159 Baustista v Lasam
original amount.
FACTS:
 Gabriel Lasam and brothers Felix
and Melquiades Bautista entered
into a deed of sale where the former
will sell to the latter brothers 2, 130
hectares of land.
 Felix Bautista drafted the contract,
and Mequiades who enforced it.
(Bros were practicing lawyers)
 The document, Gabriel Lasam was
not required to deliver any
document since the mention made
of the property title, issued in favor
of the seller’s cause named Jacinto
Lasam, is as follows:
o That Gabriel has acquired the
land from the late Jacinto
Lasam
o That in the event of the
registration of the title of the
late Jacinto on the land is not
sufficient for the the
registration of this deed, the
contracting parties agree to
register it in the Land
Registry.
 The land was registered was only up
to the extent of 1445 hectares or a
difference of 671 hectares from the
original.
 Despite that, the possession of the
671 hectares remained to the bros.
 Later on, Gabriel Lasam demanded
from brothers Felix and
MelquiadesBaustista to pay the
former the amount of 8k as the
unpaid balance of the stipulated
price of the property.
 The bros insisted that the land was
only 1445 hectares and not 2130;
that the amount of the 671 hectares
should be discounted from the
 The trial court ruled in favor of
Lasam.
 The bros appealed asserting that
they sent letters to Lasam about the
non-registration of the remaining
671; that the reason for the non-
registration was due to the claim of
the Land and Forestry Offices.
 Bros further asserted that Lasam
had the obligation to warranty the
eviction of the claim of the Land and
Forestry Offices; thus the bros
cannot be held in default of the
payment of the purchase price.
 CA affirmed decision of the trial
court.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether Lasam should respond to
the eviction asserted by the bros –
NO
HELD:
It is clear that to force a seller to respond to
the eviction, the ff must concur: (1) there is
final judgment, (2) the buyer has been
deprived in all or in part of the thing sold,
(3) that this deprivation was by virtue of a
right prior to the sale made by the seller,
and (4) that the seller has been previously
notified of the demand for eviction at the
request of the buyer. In this case, the 2nd
and 4th requirements were not present. The
bros was not deprived of any part of the
land since they took possession of the land
and continue to own it, despite not having
managed to register in the Registry. Also, it
has been proven that the letters sent to
Lasam were not letters notifying Lasam
about the eviction, but rather the bros’
request for an extension of time for the
payment of their remaining obli.