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 transactions were recorded in notarial
instruments.
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. 