TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP

1. Addison v. Felix Tioco

 BUYER – MACIANA FELIX, BALBINO TIOCO
 SELLER - ADDISON
FACTS:
 The defendants-appellees spouses Maciana Felix and Balbino Tioco
purchased from plaintiff-appellant A.A. Addison four parcels of land to which
Felix paid, at the time of the execution of the deed, the sum of P3,000 on
account of the purchase price.
 She likewise bound herself to the remainder in installments:
o P2,000 on July 15, 1914,
o P5,000 thirty days after the issuance to her of a certificate of title
under the Land Registration Act
o Within ten years from the date of such title:
 P10 for each coconut tree in bearing and
 P5 for each such tree not in bearing that might be growing on
said parcels of land on the date of the issuance of title to her,
With the condition that the total price should not exceed P85,000.
 It was further stipulated that Felix was to deliver to the Addison 25% of the
value of the products that she might obtain from the four parcels "from the
moment she takes possession of them until the Torrens certificate of
title be issued in her favor," and that within 1 year from the date of the
certificate of title in her favor, Marciana Felix may rescind the contract
of purchase and sale.
 In January 1915, Addison , filed suit in the CFI of Manila to compel Felix to
pay the first installment of P2,000, demandable, in accordance with the terms
of the contract of sale.
 The defendants Felix and her husband Tioco contended that Addison had
absolutely failed to deliver the lands that were the subject matter of the sale,
notwithstanding the demands they made upon him for this purpose.
o The evidence adduced shows Addison was able to designate only two
of the four parcels, and more than two-thirds of these two were found
to be in the possession of one Juan Villafuerte, who claimed to be the
owner of the parts he so occupied.
 The trial court held the contract of sale to be rescinded and ordered Addison
to return to Felix the P3,000 paid on account of the price, together with
interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum.

ISSUE:
Was there a delivery made and, therefore, a transfer of ownership of the thing sold?

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, with modification that
the interest thereon will be at the rate of 6% (instead of 10%) per annum from the
date of the filing of the complaint until payment.

The thing is considered to be delivered when it is placed "in the hands and
possession of the vendee."

It is true that the same article declares that the execution of a public instrument is
equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, but,
in order that this symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition, it is
necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over the thing sold that,
at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been made.

Symbolic delivery through the execution of a public instrument is sufficient when

there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the tenancy
of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor. But if, notwithstanding the execution
of the instrument, the purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of
the thing and make use of it himself or through another in his name, because such
are opposed by a third person’s will, then the delivery has not been effected.

In the case at bar, therefore, it is evident, that the mere execution of the instrument
was not a fulfillment of the vendor's obligation to deliver the thing sold, and that
from such non-fulfillment arises the purchaser's right to demand, as she has
demanded, the rescission of the sale and the return of the price.

2. Equatorial v. Mayfair Theater 370 SCRA 56 (2001)

While execution of a public instrument of sale is recognized by law as equivalent to the
delivery of the thing sold, such constructive or symbolic delivery is merely presumptive.
It is nullified by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold

OWNER/LESSOR – CARMELO & BAUERMANN IINC

LESSEE – MAYFAIR THEATER INC

FACTS:
Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc. owned a land, together with two 2-storey buildings at
Claro M. Recto Avenue, Manila, and covered by TCT No. 18529.

1ST LEASE (MAXIM THEATRE)

 On June 1, 1967, Carmelo entered into a Contract of Lease with Mayfair
Theater Inc. for 20 years. The lease covered a portion of the second floor
and mezzanine of a two-storey building with about 1,610 square meters of
floor area, which respondent used as Maxim Theater.

2ND LEASE (MARIMAR THEATRE)

 Two years later, on March 31, 1969, Mayfair entered into a second Lease
with Carmelo for another portion of the latter’s property this time, a part of
the second floor of the two-storey building, and two store spaces on the
ground floor.
 Un that space, Mayfair put up another movie house known as Miramar
Theater. The Contract of Lease was likewise for a period of 20 years.

Their lease contract stipulated that if Carmelo wants to sell the premises, the
Mayfair shall be given exclusive option to purchase within 30 days. Carmelo
informed Mayfair that it wanted to sell the property, but they never agreed upon the
price. Carmelo sold the property to Equatorial for 11M. Mayfair filed an action for
specific performance to have the property sold to it and to annul the sale to
Equatorial.

ISSUES: WON Equatorial is entitled to the civil fruits of the properties such as
rentals

RULING: NO.
 Ownership of the thing sold is a real right, which the buyer acquires only
upon delivery of the thing to him "in any of the ways speci􏰂ed in Articles
1497 to 1501, or in any other manner signifying an agreement that the
possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee." This right is
transferred, not by contract alone, but by tradition or delivery. Non nudis
pactis sed traditione dominia rerum transferantur.
 What is decisive is the civil law rule that ownership is acquired, not by mere
agreement, but by tradition or delivery. Under the factual environment of
this controversy as found by this Court in the mother case, Equatorial was
 never put in actual and effective control or possession of the property
because of Mayfair's timely objection.

3. Sampaguita v. Jalwindor (10/11/1979)

FACTS:

ISSUES:
RULING:

4. Bean v. Cadwallader 10 Phil. 606

5. Edca Publishing v. Santos 184 SCRA 614 (1990)