Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
]
ROMEO
MARTINEZ
and LEONOR SUAREZ,
spouses,
petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,
SECRETARY and UNDERSECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS &
COMMUNICATIONS, respondents-appellees.
FACTS: Spouses Martinez are the registered owner of a parcel of
land (fish pond) in Lubao, Pampanga covered by a TCT. The
spouses, then, constructed dike on the property to control the flow
of the water
1. The municipal officials of Pampanga ordered the spouses to
remove the dikes and prevented the latter from enjoying
the property one the ground that the subject property is a
public river
2. To avoid any untoward incident, the parties agreed to
submit the matter to the Committee on Rivers and
Streams. Said committed declared that the subject
property was not a public river, but a private fishpond
owned by the spouses
3. Despite the decision, the municipal officials of Lubao,
refused the recognize the same and as such, the spouses
Martinez instituted a civil case before CFI Pampanga
against the municipal officials of Lubao praying that the
latter be enjoined from molesting them in their possession
of their property and in the construction of the dikes
therein. CFI Pampanga sitting as Land Registration court
held in favor of the spouses
4. During the pendency of the case, the Secretary of Public
Works ordered another investigation of the said parcel of
land, directing the spouses to remove the dikes they had
constructed
ISSUE: WON the spouses are innocent purchasers of the subject
property
HELD: No. Before purchasing a parcel of land, it cannot be
contended that the appellants who were the vendees did not know
exactly the condition of the land that they were buying and the
obstacles or restrictions thereon that may be put up by the
government in connection with their project. Nevertheless, they
willfully and voluntarily assumed the risks attendant to the sale of
said lot. One who buys something with the
Neither can Tabora find comfort in the claim that since the books
were destroyed by fire without any fault on his part he should be
relieved from the resultant obligation under the rule that an obligor
should be held exempt from liability when the loss occurs thru a
fortuitous event. The rule that an obligor should be held exempt
from liability when the loss occurs thru a fortuitous event only
holds true when the obligation consists in the delivery of a
determinate thing and there is no stipulation holding him liable
even in case of fortuitous event. It does not apply when the
obligation is pecuniary in nature and the obligor binds
himself to assume the loss after delivery of the goods to
him. In other words, the obligor agreed to assume any risk
concerning the goods from the time of their delivery, which
is an exception to the rule provided for in Art 1262 NCC.
that the notice of sale had been sent in writing to the other coowners. A sale may not be presented to the registrar of deeds for
registration unless it be in the form of a duly executed public
instrument. Moreover, the law prefers that all the terms and
conditions of the sale should be definite and in writing.
[G.R. No. L-36083. September 5, 1975.]
Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, SR., and ROSARIO SALAS, and
Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, JR., and GAUDELIA VEGA,
petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FILOMENA
JAVELLANA, respondents.
FACTS: A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all
surnamed Horilleno.
1. 5 of the siblings gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez,
who succeeded her father as a co-owner, for the sale of the
land to father and son Doromal.
2. One of the co-owners, Filomena Javellana, however did not
gave her consent to the sale even though her siblings
executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners went on
with the sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the
Doromals was issued.
3. Respondent Javellana offered to repurchase the land for
P30,000 as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners
declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase.
4. Petitioner spouses Doromal also contend that the P30,000
price was only placed in the Deed of Sale to minimize
payment of fees and taxes and as such, respondent should
pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.
ISSUE: WON the period to repurchase has already lapsed
requires that before a register of deeds can record a sale by a coowner, there must be presented to him an affidavit to the effect
Art 619 NCC bestows unto a co-owner the right to redeem and "to
be surrogated under the same terms and conditions stipulated in
the contract," and to avoid any controversy as to the terms and
condition under which the right to redeem may be exercised, it is
the best that the period therefor should not be deemed to have
commenced unless the notice of disposition is made after the
formal deed of disposal has been duly executed. Where it is
beyond dispute that the legal redemptioner has never been
notified in writing of the execution of the deed of sale by which the
buyers acquired the subject property and has never been shown a
copy of the deed through a written communication by either any of
the purchasers or any of her co-owners-vendees, it is immaterial
when the legal redemptioner might have actually come to know
about said deed.
ISSUE: WON the legal redemptioner should pay the actual price
paid (P115,250) and not the price stated in the Deed of Sale
HELD: No. Where the price actually paid for a parcel of land is
P115,250, but "the consideration of P30,000 only was placed in the
deed of sale minimize the payment of registration fees, stamps
and sale tax," the redemption price should be that