Sales Sat Class

7/24/2019 Sales Sat Class

1/22

G.R. No. 104482 January 22, 1996

BELINDA TAREDO, for herself and in representation of her brothers and sisters,

and TEOFILA CORPUZ TANEDO, representing her inor daughter VERNA

TANEDO, petitioners

!s.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO M. TAREDO AND TERESITABARERA TAREDO, respondents

FACTS"

1. #$tober 20, 1962" %a&ardo 'a(edo e)e$uted a notari&ed deed of absolute sale

in fa!or of his eldest brother, Ri$ardo 'a(edo, and the latter*s +ife, 'eresita

arera -pri!ate respondents +hereby he $on!eyed for /1,00 one he$tare of

his future inheritan$e fro his parents.2. ebruary 28, 1980" pon the death of his father 3atias, %a&aro ade another

ada!it to rear the 1962 sale.5. January 15, 1981" %a&aro a$no+ledged therein his re$eipt of / 10,000.00 as

$onsideration for the sale.4. ebruary 1981" Ri$ardo learned that %a&aro sold the sae property to his

$hildren -petitioners through a deed of sale dated 7e$eber 29, 1980. #n June , 1982, Ri$ardo re$orded the 7eed of ale in their fa!or in the

Registry of 7eeds

/etitioners :led a $oplaint for res$ission -plus daages of the deeds of sale

e)e$uted by %a&aro in fa!or of Ri$ardo. 'hey $ontend that %olo 3atias desired that

+hate!er inheritan$e %a&aro +ould re$ei!e fro hi should be gi!en to his

-%a&aro*s $hildren.

Ri$ardo -pri!ate respondents ho+e!er presented in e!iden$e a ;7eed of Re!o$ation

of a 7eed of ale< +herein %a&aro re!oed the sale in fa!or of his $hildren for the

reason that it +as ;siulated or :$titious = +ithout any $onsideration +hatsoe!er.?>R#* @ARB#N" Ce e)e$uted a s+orn stateent in fa!or of his $hildren. ' he

also testi:ed that he sold the property to Ri$ardo, and that it +as a la+yer +ho

indu$ed hi to e)e$ute a deed of sale in fa!or of his $hildren after gi!ing hi :!e

pesos -/.00 to buy a ;drin#

'rial $ourt ruled in fa!or of %a&aro*s $hildren. Da ared 'D*s de$ision.

ISSUES"

1. Bs the sale of a future inheritan$e !alidE N#

2. Fas Ri$ardo*s registration of the deed of !alidE A

HELD" D rules in fa!or of Ri$ardo.


2/22

/ursuant to >rt 154, the $ontra$t ade in 1962 -sale of future inheritan$e is not

!alid and $annot be the sour$e of any right nor the $reator of any obligation

bet+een the parties. -;No $ontra$t ay be entered into upon a future inheritan$e

e)$ept in $ases e)pressly authori&ed by la+.

Co+e!er, >rti$le 144 go!erns the preferential rights of !endees in $ases ofultiple sales. 'he property in Huestion is land, an io!able, and o+nership shall

belong to the buyer +ho in good faith registers it :rst in the registry of property.

'hus, although the deed of sale in fa!or of Ri$ardo +as later than the one in fa!or of

%a&aro*s $hildren, o+nership +ould !est +ith Ri$ardo be$ause of the undisputed fa$t

of registration. #n the other hand, petitioners ha!e not registered the sale to the

at all.

%a&aro*s $hildren $ontend that they +ere in possession of the property and that

Ri$ardo ne!er too possession thereof. >s bet+een t+o pur$hasers, the one +ho

registered the sale in his fa!or has a preferred right o!er the other +ho has not

registered his title, e!en if the latter is in a$tual possession of the io!able

property.

FCARA#RA, the petition is 7ANBA7 and the assailed 7e$ision of the Dourt of

>ppeals is >BR3A7.

G.R. No. 170405 Feb!"# $, $010

RA%MUNDO S. DE LEON, Pe&'&'o(e,

)*.

BENITA T. ONG. Re*+o(e(&.

a$ts"

#n 3ar$h 10, 1995, Rayundo . 7e %eon -petitioner sold 5 par$els of land to

enita '. #ng-respondent. 'he said properties +ere ortgaged to a :nan$ial

institutionI Real a!ings %oan >sso$iation Bn$. -R%>B. 'he parties then e)e$uted

a notari&ed deed of absolute sale +ith assuption of ortgage. >s indi$ated in the

deed of ortgage, the parties stipulated that the petitioner -de %eon shall e)e$ute

a deed of assuption of ortgage in fa!or of #ng -respondentafter full payent of

the /41,000. 'hey also agreed that the respondent -#ng shall assue the


3/22

ortgage. 'he respondent then subseHuently ga!e petitioner /41,000 as partial

payent. #n the other hand, de %eon handed the eys to #ng and de %eon +rote a

letter to infor R%>B that the ortgage +ill be assued by #ng. 'hereafter, the

respondent too repairs and ade ipro!eents in the properties. ubseHuently,

respondent learned that the sae properties +ere sold to a $ertain @iloria after

3ar$h 10, 1995 and $hanged the lo$s, rendering the eys gi!en to her useless.Respondent pro$eeded to R%>B but she +as infored that the ortgage has been

fully paid and that the titles ha!e been gi!en to the said person. Respondent then

:led a $oplaint for spe$i:$ perforan$e and de$laration of nullity of the se$ond

sale and daages. 'he petitioner $ontended that respondent does not ha!e a $ause

of a$tion against hi be$ause the sale +as subKe$t to a $ondition +hi$h reHuires the

appro!al of R%>B of the ortgage. /etitioner reiterated that they only entered into

a $ontra$t to sell. 'he R'D disissed the $ase. #n appeal, the D> upheld the sale to

respondent and nulli:ed the sale to @iloria. /etitioner o!ed for re$onsideration to

the D.

Bssue"

Fhether the parties entered into a $ontra$t of sale or a $ontra$t to sellE

Celd"

Bn a $ontra$t of sale, the seller $on!eys o+nership of the property to the buyer upon

the perfe$tion of the $ontra$t. 'he non=payent of the pri$e is a negati!e resolutory

$ondition. Dontra$t to sell is subKe$t to a positi!e suspensi!e $ondition. 'he buyerdoes not a$Huire o+nership of the property until he fully pays the pur$hase pri$e.Bn

the present $ase, the deed e)e$uted by the parties did not sho+ that the o+ner

intends to reser!e o+nership of the properties. 'he ters and $onditions aLe$ted

only the anner of payent and not the iediate transfer of o+nership. Bt +as

$lear that the o+ner intended a sale be$ause he unHuali:edly deli!ered and

transferred o+nership of the properties to the respondent

AGRICULTURAL & HOME EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT GROUP (AHDG) vs CA

In 1972, Diaz and Mia sold a parcel of land to Gundran. The owners duplicate copy was i!en to Gundran

"ut the sale was unreistered "ecause of e#istin notices of lis pendens on the title. Gundran and $%DG entered into a &oint !enture aree'ent for the i'pro!e'ent ( su"di!ision of the land.

This aree'ent was also not annotated. In 197), Diaz ( Mia aain sold the sa'e property to *a"autan. +y !irtue of a court order, a new owners

copy of the title was issued they supposedly lost their copy-.


4/22

The notice of lis pendens was canceled and the deed of sale was recorded. $ new T*T was issued in fa!or

of *a"autan. In 1977, Gundran issued an action for recon!eyance.

ho has a "etter riht to the property/ as *a"autan a purchaser in ood faith/

0ince the 2ndsale was reistered, the 2nd"uyer has a "etter riht to the property. *a"autan was not a

purchaser in "ad faith 'erely "ecause of the notice of lis pendens. $ purchaser in ood faith is one who "uys the property without notice that another person has an interest

in the property and pays a full and fair price for the sa'e at the ti'e of the purchase or "efore he hasnotice of the clai' or interest of so'e other person in the property.

The T*T shows no annotation of any sale, lien, encu'"rance or ad!erse clai' on the property. hen the

property is reistered under the Torrens syste', reistration is the operati!e act to con!ey or affect the

land insofar as rrd persons are concerned. $ person dealin with reistered land is only chared withnotice of the "urdens on the property which are noted on the reister or certificate of title.

!en the annotation of lis pendens on the title to the property "y rdparties does not place the "uyer

thereof in "ad faith since these did not ha!e the effect of esta"lishin a lien or encu'"rance on theproperty affected.

Their only purpose was to i!e notice to rrd persons and to the whole world that any interest they 'iht

ac3uire in the property pendin litiation would "e su"&ect to the result of the suit.

NAVERA V. CA (April 26, 1990)

FACTS:

Leocadio Navera owns a parcel of land in Albay which was inherited by his 5 children. His 3 children already have their share of the

inheritance from the other properties of Leocadio. The subject land was now owned by his 2 dauhters. An !"T was issued in the

name of #lena Navera et.al $et.al refers to his sister #duarda Navera%

&hen #lena died' his share of the land was inherited by her heirs Arsenio and (eli) Nare*. The other portion was owned by

#duarda.

#duarda sold her portion to her nephew Arsenio and then one year after to +ariano Navera. ,oth sales were made in a public

instrument but both sales were also not reistered in the -eistry of roperty.

ISSUE:

&!N the second sale of the property is valid.

HELD:

/ince the records show that both sales were not recorded in the -eistry of roperty' the law clearly vests the ownership upon the

person who in ood faith was first in possession of the disputed lot.

The possession viewed in the law includes not only the material but also the symbolic possession' which is ac0uired by the

e)ecution of a public instrument. This means that after the sale of a realty by means of a public instrument' the vendor' who resells it

to another' does not transmit anythin to the second vendee' and if the latter' by virtue of this second sale' ta1es materialpossession of the thin' he does it as mere detainer' and it would be unjust to protect this detention aainst the rihts of the thin

lawfully ac0uired by the first vendee.

n the case at bar' the prior sale of the land to respondent Arsenio Nares by means of a public instrument is clearly tantamount to a

delivery of the land resultin in the material and symbolic possession thereof by the latter.


5/22

NAA-AN COMMUNIT% RURAL BAN INC.,petitioner, vs.THE COURT OFAPPEALS "( SPOUSES ALFREDO AND ANNABELLE LUMO, respondents.

/G.R. No. 1$57. 2"(!"# 1, $003

Under the established principles of land registration, a person dealing

with registered land may generally rely on the correctness of a certicateof title and the law will in no way oblige him to go beyond it to determine

the legal status of the property.

FACTS

1. #n >pril 50, 1988, a $ertain Guillero Doayas oLered to sell to pri!ate

respondent=spouses >lfredo and >nnabelle %uo, a house and lot easuring

lo$ated at /iniitan, Daaan=an, Dagayan de #ro Dity.$. Fanting to buy said house and lot, pri!ate respondents ade inHuiries at the

#$e of the Register of 7eeds of Dagayan de #ro Dity +here the property is

lo$ated and the ureau of %ands on the legal status of the !endor*s title . Te#6o!( o!& &"& &e +o+e "* 8o&9"9e 6o P,000 &o " :e&"'( M*.

G";!+o "( &"& &e o(elfredo %uo*s '7 O 85524 bore the note" ;'his

lot is also de$lared in the nae of Naa+an Dounity Rural an Bn$. under '7

O 1210pparently, on ebruary , 1985, G!';;e8o Co8"#"* ob&"'(e " P15,000

;o"( 6o8 +e&'&'o(e B"( !*'(9 &e *!b@e:& +o+e "* *e:!'. >t

the tie said $ontra$t of ortgage +as entered into, the subKe$t property


6/22

+as then an unregistered par$el of residential land, ta)=de$lared in the nae

of a $ertain ergio >. alibay +hile the residential one=storey house +as ta)=

de$lared in the nae of Doayas. alibay e)e$uted a spe$ial po+er of attorney authori&ing Doayas to borro+

oney and use the subKe$t lot as se$urity. B!& &e Dee o6 Re"; E*&"&e

Mo&9"9e "( &e S+e:'"; Poe o6 A&&o(e# ee e:oe '( &ee9'*&"&'o( boo o6 &e Po)'(:e o6 M'*"8'* O'e(&";, (o& '( &e

e9'*&"&'o( boo o6 C"9"#"( e Oo C'. Bt appears that, +hen the registration +as ade, there +as only one Register

of 7eeds for the entire pro!in$e of 3isais #riental, in$luding Dagayan de

#ro Dity. Bt +as only in 198 +hen the #$e of the Register of 7eeds for

Dagayan de #ro Dity +as established separately fro the #$e of the

Register of 7eeds for the /ro!in$e of 3isais #riental or failure of Doayas to pay, the real estate ortgage +as fore$losed and

the subKe$t property sold at a publi$ au$tion to the ortgagee Naa+an

Dounity Rural an as the highest bidder in the aount of /16,051.5.

3ean+hile, on epteber , 1986, the period for redeption of the

fore$losed subKe$t property lapsed and the 3'DD 7eputy heriL of Dagayan

de #ro Dity issued and deli!ered to petitioner ban the sheriL*s deed of :nal

$on!eyan$e. 'his tie, the deed +as registered under >$t 5544 and

re$orded in the registration boo of the Register of 7eeds of Dagayan de #ro

Dity. y !irtue of said deed, petitioner an obtained a ta) de$laration for the

subKe$t house and lot.8. 'hereafter, petitioner an instituted an a$tion for eKe$tent against Doayas

before the 3'DD +hi$h de$ided in its fa!or. #n appeal, the Regional 'rial Dourt

ared the de$ision of the 3'DD in a de$ision dated >pril 15, 1988.9. #n January 2, 1989, the Regional 'rial Dourt issued an order for the issuan$e of

a +rit of e)e$ution of its Kudgent. 'he 3'DD, being the $ourt of origin,

proptly issued said +rit.10.Co+e!er, +hen &e '& "* *e)e, &e +o+e "* (o ;o(9e o::!+'e

b# Co8"#"* b!& ee'( +')"&e e*+o(e(&*, &e *+o!*e* L!8o+ho had,

as earlier entioned, bought it fro Doayas on 3ay 1, 198811.>lared by the prospe$t of being eKe$ted fro their hoe, pri!ate respondents

:led an a$tion for !'e&'(9 o6 &'&;e. >fter trial, the Regional 'rial Dourt rendered

a de$ision de$laring pri!ate respondents as pur$hasers for !alue and in good

faith, and $onseHuently de$laring the as the absolute o+ners and possessors

of the subKe$t house and lot.

ISSUE

1. FCA'CAR #R N#' RAGB'R>'B#N # CARB* 7AA7 # BN>% D#N@A>NDA

BN 'CA /R#/AR RAGB'R # 7AA7 B 3#RA /ARB#R 'C>N 'CA '#RRAN

'B'%AE N#.


7/22

2. FCA'CAR #R N#' /RB@>'A RA/#N7AN' D#%7 A D#NB7ARA7 >

AR BN G##7 >B'CE A.

HELD

/etitioner ban $ontends that the earlier registration of the sheriL*s deed of :nal

$on!eyan$e in the day boo under >$t 5544 should pre!ail o!er the later

registration of pri!ate respondents* deed of absolute sale under >$t 496, as

aended by the /roperty Registration 7e$ree, /7 129.

1. 'his $ontention has no leg to stand on.2. Bt has been held that, +here a person $lais to ha!e superior proprietary rights

o!er another on the ground that he deri!ed his title fro a sheriL*s sale

registered in the Registry of /roperty, >rti$le 145 -no+ >rti$le 144 of the Di!il

Dode ';; "++;# o(;# '6 *"' ee:!&'o( *";e o6 e"; e*&"&e '* e9'*&ee

!(e A:& 4?.5. nfortunately, &e *!b@e:& +o+e "* *&';; !(&'&;e e( '& "*

":!'e b# +e&'&'o(e b"( b# )'&!e o6 " =("; ee o6 :o()e#"(:e. O(

&e o&e "(, e( +')"&e e*+o(e(&* +!:"*e &e *"8e

+o+e, '& "* ";e"# :o)ee b# &e Toe(* S#*&e8.

/etitioner also relies on the $ase of Bautista vs. Fule+here the Dourt ruled that the

registration of an instruent in!ol!ing unregistered land in the Registry of 7eeds

$reates $onstru$ti!e noti$e and binds third person +ho ay subseHuently deal +ith

the sae property.

4. Co+e!er, a $lose s$rutiny of the re$ords re!eals that, at the &'8e o6 &e

ee:!&'o( "( e;')e# o6 &e *e'pril 1, 1984, the subKe$t property +as already under the operation

of the 'orrens yste. U(e &e *"' *#*&e8, e9'*&"&'o( '* &e

o+e"&')e ":& &"& 9')e* )";'' &o &e &"(*6e o :e"&e* " ;'e( !+o(

&e ;"(.6. 3oreo!er, the issuan$e of a $erti:$ate of title had the eLe$t of relie!ing the land

of all $lais e)$ept those noted thereon.7. A::o'(9;#, +')"&e e*+o(e(&*, '( e";'(9 '& &e *!b@e:& e9'*&ee

;"(, ee (o& e!'e b# ;" &o 9o be#o( &e e9'*&e &o e&e8'(e

&e ;e9"; :o('&'o( o6 &e +o+e. Te# ee o(;# :"9e '& (o&':e

o6 *!: b!e(* o( &e +o+e "* ee (o&e o( &e e9'*&e o &e

:e&'=:"&e o6 &'&;e. To ")e e!'e &e8 &o o 8oe o!; ")e bee(

&o e6e"& &e +'8"# ob@e:& o6 &e Toe(* S#*&e8 ': '* &o 8"e &e

Toe(* T'&;e '(e6e"*'b;e "( )";' "9"'(*& &e o;e o;.


8/22

. 3ere registration of title in $ase of double sale is not enoughI good faith ust

$on$ur +ith the registration.

/etitioner $ontends that the due and proper registration of the sheriL*s deed of :nal

$on!eyan$e on 7e$eber 2, 1986 aounted to $onstru$ti!e noti$e to pri!ate

respondents. 'hus, +hen pri!ate respondents bought the subKe$t property on 3ay1, 1988, they +ere deeed to ha!e pur$hased the said property +ith the

no+ledge that it +as already registered in the nae of petitioner ban.

1. Te +'o' '( &'8e +'(:'+;e be'(9 '()oe b# +e&'&'o(e b"( '*

8'*+;":e be:"!*e '&* e9'*&"&'o( e6ee &o ;"( (o& '&'( &e

Toe(* S#*&e8but under >$t 5544.2. #n the other hand, +hen pri!ate respondents bought the subKe$t property, the

sae +as already registered under the 'orrens yste. Bt is a +ell=no+n rule in

this Kurisdi$tion that persons dealing +ith registered land ha!e the legal right to

rely on the fa$e of the 'orrens Derti:$ate of 'itle and to dispense +ith the need

to inHuire further, e)$ept +hen the party $on$erned has a$tual no+ledge offa$ts and $ir$ustan$es that +ould ipel a reasonably $autious an to ae

su$h inHuiry.5. /ri!ate respondents e)er$ise the reHuired diligen$e in as$ertaining the legal

$ondition of the title to the subKe$t property so as to be $onsidered as inno$ent

pur$hasers for !alue and in good faith efore pri!ate respondents bought the subKe$t property fro Guillero

Doayas, inHuiries +ere ade +ith the Registry of 7eeds and the ureau of

%ands regarding the status of the !endor*s title. No liens or en$ubran$es

+ere found to ha!e been annotated on the $erti:$ate of title. Neither +ere

pri!ate respondents a+are of any ad!erse $lai or lien on the property other

than the ad!erse $lai of a $ertain Gene!a Galupo to +ho GuilleroDoayas had ortgaged the subKe$t property. ut, as already entioned,

the $lai of Galupo +as e!entually settled and the ad!erse $lai pre!iously

annotated on the title $an$elled. 'hus, ha!ing ade the ne$essary inHuiries,

pri!ate respondents did not ha!e to go beyond the $erti:$ate of

title. #ther+ise, the e$a$y and $on$lusi!eness of the 'orrens Derti:$ate of

'itle +ould be rendered futile and nugatory.

Donsidering therefore that pri!ate respondents e)er$ised the diligen$e reHuired by

la+ in as$ertaining the legal status of the 'orrens title of Guillero Doayas o!er

the subKe$t property and found no Ma+s therein, they should be $onsidered as

inno$ent pur$hasers for !alue and in good faith.

>$$ordingly, the appealed Kudgent of the appellate $ourt upholding pri!ate

respondents >lfredo and >nnabelle %uo as the true and rightful o+ners of the

disputed property is ared.


9/22

CARRUMBA vs. CA

1. 0pouses $'ado *anuto older "rother of +enita- and 4e'esia I"asco "y !irtue of a Deed of 0ale of5nreistered 6and with *o!enants of arranty sold a parcel of land, partly residential, partly coconut landto spouses $'ado *aru'"a and +enita *anuto. The referred deed of sale was ne!er reistered and the

notary pu"lic was not then authorized.2. $ co'plaint was filed "y 0antiao +al"uena aainst $'ado *anuto and I"asco. *I rendered decision infa!or of the +al"uena and sheriff issued a definite deed of sale to hi' which was reistered.

. *I findin after e#ecution of the docu'ent *aru'"a had ta8en possession of the land, plantin fruits and!eeta"les, declared hi' to "e the owner under a consu''ated sale and held !oid the e#ecution of le!y'ade "y the sheriff and nullified sale in fa!or of +al"uena.

. *$: Dou"le sale. +ut +al"uenas title was superior to that of his ad!ersary since he was the first to reister

and he was in ood faith.

%6D:

*ourt disarees.

1. 1; not applica"le.


10/22

!endor was not any'ore the owner of the land ha!in pre!iously sold the sa'e to so'e"ody else, e!en if the first

sale was unrecorded. In the pre!ious case of *aru'"a ! *$, it was held that the purchaser of an unreistered land

at an e#ecution sale only steps into the shoes of the &ud'ent de"tor, and 'erely ac3uires the latters interest in

the property sold as of the ti'e the property was le!ied upon. $pplyin this, =adiowealth 'erely ac3uired *astros

interest in the land which, since he had already sold the sa'e to AP (*+?@)

- =osenda de 4u3ui widow of deceased 0otero Dionisio- and her son 0otero sold three parcels

of land in fa!or of ap. Included the sale were also "uildins on the land as well as la"


11/22

e3uip'ent, "oo8s, furniture and other fi#tures used "y two schools esta"lished on theproperties the Mindanao $cade'y and the Misa'is $cade'y-. The price was


12/22

eters as e!iden$ed by a deed of sale,+hi$h +as e)e$uted on #$tober 28, 191 by Drispina

/ere& de >Huitania, one of the $o=o+ners, in her fa!or.

#n the other hand, the defendant, +ho on 7e$eber 50, 199 a$Huired the other 25

portion of %ot No. 802 fro Drispina >Huitania and her $hildren, $laied that the plaintiL

bought the 15 southeastern portion, +hi$h is de:nitely identi:ed and segregated, hen$e

there e)isted no $o=o+nership at the tie and after said plaintiL bought the aforesaid

portion, upon +hi$h right of legal redeption $an be e)er$ised or taen ad!antage of.

AstoHue*s stand is that the deed in her fa!or +as inoperati!e to $on!ey the

southeastern third of %ot 802 of the Rosario Dadastre not+ithstanding the des$ription in the

deed itself, for the reason that the !endor, being a ere $o=o+ner, had no right to sell any

de:nite portion of the land held in $oon but $ould only transit her undi!ided share,

sin$e the spe$i:$ portion $orresponding to the selling $o=o+ner is not no+n until partition

taes pla$e -%ope& !s. Blustre, /hil. 6I Raire& !s. autista, 14 /hil. 28. ro this

preise, the appellant argues that the sale in her fa!or, although des$ribing a de:nite area,

should be $onstrued as ha!ing $on!eyed only the undi!ided 15 interest in %ot 802 o+ned at

the tie by the !endor, Drispina /ere& @da. de >Huitania. Fherefore, +hen the ne)t day said!endor a$Huired the 25 interest of her t+o other $o=o+ners, %ot 802 be$ae the $oon

property of appellant and Drispina /ere&. 'herefore, appellant argues, +hen Drispina sold the

rest of the property to appellee /aKiula spouses, the forer +as selling an undi!ided 25

that appellant, as $o=o+ner, +as entitled to redee, pursuant to >rti$le 1620 of the Ne+

Di!il Dode.

>R'. 1620. > $o=o+ner of a thing ay e)er$ise the right of redeption in $ase the

shares of all the other $o=o+ners or of any of the, are sold to a third person. Bf the pri$e of

the alienation is grossly e)$essi!e the redeptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.

hould t+o or ore $o=o+ners desire to e)er$ise the right of redeption, they ayonly do so in proportion to the share they ay respe$ti!ely ha!e in the thing o+ned in

$oon.

'he lo+er $ourt, upon otion of defendant, disissed the $oplaint, holding that the

deeds of sale sho+ that the lot a$Huired by plaintiL AstoHue +as diLerent fro that of the

defendants /aKiulaI hen$e they ne!er be$ae $o=o+ners, and the alleged right of legal

redeption +as not proper. AstoHue appealed.

ISSUE

F#N right of redeption $an be e)er$ised by AstoHueE

HELD

N#. >ppellant AstoHue be$ae the a$tual o+ner of the southeastern third of lot 802

on #$tober 29, 191. Fherefore, she ne!er a$Huired an undi!ided interest in lot 802. >nd

+hen eight years later Drispina /ere& sold to the appellees /aKiula the westernt+o=thirds


13/22

of the sae lot, appellant did not a$Huire a right to redee the property thus sold, sin$e

their respe$ti!e portions +ere distin$t and separate.

-1 'he deed of sale to AstoHue ->nne) > of the $oplaint $learly spe$i:es the obKe$t sold

as the southeastern third portion of %ot 802 of the Rosario Dadastre, +ith an area of 840

sHuare eters, ore or less. Granting that the seller, Drispina /ere& @da. de >Huitania $ould

not ha!e sold this parti$ular portion of the lot o+ned in $oon by her and her t+o

brothers, %oren&o and Ri$ardo /ere&, by no eans does it follo+ that she intended to sell to

appellant AstoHue her 15 undi!ided interest in the lot foreentioned. 'here is nothing in the

deed of sale to Kustify su$h inferen$e. 'hat the seller $ould ha!e !alidly sold her one=third

undi!ided interest to appellant is no proof that she did $hoose to sell the sae. .

-2 Fhile on the date of the sale to AstoHue ->nne) > said $ontra$t ay ha!e been

ineLe$ti!e, for la$ of po+er in the !endor to sell the spe$i:$ portion des$ribed in the deed,

the transa$tion +as !alidated and be$ae fully eLe$ti!e +hen the ne)t day -#$tober 29,

191 the !endor, Drispina /ere&, a$Huired the entire interest of her reaining $o=o+ners

->nne) and thereby be$ae the sole o+ner of %ot No. 802 of the Rosario Dadastral sur!ey

-%la$er !s. 3u(o&, 12 /hil. 528. >rti$le 1454 of the Di!il Dode of the /hilippines $learlypres$ribes that P .

Fhen a person +ho is not the o+ner of a thing sells or alienates and deli!ers it, and

later the seller or grantor a$Huires title thereto, su$h title passes by operation of la+

to the buyer or grantee.Q

D> de$ision ared

Almendra vs. IAC G.R. No. 75111 November 21, 1991

Facts:

During the two marriages of Aleja, she and her respective husbands acquired parcels of land. The

lands from the first marriage were duly partitioned. After the death of her second husband, Aleja sold

to her son Roman, and daughter Angeles, parcels of land. After Alejas death, her other children filed

a complaint against Roman & Angeles for the annulment of the deeds of sale in their favor executed

by Aleja; and to partition the properties. Among the questioned sales was the one executed in favor

of Angeles which is a half portion of the conjugal property of Aleja and her 2ndhusband, the hilly

portion was specifically marked in a sketch.

Issue: WON Aleja may validly sell a one half portion of a conjugal property, the hilly portion of which

had been specifically marked in a sketch.

Held: Yes, she may validly sell one-half portion of a lot, the hilly portion of which had been

specifically identified/marked in a sketch, but there must be proof that the conjugal property had


14/22

been partitioned after the death of the 2ndhusband. Otherwise, the sale may be considered valid only

as Alejas one halfinteresttherein.

Aleja could not have sold particular hilly portion specified in the deed of sale in absence of proof that

the conjugal partnership property had been partitioned after the death of Santiago. Before such

partition, Aleja could not claim title to any definite portion of the property for all she had was an idealor abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire property.

REPUBLIC VS. HEIRS OF FRANCISCA DIGNOS>SORONO

G.R. No. 171571

M": $4, $00

FACTS 2 were adjudicated by the then Court of First Instance of Cebu in favor of the following

in four equal shares:

a) Francisca Dignos, married to las !orono " share in the two lots#

b) T'&o D'9(o*J *"e '( &e &o ;o&*K

c) $redecessors%in%interest of the res$ondents " share in the two lots#

and

d) $redecessors%in%interest of the res$ondents " share in the two lots

It a$$ears that the two lots were not $artitioned by the adjudicatees&

It a$$ears further that the heirs of 'ito Dignos, who was awarded " share in the two lots, sold

the e(&'e &o ;o&*to the then Civil (eronautics (dministration C(() via a $ublic

instrument entitled *+trajudicial !ettlement and !ale* without the -nowledge of res$ondents

whose $redecessors%in%interest were the adjudicatees of the rest of the . $ortion of the two

lots&


15/22

In /001, C((s successor%in%interest, the actan Cebu International (ir$ort (uthority CI((),

erected a security fence one of the lot and relocated a number of families, who had built their

dwellings within the air$ort $erimeter, to a $ortion of said lot to enhance air$ort security&

CI(( later caused the issuance in its name of a 'a Declarations of the 2 lots&

3es$ondents soon as-ed the agents of CI(( to cease giving third $ersons $ermission to

occu$y the lots but the same was ignored&

3es$ondents thereu$on filed a Com$laint for 4uieting of 'itle, 5egal 3edem$tion with 6rayer

for a 7rit of 6reliminary Injunction against CI(( before the 3'C of 5a$u%la$u City&

3es$ondents further alleged that neither they nor their $redecessors%in%interests sold, alienated

or dis$osed of their shares in the lots of which they have been in continuous $eaceful $ossession&

3es$ondents furthermore alleged that neither $etitioner nor its $redecessor%in%interest had

given them any written notice of its acquisition of the " share of 'ito Dignos&

'he 3e$ublic, re$resented by the CI(( in its (nswer with Counterclaim, maintained that from

the time the lots were sold to its $redecessor%in%interest C((, it has been in o$en, continuous,

eclusive, and notorious $ossession thereof# through acquisitive $rescri$tion, it had acquired

valid title to the lots since it was a $urchaser in good faith and for value# and

assuming arguendothat it did not have just title, it had, by $ossession for over 89 years,

acquired ownershi$ thereof by etraordinary $rescri$tion& (t all events, $etitioner contended

that res$ondents action was barred by esto$$el and laches&

'he trial court found for res$ondents& the C( affirmed the trial courts decision& ;ence, the

$resent $etition for review on certiorari


16/22

ISSUE

/& 7


17/22

sale or other dis$osition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what

would corres$ond to his grantor in the $artition of the thing owned in common&

From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a co%owner is entitled to sell his undivided

share, a sale of the entire $ro$erty by one co%owner without the consent of the other co%owners

is =o(e>*e;;e "e

&"(*6ee, &eeb# 8"'(9 &e b!#e " :o>o(e o6 &e +o+e &

6etitioners $redecessor%in%interest C(( thus acquired only the rights $ertaining to the sellers%

heirs of 'ito Dignos, which is only " undivided share of the two lots&

2& =


18/22

NOTES

(s for $etitioners argument that the redem$tion $rice should be " of the $revailing mar-et

value, not of the actual $urchase $rice, since, so it claims, /) the res$ondents received just

com$ensation for the $ro$erty at the time it was $urchased by the ?overnment# and, 2) the

$ro$erty, due to im$rovements introduced by $etitioner in its vicinity, is now worth several

hundreds of millions of $esos, the law is not on its side&

'hus, (rticle /9@@ of the Civil Code $rovides:

!hould any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the $artition, any or all of

the co%heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the $urchaserb# e'8b!*'(9 '8 6o &e

+':e o6 &e *";e,$rovided they do so within the $eriod of one month from the time they

were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor& 'he Court may ta-e judicial notice of the

increase in value of the lots&

(s mentioned earlier, however, the heirs of 'ito Dignos did (o& notify res$ondents about the

sale& (t any rate, since the +trajudicial !ettlement and !ale sti$ulates, thus:

'hat the ;+I3!%A+=D


19/22

6etitioner is not without any remedy& 'his decision is, therefore, without $rejudice to $etitioners

right to see- redress against the vendors%heirs of 'ito Dignos and their successors%in%interest&

Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla

G.R. No. 151334

Topic: Partition of inherited property (intestate) originally belonging to CPG but was not immediately

liquidated and delivered to heirs upon death of one of the spouses.

Date:February 13 !"13

Petitioners:C#$%&'# (C#$&'#) *#. *+ F'G,$#C'% -+'$ %F +&+# F'G,$#C'%/

#C-+0# namely &+%C'% #C-+0# 2$. and $%,&% #C-+0# -+'$ %F -'$'# #.

F'G,$#C'% namely F+&'P# F'G,$#C'%/#,+& #$4 F'G,$#C'%/G'+5 and

+'&'# F'G,$#C'%/G+$'& #* -+'$ %F 6,'0' F'G,$#C'% namely &'*# .

F'G,$#C'% &+#*$% . F'G,$#C'% '' and #& . F'G,$#C'%

Respondents:+'&'# F'G,$#C'%/G+$'&

FAT!:

Petition

Petition for $eview on Certiorari under $ule 78 of the $ules of Court assailing the*e9ision dated *e9ember 11 !""1 of the Court of #ppeals (C#) whi9h reversed and set aside the

*e9ision dated 2une !: 1;;< of the $egional 0rial Court ($0C) of ,rdaneta Pangasinan =ran9h

7;.

0he $0C de9ision

1. *ismissed respondent +milia Figura9ion/Gerilla>s (+milia) 9omplaint for partition

annulment of do9uments re9onveyan9e quieting of title and damages and

!. #nnulled theAffidavit of Self-Adjudication e?e9uted by petitioner Carolina (Carlina)

da. *e Figura9ion (Carolina).

Antecedent Facts

0he parties are the heirs of &eandro Figura9ion (&eandro) who died intestate in ay 1;8@.

ubAe9t of the dispute are two par9els of land both situated in ,rdaneta Pangasinan whi9h were

a9quired by &eandro during his lifetime. 0hese properties were (1) &ot o. !!;; and (!) &ot o.


20/22

%n *e9ember 11 1;:! petitioner Carolina e?e9uted anAffidavit of Self-Adjudication

adAudi9ating unto herself the entire &ot o. s ruling that a partition of &ot os. !!;; and


21/22

$espondent +milia 9ontends that theDeed of Quitclaim should be 9onsidered an onerous

donation that requires no a99eptan9e as it is governed by the rules on 9ontra9ts and not by the

formalities for a simple donation.

"!!#$:

D the de9ision rendered by the C# is 9ontrary to law and e?isting Aurisprudential di9ta laid

down by the honorable C.

%$&D'RAT"(:

No) A co**itted no reversi+le error in ,olding t,at t,e respondent is entitled to ,ave &ot No.

partitioned. T,e A /udg*ent *ust) ,o0ever) +e *odiied to conor* to t,e +elo0-

discussed apportion*ent o t,e lot a*ong arolina) %ilaria) Felipa and $*ilia.

"ssues not raised +eore t,e courts a quo cannot +e raised or t,e irst ti*e in a petition iled

under Rule 45o 0he Court finds that the issues on the supposed defe9ts and a9tual nature of the Deed of

Quitclaim are questions of fa9t. 't is settled that questions of fa9t are beyond the provin9e

of a $ule 78 petition sin9e the Court is not a trier of fa9ts

T,e respondent can co*pel t,e partition o &ot No.

o 0he first stage in an a9tion for partition is the settlement of the issue of ownership.

o 0he respondent tra9es her ownership over the eastern half of &ot o. s rights to the other

half in turn were transmitted to her legitimate 9hild #gripina and surviving spouse

+ulalio.

o hen he remarried +ulalio>s one half portion of the lot representing his share in the

9onAugal partnership and his usufru9tuary right over the other half were brought into his

se9ond marriage with Faustina.


22/22

o hen +ulalio died on 2uly !" 1;3" H portion of the lot was reserved for Faustina as her

share in the 9onAugal partnership. 0he remaining H were transmitted equally to the

widow Faustina and +ulalio>s 9hildren Carolina and #gripina.

o ,pon the death of Faustina the shares in &ot o. s entire 8D@ share thereof

the remaining 1D@ portion shall be inherited by #gripina>s nearest 9ollateral relative who

re9ords show is her sister Carolina.

Final Ruling:

o 0he petition is *+'+*. 0he *e9ision of the Court of #ppeals in dated *e9ember 11

!""1 is #FF'$+* with %*'F'C#0'% as follows

3D@ portion of &ot o.

Sales Sat Class

Documents