BAUTISTA v. SIOSON Torres, J.

/ 1919 On September 4, 1912, the defendant Francisco Sioson and his wife Lorenza de la Cruz, through a notarial instrument, sold to the plaintiff Rosalio Bautista the camarin in question, besides some other property, under the right of repurchase. It was stipulated that if within two years from the date of the contract the vendors or their successors in interest should not repurchase said properties for the sum of P400, the price of the sale, such sale should become absolute and thenceforth the ownership in the properties sold should be consolidated, the execution of another instrument being unnecessary. On the same date, September 4, 1912, Rosalio Bautista, through a notarial instrument, leased the properties sold to him to the vendors Francisco Sioson and Lorenza de la Cruz, for the price of P100 per annum, for the period of two years counted from the date of the instrument. August 5, 1914, Francisco Sioson executed before a notary a document by which he sold under right of repurchase to the defendant Raymundo de la Cruz, the camarin in question. It was stipulated in this instrument that if within six months, counted from the 1st of August, 1914, the vendor Francisco Sioson should return to the purchase Raymundo de la Cruz the sum of P422, the price of the purchase, then the purchaser Raymundo de la Cruz would be obliged to execute in favor of said vendor Francisco Sioson an instrument of resale, but that if within the period mentioned he should not make the redemption stipulated, said sale should become absolute, the execution of another instrument being unnecessary. Plaintiff prayed for the court to hold that his ownership in said buildings was consolidated, to order the defendants to deliver him the buildings, and to order Francisco Sioson to pay to the him the price of the lease. Defendants alleged that the camarin described in subparagraph (a) , paragraph 2 of the complaint, was of the exclusive ownership of the defendant Raymundo de la Cruz. ISSUE: Which of the two purchasers, the plaintiff Bautista and the defendant Cruz, is the lawful owner of the camarin successively sold to the former and to the latter by the other defendant Francisco Sioson, its original owner, in accordance with the provisions contained in article 1473 of the Civil Code which says that: Should there be no entry; the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of its in good faith . . . HELD: Bautista is the rightful owner of the camarin. The deed of sale between Bautista and Sioson was not entered in the registry of property. Upon the execution of the second sale of the same camarin by the said Sioson, which sale was made after the death of his wife Lorenza by virtue of an instrument made in favor of Cruz, it may be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the second purchaser Raymundo de la Cruz acted in good faith. However, actual and material possession of the camarin by Cruz does not constitute a sufficient legal reason for holding the he has a better right to the building than the first purchaser Rosalio Bautista, although the latter was not in actual, physical, and material of the camarin that he had purchased. This conclusion is derived from a strict application of the provisions of said article 1473 of the Civil Code. Both instruments. transactions were recorded in notarial

To determine who is the lawful owner of the camarin sold, if the provisions of said article of the Code are to be observed, we have to: 1. determine the contention in regard to which of the two purchasers is in possession 2. If, on the execution of the contract of lease by the first purchaser in favor of the vendor himself, the constitutum possessorium agreement is to be considered to have been stipulated, the conclusion must necessarily be reached as to which of the two purchasers first took possession of the camarin sold; and, 3. whether the material possession of the tenant is of a precarious nature, enjoyed in the same and representation of the owner Bautista.

Article 1462 of the Civil Code reads: A thing sold shall be considered as delivered, when it is placed in the hands and possession of the vendee. When the sale should be made by means of a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if in said instrument the contrary does not appear or may be clearly inferred. In the contract of lease, it showed that the camarin would be continued to be occupied by its previous owner and vendor after it had been delivered, symbolically, by means of the instrument executed for the purpose in favor of the purchaser, in order that he might hold it in the capacity of lessee, it being supposed, by a legal fiction, that the purchaser entered into possession of the camarin sold, a form of possession utilized by the purchaser by virtue of the clause known in law as constitutum possessorium, stipulated between the contracting parties. Rosalio Bautista was the first possessor of the camarin by virtue of the sale between him and Sioson. He entered into the material possession under title of owner, of the camarin sold to him by Francisco Sioson, and, by virtue of another instrument of lease, of the same date, the purchaser and owner of the camarin conveyed and delivered this building to the lessee in view of said contract. Material possession being enjoyed by Cruz was subsequent by almost two years. It was an unlawful possession which was transmitted to him by Francisco Sioson, who held the camarin precariously and in the capacity of tenant. Sioson was without any right whatever to convey to Raymundo de la Cruz the possession under title of owner referred to in article 1473, aforementioned of the Civil Code. HANA R.