupied by Hernandez is part of the land
sold.
HELD:
The sale involves a definite and identified tract, a corpus certum, that
obligated the vendors to deliver to the buyer all the land within the
boundaries, irrespective of whether its real area should be greater or
smaller than what is recited in the deed.
To hold the buyer to no more than the area recited on the deed, it
must be made clear therein that the sale was made by unit of
measure at a definite price for each unit
Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, and Poncio
69 SCRA 99
January 1976
FACTS:
In February 2, Poncio executed a formal registerable deed of sale in
her (Infante's) favor. So, when the first buyer Carbonell saw the
seller Poncio a few days afterwards, bringing the formal deed of sale
for the latter's signature and the balance of the agreed cash
payment, she was told that he could no longer proceed with
formalizing the contract with her (Carbonell) because he had already
formalized a sales contract in favor of Infante.
ISSUE:
Who has the superior right over the subject property?
RULING:
Carbonell to has the superior right over the subject property, relying
on Article 1544 of the Civil Code. Unlike the first and third
paragraphs of said Article 1544, which accord preference to the one
who first takes possession in good faith of personal or real property,
the second paragraph directs that ownership of immovable property
should be recognized in favor of one "who in good faith first
recorded" his right.
TOMASA QUIMSON and MARCOS SANTOS vs. FRANCISCO
ROSETE
G.R. No. L-2397 August 9, 1950
FACTS:
The subject property land in Zambales, originally belonged to the late
Dionisio Quimson. He executeda deed transferring the same in favor
of his daughter Tomasa Quimson. However, he still remained to be
in possession and enjoyment of the property.
Later, the property was sold to the spouses Magno Agustin and
Paulina Manzano on May 3, 1935, with right to repurchase within the
term of six years. Then, two years after, the same property was
again sold to Francisco Rosete, also with pacto de retro within five
years.
Thereafter, he repurchased the property from Agustin and Manzano
with money furnished to him by Rosete. Since then, Rosete
possessed the property in a peaceful manner even after the death of
Dionisio Quimson.
ISSUE: Who was prior in possession?
RULING:
Quimson is the owner.
Article 1462 provides that the thing sold shall be deemed delivered,
when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee. When
the sale is made by means of 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 said instrument the contrary does
not appear or may not be clearly inferred.
CHENG V. GENATO (December 29, 1998)
FACTS:
Respondent Genato entered a contract to sell to spouses Da Jose
pertaining to his property in Bulacan. Da Jose spouses was not able
to finish verifying the documents and as such asked for a 30 day
extension. Pending the extension and without notice to the spouses,
Genato made a document for the annulment of the contract.
Petitioner Cheng expressed interest over the property and paid 50K
check with the assurance that the contract between Genato and the
spouses Da Jose will be annulled. Da Jose spouses protested with
the annulment and persuaded Genato to continue the contract.
ISSUE:
WON there is a contract of sale
HELD:
The contract between Genato and spouses Da Jose was a contract
to sell which is subject to a suspensive condition. Thus, there will be
no contract to speak of, if the obligor failed to perform the suspensive
condition which enforces a juridical relation. Obviously, the foregoing
jurisprudence cannot be made to apply to the situation in the instant
case because no default can be ascribed to the Da Jose spouses
since the 30-day extension period has not yet expired.