0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
476 Ansichten4 Seiten
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 124-7 between the heirs of Jesus M. Mascunana and respondents Rodolfo and Corazon Laumas. The key issues are whether Jesus Mascunana's sale of the property to Diosdado Sumilhig in 1971 was a perfected contract of sale or a contract to sell, and who has better rights over the property. The Court of Appeals and trial court sided with respondents, finding the 1971 agreement was a contract of sale, making respondents the rightful owners. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 124-7 between the heirs of Jesus M. Mascunana and respondents Rodolfo and Corazon Laumas. The key issues are whether Jesus Mascunana's sale of the property to Diosdado Sumilhig in 1971 was a perfected contract of sale or a contract to sell, and who has better rights over the property. The Court of Appeals and trial court sided with respondents, finding the 1971 agreement was a contract of sale, making respondents the rightful owners. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 124-7 between the heirs of Jesus M. Mascunana and respondents Rodolfo and Corazon Laumas. The key issues are whether Jesus Mascunana's sale of the property to Diosdado Sumilhig in 1971 was a perfected contract of sale or a contract to sell, and who has better rights over the property. The Court of Appeals and trial court sided with respondents, finding the 1971 agreement was a contract of sale, making respondents the rightful owners. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.
HEIRS OF JESUS M. MASCUANA, !e"!e#en$e% &' JOSE MA. R. MASCUANA, petitioners, vs. COUR( OF A))EA*S, A+UI*INO ,AR(E, -n% S)OUSES RO.O*FO -n% CORA/ON *A0UMAS, respondents. 1. Gertrudis Wuthrich and her six other siblings were the co-owners of a parcel of land identified as Lot No. 124 of the San Carlos Cit! Negros "ccidental Cadastre. "#er ti$e! Gertrudis and two other co-owners sold each of their one-se#enth %1&'( shares! or a total area of '41 s)uare $eters! to *esus +ascu,ana. 2. *esus +ascunana sold a portion of his 14--s)uare-$eter undi#ided share of the propert to .iosdado Su$ilhig. +ascu,ana later sold an additional 1/--s)uare-$eter portion to Su$ilhig. 0owe#er! the parties agreed to re#o1e the said deed of sale and! in lieu thereof! executed a .eed of 2bsolute Sale. 3n the said deed! +ascu,ana! as #endor! sold an undi#ided 4/4-s)uare-$eter portion of the propert for 54!/4-.--! with 56!/4-.-- as down pa$ent.% balance of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) shall be paid by he !ENDEE "no he !ENDO# as soon as he abo$e%po&ions of 'o 1() shall ha$e been s"&$eyed in he na*e of he !ENDEE and all pape&s pe&inen and necessa&y o he iss"ance of a sepa&ae +e&i,cae of Tile in he na*e of he !ENDEE shall ha$e been p&epa&ed. ( 2 sur#e was conducted and the portion of the propert deeded to Su$ilhig was identified in the said plan as Lot No. 124-7. 8/9 6. +eanwhile! +ascu,ana died intestate and was sur#i#ed b his heirs! :#a +. :llisin! ;enee 0ewlett! Car$en <da. de "pe,a! +arilou . and *ose +a. ;. +ascu,ana. 4. Su$ilhig executed a .eed of Sale of ;eal 5ropert 8'9 on a portion of Lot No. 124-7 with an area of 4/4 s)uare $eters and the i$pro#e$ents thereon! in fa#or of Cora=on Lau$as! the wife of *udge ;odolfo Lau$as! for the price of 511!---.--. >he spouses Lau$as then had the propert subdi#ided into two lots? Lot No. 124-7-2 with an area of '1 s)uare $eters under the na$e of *esus +ascu,ana! and Lot No. 124-7-1! with an area of 4/4 s)uare $eters under their na$es. @. the spouses Lau$as allowed 2)uilino 7arte to sta on a portion of the propert to ward off s)uatters. 81-9 7arte and his 1in! ;osto$ 7arte! then had their houses constructed on the propert. /. Cora=on Lau$as wrote 5epito +ascu,ana! offering to pa the a$ount of 51!---.--! the balance of the purchase price of the propert under the deed of absolute sale executed b +ascu,ana and Su$ilhig on 2ugust 12! 14/1. 8129 0owe#er! the addressee refused to recei#e the $ail $atter. 8169 '. Un-no.n o spo"ses lay"*as, 'o no.1()%/ .as iss"ed in he na*e of 0es"sa 1asc"nana. A. the heirs of +ascu,ana filed a Co$plaint 81@9 for reco#er of possession of Lot No. 124-7 and da$ages with a writ of preli$inar inBunction! alleging that the owned the subBect lot b #irtue of successional rights fro$ their deceased father. >he a#erred that 7arte surreptitiousl entered the pre$ises! fenced the area and constructed a house thereon without their consent. 4. 7arte ad$itted ha#ing occupied a portion of Lot No. 124-7! but clai$ed that he secured the per$ission of ;odolfo Lau$as 1-. the spouses Lau$as filed a +otion for Lea#e to 3nter#ene alleging that the were the true owners of the subBect propert 11. 0ence this petition for re#iew on certiorari of the .ecision 819 of the Court of 2ppeals %C2( in C2 affir$ing the .ecision 829 ;>C which ordered the dis$issal of the petitionersC co$plaint for reco#er of possession and da$ages. 3SSD:? .hehe& o& no THE SA'E O2 'OT NO. 1()%/ 1ADE /3 0ESUS 1. 1AS+U4ANA 5N 2A!O# O2 D5OSDADO SU15'H56 A +ONT#A+T TO SE'' O# +ONT#A+T O2 SA'E. (peiione&s a&e conendin7 con&ac o sell) HE'D8 con&ac of sale. While it is true that *esus +ascu,ana executed the deed of absolute sale o#er the propert on 2ugust 12! 14/1 in fa#or of .iosdado Su$ilhig for 54!/4-.--! and that it was onl on *ul /! 14/2 that >C> No. 4/' was issued in his na$e as one of the co- owners of Lot No. 124! .iosdado Su$ilhig and the respondents ne#ertheless ac)uired ownership o#er the propert. >he deed of sale executed b *esus +ascu,ana in fa#or of .iosdado Su$ilhig on 2ugust 12! 14/1 was a perfected contract of sale o#er the propert. 3t is settled that a perfected contract of sale cannot be challenged on the ground of the non-transfer of ownership of the propert sold at that ti$e of the perfection of the contract! since it is consu$$ated upon deli#er of the propert to the #endee. 3t is through tradition or deli#er that the buer ac)uires ownership of the propert sold. 2s pro#ided in 2rticle 14@A of the New Ci#il Code! when the sale is $ade through a public instru$ent! the execution thereof is e)ui#alent to the deli#er of the thing which is the obBect of the contract! unless the contrar appears or can be inferred. >he record of the sale with the ;egister of .eeds and the issuance of the certificate of title in the na$e of the buer o#er the propert $erel bind third parties to the sale. 2s between the seller and the buer! the transfer of ownership ta1es effect upon the execution of a public instru$ent co#ering the real propert. 8619 Long before the petitioners secured a >orrens title o#er the propert! the respondents had been in actual possession of the propert and had designated 7arte as their o#erseer. %article 14@A(3n this case! there was a $eeting of the $inds between the #endor and the #endee! when the #endor undertoo1 to deli#er and transfer ownership o#er the propert co#ered b the deed of absolute sale to the #endee for the price of 54!/4-.-- of which 56!/4-.-- was paid b the #endee to the #endor as down pa$ent. >he #endor undertoo1 to ha#e the propert sold! sur#eed and segregated and a separate title therefor issued in the na$e of the #endee! upon which the latter would be obliged to pa the balance of 51!---.--. >here was no stipulation in the deed that the title to the propert re$ained with the #endor! or that the right to unilaterall resol#e the contract upon the buerCs failure to pa within a fixed period was gi#en to such #endor. 5atentl! the contract executed b the parties is a deed of sale and not a contract to sell. Applying these principles of DIGNOS vs CA to this case, it cannot be gainsaid that the contract of sale between the parties is absolute, not conditional. here is no reservation of ownership nor a stipulation providing for a unilateral rescission by either party. In fact, the sale was consu!!ated upon the delivery of the lot to respondent. hus, Art. "#$$ provides that the ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. 8669 >he condition in the deed that the balance of 51!---.-- shall be paid to the #endor b the #endee as soon as the propert sold shall ha#e been sur#eed in the na$e of the #endee and all papers pertinent and necessar to the issuance of a separate certificate of title in the na$e of the #endee shall ha#e been prepared is not a condition which pre#ented the efficac of the contract of sale. 3t $erel pro#ides the $anner b which the total purchase price of the propert is to be paid. 3n a contract to sell! ownership is retained b a seller and is not to be transferred to the #endee until full pa$ent of the price. Such pa$ent is a positi#e suspensi#e condition! the failure of which is not a breach of contract but si$pl an e#ent that pre#ented the obligation fro$ ac)uiring binding force. 86@9 3t bears stressing that in a contract of sale! the non-pa$ent of the price is a resolutor condition which extinguishes the transaction that! for a ti$e! existed and discharges the obligation created under the transaction. 86/9 2 seller cannot unilaterall and extraBudiciall rescind a contract of sale unless there is an express stipulation authori=ing it. 3n such case! the #endor $a file an action for specific perfor$ance or Budicial rescission. 86'9 2rticle 11/4 of the New Ci#il Code pro#ides that in reciprocal obligations! neither part incurs in dela if the other does not co$pl or is not read to co$pl in a proper $anner with what is incu$bent upon hi$E fro$ the $o$ent one of the parties fulfills his obligation! dela b the other begins. 3n this case! the #endor %*esus +ascu,ana( failed to co$pl with his obligation of segregating Lot No. 124-7 and the issuance of a >orrens title o#er the propert in fa#or of the #endee! or the latterCs successors-in-interest! the respondents herein. Worse! petitioner *ose +ascu,ana was able to secure title o#er the propert under the na$e of his deceased father.