1.

Londres v CA & DPWH & Alovera

FACTS: Petitioners sought to annul an Absolute Sale issued by their late mother to
private respondent Alovera. Alovera in defense mainly raised her length of ownership
and validity of the sale. Further, Alovera pointed out that the alterations Petitioners
point to were caused by their late mother and do not affect the validity of the sale.
Petitioners as well filed a cross-claim against DPWH for use of the property while not
having satisfied its sale. DPWH defends, inter alia, that it was simply withholding
payment until adjudication as to ownership. Both the Trial Court and CA found for
Alovera as to the validity of the sale. As to the cross-claim, both courts ruled that DPWH
should pay the true owner, Alovera. Petitioners assailed both these ruling.
MAIN ISSUE: Is the Absolute Sale in favor of Alovera valid? – YES.
RELEVANT ISSUE: Should the cross-claim of Petitioners against DPWH prosper? – NO.
RULING ON MAIN ISSUE: The Court took into account facts and circumstances to
uncover the true intentions of the parties. The Court held that when one sells or buys
real property, one sells or buys the property as he sees it, in its actual setting and by its
physical metes and bounds, and not by the mere lot number assigned to it in the
certificate of title. As long as the true intentions of the parties are evident, the mistake
will not vitiate the consent of the parties, or affect the validity and binding effect of the
contract between them. In this case, the evidence shows that the designation of the
second parcel of land sold as Lot 2034 was merely an oversight or a typographical error.
The intention of the parties to the Absolute Sale became unmistakably clear when
private respondents, as vendees, took possession of Lots 1320 and 1333 in the concept
of owners without the objection of Filomena, the vendor.
RULING ON RELEVANT ISSUE: Cross-claim is proper only when:
(1) It arises out of the subject matter of the complaint.
(2) It is filed against a co-party.
(3) The cross-claimant stands to be prejudiced by the filing of the action against him.
The three requisites are absent in this case. The cross-claim for just compensation is a
new matter raising a new cause of action that must be litigated in a separate action, not
in the same action for the nullification of contract. When the causes of action are
distinct and separate from each other, as in this case, the independent interest should
be pursued in another proceeding.