Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
HELD:
SIGAYA v MAYUGA
FACTS:
Dionisia Alorsabes owned a three hectare land in
Dao, Capiz, denominated as Lot 3603. In 1934, she
sold a portion of the lot to Juanito Fuentes while the
remainder was inherited by her children Paz Dela
Cruz, Rosela Dela Cruz, and Consorcia Arroja (an
adopted child), and a grandson, Francisco Abas, in
representation of his deceased mother Margarita
Dela Cruz. These four heirs executed an ExtraJudicial Settlement with Sale dated February 4,
1964 wherein Consorcia sold her share with an area
of 6,694 square meters to spouses Balleriano
Mayuga. On April 1, 1977, Paz also sold her share to
Honorato de los Santos. Later, another document
entitled Extra-Judicial Partition with Deed of Sale
datedNovember 2, 1972 was uncovered wherein the
heirs of Dionisia purportedly adjudicated Lot 3603
among themselves and sold their shares to
Francisco. On January 9, 1978, Francisco executed a
Deed of Sale over Lot 3603 in favor of Teodulfo
Sigaya. Thus, the title over Lot 3603 was cancelled
and a new one was issued in the name of Teodulfo,
[1
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein.
The petitioners, who are the widow and children of
Teodulfo, filed Civil actions for recovery of
possession and damages against Diomer Mayuga,
Honorato de los Santos, Sps. Jose Viva and Rosela
[2]
Dela Cruz-Viva, and Renato Distor, respectively,
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City,
Branch 16, praying that respondents be ordered to
vacate Lot 3603, and turn over the same to
petitioners.
Respondents in their answers with counterclaim
averred that: the Deed of Sale executed by Francisco
in favor of Teodulfo and the title thereon are null
and void for being based on a fictitious Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Sale; Rosela Dela Cruz-Viva and Paz
Dela Cruz, who are illiterates, were fraudulently
made to sign as vendees in the Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Sale dated 1972, when Francisco
represented that they were merely signing as
witnesses to the sale of Francisco of his share to
Teodulfo. As counterclaim, they asked for attorneys
fees and damages.
MOLES v IAC
FACTS:
Jerry Moles(petitioner) bought from Mariano Diolosa
owner of Diolosa Publishing House a linotype
printing machine(secondhand machine). Moles
promised Diolosa that will pay the full amount after
the loan from DBP worth P50,000.00 will be
released. Private respondent on return issued a
certification wherein he warrated that the machine
was in A-1 condition, together with other express
warranties. After the release of the of the money
from DBP, Petitioner required the Respondent to
accomplish some of the requirements. On which the
dependant complied the requirements on the same
day.
On November 29, 1977, petitioner wrote private
respondent that the machine was not functioning
properly. The petitioner found out that the said
machine was not in good condition as experts