Escaler vs.

CA, 138 SCRA 1

G.R. No. L-42636 August 1, 1985

DOCTRINE: Vendor to be made party in suit for eviction. — The phrase “unless he is
summoned in the suit for eviction” means that the vendor should be made a party to the suit
either by way of asking that the former be made a co-defendant (Art. 1559.) or by the filing of
a third-party complaint against said vendor.

FACTS:

• On March 1958, Spouses Africa and Jose Reynoso sold to petitioners and several others, a
parcel of land in Antipolo Rizal with an area of 239,479 sqm by TCT No. 57400.
• On April 1961, the Register of Deeds of Rizal and A. Doronilla Resources Development,
Inc. filed a case before the court of first instance (RTC) for the cancellation of OCT No.
1526 under the name of Angelina Reynoso (predecessor-in-interest of private
respondents-vendors) on the ground that the property on the said title is already
previously registered under TCT No. 42999 issued in the name of A. Doronilla
Development Inc.
• Petitioners as vendees filed their opposition to the said petition.
• Order on said case was issued; that the OCT no. 1526 was cancelled and all TCT issued
subsequently, being null and void.
• On August 1965, petitioners, spouses Maria and Ernesto Escaler and spouses Cecilia and
Pedro Roxas, file a case against their vendors, private respondents spouses Reynoso, for
the recovery of the value of the property sold to them plus damages on the ground that
the latter violated the vendors “warranty against eviction”
• Judgment rendered by trial court; Cancellation of Original Registration has become final
and executory, orders the defendants to jointly and severally return to Escaler and Roxas
the value of the property sold to them and the time of eviction.
• Private respondents appealed to CA, CA so ruled that petitioners as vendees had not given
private respondents-vendor, formal notice of eviction case as mandated by Arts. 1558 and
1559 of the NCC.

ISSUE: WON the court of appeals erred in applying to the instant case the provisions of Article
1558 and 1559 of the NCC?

RULING:

NO. the petition is devoid of merit. In order that the vendor’s liability for eviction may be
enforced, the requisites must concur:
a. there must be a final judgment
b. the purchaser has been deprived of the whole or part of the thing sold
c. said deprivation was by virtue of a right prior to the sale made by the vendor
d. the vendor has been summoned and made co-defendant in the suit for eviction at the
instance of the vendee.

The fourth requisite is not present. The breach of warranty against eviction cannot be enforced
against the seller when the only thing that the buyer did was to furnish the seller, by registered
mail, with a copy of the opposition the buyer filed in the eviction suit, without going through
formally summoning the seller to be a party to the case.
The Court held that — This is not the kind of notice prescribed by the aforequoted Articles 1558
and 1559 of the New Civil Code ... the respondents as vendor/s should be made parties to the
suit at the instance of petitioner vendees, either by way of asking that the former be made a
co-defendant or by the fi ling of a third-party complaint against said vendors.