Higit Pa Susunod na Blog jetjuarez168@gmail.

com Dashboard Mag-sign Out

THE LAW ON SALES BLOG

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2014 BLOG ARCHIVE

2016 (3)
CRB vs. CA and HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ G.R. No. 132161
2014 (21)
October (19)
CRB vs. CA and HEIRS OF DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 132161 NATIONAL GRAINS AUTHORITY
and WILLLAM CABAL, vs. ...
January 17, 2005
FACTS: The Madrid brothers were the registered owners of Lot A situated in Isabela. G.R.No. 156437 March 1,
Said lot was subdivided into several lots. Rizal Madrid sold part of his share identified lot 2004NATIONALHOUSING
A-7 to Gamiao and Dayag by virtue of a Deed of Sale, to which his brothers offered no AUTH...
objection as evidenced by their Joint Affidavit .The deed of sale was not registered with CRB vs. CA and HEIRS OF DELA
the ORD of Isabela. However, Gamiao and Dayag declared the property in their names on CRUZ G.R. No. 132161...
a Tax Declaration. Gamiao and Dayag sold the subject southern half of lot to Teodoro
RAYMUNDO S. DE LEON,
dela Cruz, and the northern half to Hernandez. Thereupon, Teodoro dela Cruz and Petitioner, vs. BENITA T. ONG...
Hernandez took possession of and cultivated the portions of the property respectively sold
to them (Later Restituto Hernandez donated the northern half to his daughter. The G.R. No. 83432 May 20, 1991
RADIOWEALTH FINANCE CO...
children of Teodoro dela Cruz continued possession of the southern half after their
fathers death.) In a Deed of Sale the Madrid brothers conveyed all their rights and ALEJANDRO GABRIEL and
ALFREDO GABRIEL, petitioners...
interests over lot A-7 to Marquez which the former confirmed. The deed of sale was
registered with the ORD of Isabela. Subsequently, Marquez subdivided lot A-7 into eight EVY D. MACASIANO VS.
(8) lots. On the same date, Marquez and his spouse, Mercedita Mariana, mortgaged 4 lots HONORABLE ROBERTO C.
to the Consolidated Rural Bank, Inc. of Cagayan Valley (hereafter, CRB) to secure a loan. DIOKNO,M...
These deeds of real estate mortgage were registered with the ORD. As Marquez defaulted MANUEL T. GUIA VS. CA AND
in the payment of his loan, CRB caused the foreclosure of the mortgages in its favor and JOSE B. ABEJO GR NO. 12...
the lots were sold to it as the highest bidder. The Heirs-now respondents filed a case for
SARILI VS. LAGROSA G.R. No.
reconveyance and damages for the southern portion of Lot No. 7036-A (hereafter, the 193517 January 15, 20...
subject property) against Marquez and CRB. The RTC handed down a decision in favor
of Marquez. The Heirs interposed an appeal with the CA, which upheld the claim of the SPOUSES AMADO & MILAGROS
Heirs. Hence, the instant CRB petition. TINIO AND ROLANDO TINIO V...
ISSUE: WON Art. 1544 of the Civil Code (double sale) applicable in this case VILLA SI VS. GARCIA G.R. No.
HELD: NO. 190106 January 15, 2...
The petition is denied, and the decision as modified is affirmed. Like the lower court, the
SPOUSES AMADO & MILAGROS
appellate court resolved the present controversy by applying the rule on double sale TINIO AND ROLANDO TINIO V...
provided in Article 1544 of the Civil Code. They, however, arrived at different
conclusions. The RTC made CRB and the other defendants win, while the Court of FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS
Appeals decided the case in favor of the Heirs. CORP. AND BLUE STAR CONS...
Article 1544 of the Civil Code reads, thus: SOSTENES CAMPILLO VS CA GR
ART. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership No. L-56483 May 29, 19...
shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good
MANUEL T. GUIA VS. CA AND
faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership JOSE B. ABEJO GR NO. 12...
shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of
Property. GERMAN MANAGEMENT &
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith SERVICES, INC., petitioner, v...
was first in possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest batocael report
title, provided there is good faith. The provision is not applicable in the present case. It
contemplates a case of double or multiple sales by a single vendor. It cannot be invoked MARIETTA N. PORTILLO, Petitioner,
vs. RUDOLF LIET...
where the two different contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them
not being the owner of the property sold. And even if the sale was made by the same the yanga report
person, if the second sale was made when such person was no longer the owner of the
property, because it had been acquired by the first purchaser in full dominion, the second August (1)
purchaser cannot acquire any right. In the case at bar, the subject property was not July (1)
transferred to several purchasers by a single vendor. In the first deed of sale, the vendors
were Gamiao and Dayag whose right to the subject property originated from their 2012 (176)
acquisition thereof from Rizal Madrid with the conformity of all the other Madrid
brothers. On the other hand, the vendors in the other or later deed were the Madrid
brothers but at that time they were no longer the owners since they had long before
disposed of the property in favor of Gamiao and Dayag.
In a situation where not all the requisites are present which would warrant the application
of Art. 1544, the principle of prior tempore, potior jure or simply he who is first in time
is preferred in right, should apply. The only essential requisite of this rule is priority in
time; in other words, the only one who can invoke this is the first vendee. Undisputedly,
he is a purchaser in good faith because at the time he bought the real property, there was
still no sale to a second vendee. In the instant case, the sale to the Heirs by Gamiao and
Dayag, who first bought it from Rizal Madrid, was anterior to the sale by the Madrid
brothers to Marquez. The Heirs also had possessed the subject property first in time.
Thus, applying the principle, the Heirs, without a scintilla of doubt, have a superior right
to the subject property. Moreover, it is an established principle that no one can give what
one does not havenemo dat quod non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one
owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more than what the seller can
transfer legally.53 In this case, since the Madrid brothers were no longer the owners of the
subject property at the time of the sale to Marquez, the latter did not acquire any right to
it.

Balatbat v. CA
Facts:
A parcel of land was acquired by plaintiff Aurelio Roque and Maria Mesina during their conjugal union. Maria died on August 28,
1966. On June 15, 1977, Aurelio filed a case for partition. The trial court held that Aurelio is entitled to the portion at his share in

the conjugal property, and 1/5 of the other half which formed part of Marias estate, divided equally among him at his 4 children.

The decision having become final and executory, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued a transfer certificate of title on October 5,

1979 according to the ruling of the court. On April 1, 1980, Aurelio sold his 6/10 share to spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and

Jose Repuyan, as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. On June 21, 1980, Aurora caused the annotation of her affidavit of

adverse claim. On August 20, 1980, Aurelio filed a complaint for rescission of contract grounded on the buyers failure to pay the

balance of the purchase price. On February 4, 1982, another deed of absolute sale was executed between Aurelio and his

children, and herein petitioner Clara Balatbat, involving the entire lot. Balatbat filed a motion for the issuance of writ of possession,

which was granted by the court on September 20, 1982, subject to valid rights and interests of third persons. Balatbat filed a

motion to intervene in the rescission case, but did not file her complaint in intervention. The court ruled that the sale between

Aurelio and Aurora is valid.

Issues:(1) Whether the alleged sale to private respondents was merely executory(2) Whether there was double sale(3) Whether

petitioner is a buyer in good faith and for value

Held:(1) Contrary to petitioner's contention that the sale dated April 1, 1980 in favor of private respondents Repuyan was merely

executory for the reason that there was no delivery of the subject property and that consideration/price was not fully paid, we find

the sale as consummated, hence, valid and enforceable. The Court dismissed vendor's Aurelio Roque complaint for rescission of

the deed of sale and declared that the Sale dated April 1, 1980, as valid and enforceable. No appeal having been made, the

decision became final and executory.The execution of the public instrument, without actual delivery of the thing, transfers the

ownership from the vendor to the vendee, who may thereafter exercise the rights of an owner over the same. In the instant case,

vendor Roque delivered the owner's certificate of title to herein private respondent. The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity

of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of

sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public instrument. A contract of sale being consensual, it is perfected by the

mere consent of the parties. Delivery of the thing bought or payment of the price is not necessary for the perfection of the contract;

and failure of the vendee to pay the price after the execution of the contract does not make the sale null and void for lack of

consideration but results at most in default on the part of the vendee, for which the vendor may exercise his legal remedies.

(2) Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of an immovable property, ownership shall be transferred (1)

to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in

good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good

faith. In the case at bar, vendor Aurelio Roque sold 6/10 portion of his share to private respondents Repuyan on April 1, 1980.

Subsequently, the same lot was sold again by vendor Aurelio Roque (6/10) and his children (4/10), represented by the Clerk of

Court pursuant to Section 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on February 4, 1982. Undoubtedly, this is a case of double sale

contemplated under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code. Evidently, private respondents Repuyan's caused the annotation of an

adverse claim on the title of the subject property on July 21, 1980. The annotation of the adverse claim in the Registry of Property

is sufficient compliance as mandated by law and serves notice to the whole world. On the other hand, petitioner filed a notice of lis

pendens only on February 2, 1982. Accordingly, private respondents who first caused the annotation of the adverse claim in good

faith shall have a better right over herein petitioner. As between two purchasers, the one who has registered the sale in his favor,

has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable

property. Further, even in default of the first registrant or first in possession, private respondents have presented the oldest title.

Thus, private respondents who acquired the subject property in good faith and for valuable consideration established a superior

right as against the petitioner.

(3) Petitioner cannot be considered as a buyer in good faith. If petitioner did investigate before buying the land on February 4,

1982, she should have known that there was a pending case and an annotation of adverse claim was made in the title of the

property before the Register of Deeds and she could have discovered that the subject property was already sold to the private

respondents. It is incumbent upon the vendee of the property to ask for the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of the title from

the vendor. One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has

acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must be applied

to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to

acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. Good faith, or the want of it is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or

touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be judged of by actual or fancied tokens or signs.

ANAMA VS. COURT OF APPEALS

GR. No. 128609, January 29, 2004

Facts:
The property was previously owned by Douglas Anamas parents, who
mortgaged it to Philippine Savings Bank and later was foreclosed. Douglas and
the PSBank entered into an agreement denominated as a Contract to Buy
whereby the bank agreed to sell to Douglas the said land with all the
improvements thereon. The Contract to Buy provides that Anama shall purchase
the property of a certain amount and shall pay to the PSBank; it also provides that
Anama shall apply with the bank for a loan, the proceeds of which answer for the
balance of the purchase price; should the petitioner fail to comply with any of the
terms of contract, all amounts paid are forfeited in favor of PSBank, the latter
having the option either to demand full payment of total price or to rescind the
contract. Anama was able to pay the first and second installments; however, he
failed to pay the third installment when it became due. There were several
transactions between them to settle the amount due. But later, the bank executed
an Affidavit of Cancellation rescinding the contract, and forfeited the payments
made by Anama which were applied as rentals of the use of the property. Anama
was then advised to vacate the property despite his opposition to the rescission of
the Contract to Buy. The bank sold the property to spouses Co, in whose favor
TCT was issued. Anama then filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of
Sale, Cancellation of TCT,and Specific Performance with Damages.

Issue:
Whether the rescission of the Contract to Buy was valid.
Held:
Since Anama failed to pay the third installment, PSBank was entitled to
rescind the Contract to Buy. The contract provides the Bank two options in the
event that petitioner fails to pay any of the installments. This was either (1) to
rescind the contract outright and forfeit all amounts paid by the petitioner, or (2)
to demand the satisfaction of the contract and insist on the full payment of the
total price. After petitioner repeatedly failed to pay the third installment, the
Bank chose to exercise the first option.

The Contract to Buy is actually a contract to sell whereby the vendor

reserves ownership of the property and is not to pass until full payment. Such
payment is a positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a breach
but simply an event that prevents the obligation of the vendor to convey title from
acquiring binding force. Since ownership of the subject property was not pass to
petitioner until full payment of the purchase price, his failure to pay on the date
stipulated, or in the extension granted, prevented the obligation for the Bank to
pass title of the property to Anama. The bank could validly sell the property to the
spouses Co, the right of the bank to sell the property being unequivocal.
Posted by rsb at 1:24 AM

No comments:

Post a Comment

Enter your comment...

Comment as: Unknown (Google) Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Picture Window theme. Powered by Blogger.