 Whether or not Felix Danguilan

acquired ownership of the

subject properties when he
took actual possession.

 Whether or not the appellate

court erred when it upheld the
validity of the Deed of Sale in
favor of Apolonia Melad
It is a fundamental and elementary principle that ownership does not
pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery, and the execution of a
public document does not constitute sufficient delivery where the
property involved is in the actual and adverse possession of third
persons.

It is true 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. It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right
of possession. The thing sold must be placed in his control.
If the claim of both the plaintiff and the defendant are weak, judgment must be
for the defendant, for the latter being in possession is presumed to be the
owner, and cannot be obliged to show or prove a better right
 Felix Danguilan denied The said sum was earned
the allegation and by Maria Yedan, her
averred that he was mother, as worker at a

01 the owner of the said

lots of which he had
been in open,
03
factory. And that they
were living with Domingo
Melad until his death.
05
continuous and adverse
possession.

At the trial, Apolonia That Apolonia moved out of

Apolonia Melad filed a
complaint against
Felix Danguilan for
recovery of farm lot
and residential lot
which she claimed she
had purchased from
Domingo Melad and now
being unlawfully
withheld by Danguilan.
presented a deed of sale
dated December 4, 1943,
02
purportedly signed by
Domingo Melad and duly
notarized which conveyed
04
the said properties to her
for the sum of Php 80.00.
the farm only when Felix
Danguilan approached her
and asked her permission to
cultivate the land and
stayed therein on the
condition that Felix would
deliver part of the
harvest.
 Felix Danguilan claimed
that Domingo Melad signed
in 1941 a private
instrument in which he
The Trial Court held that
06 08 10
05
gave the defendant the
01 farm and in 1943 another
private instrument in
which he also gave him
03 Danguilan was more
believable and that
Apolonia’s evidence was
the residential lot. unpersuasive and
unconvincing.

On the other hand, Felix The appellate court

Also stated in the ruled in favor of
Danguilan claimed that private instrument Apolonia Melad and
04
he and Isidra Melad
02
07
that Felix Danguilan
lived with Domingo Melad
and his wife Juana
would would take care
of Domingo Melad and
09 held that the private
instruments were null
and void.
Malupang and helped them would bury the latter
with the cultivation of upon his death.
the farm.
That she had purchased the farm and He denied the allegation and averred that
residential lots from Domingo Melad and now he was the owner of the said lots of which
being unlawfully withheld by Felix he had been in open, continuous and adverse
Danguilan. possession.

Apolonia argued that there was no
equivalence between the value of the lands
donated and the services for which they
were being exchanged. The two transactions
should be considered pure and gratuitous
donations of real rights, hence they should
have been effected through a public
instrument and not mere private writings.
Felix averred that he did take care of
Domingo Melad and arranged for his burial
in accordance with the condition of Domingo
Melad when he gave the farm and residential
lot to him.
The Appellate Court should have examined the Deed of Sale and the
circumstances surrounding its execution before pronouncing its validity.

• The Deed of Sale allegedly was executed when Apolonia Melad was
only three years old and the consideration was supposedly paid by
Maria Yedan
• That the contract was simulated and prepared after Domingo Melad’s
death in 1945.
• Apolonia failed to show that she consummated the contract of sale
by actual delivery of properties to her and actual possession
thereof in concept of purchaser-owner.
 Article 749 of the Civil Code requiring donations of real properties to be effected
through a public instrument is inapplicable. The conveyances in the case at bar
being onerous donations are not covered by the said provision.
 The Supreme Court held that, since the claim of both Apolonia Melad and Felix
Danguilan are weak, judgment must be for Felix Danguilan, for he being in
possession is presumed to be the owner and cannot be obliged to show or prove a
better right.