Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 273 views

    Santiago VS Villamor

    Uploaded by

    Ronnel Serato Cuesta
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 4.5-hectare coconut land in Masbate that was mortgaged, foreclosed, and sold through public auction. [1] The respondents paid the bank in installments to acquire the land, but the bank issued a deed of sale to the original owners instead. [2] The original owners then sold the land to the petitioners. [3] However, the respondents had actual possession of the land. The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the petitioners did not have constructive delivery or valid title since the respondents had actual possession, not the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Santiago VS Villamor

    Uploaded by

    Ronnel Serato Cuesta
    273 views4 pages
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 4.5-hectare coconut land in Masbate that was mortgaged, foreclosed, and sold through public auction. [1] The respondents paid the bank in installments to acquire the land, but the bank issued a deed of sale to the original owners instead. [2] The original owners then sold the land to the petitioners. [3] However, the respondents had actual possession of the land. The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the petitioners did not have constructive delivery or valid title since the respondents had actual possession, not the petitioners.

    Original Description:

    SALES

    Original Title

    SANTIAGO VS VILLAMOR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 4.5-hectare coconut land in Masbate that was mortgaged, foreclosed, and sold through public auction. [1] The respondents paid the bank in installments to acquire the land, but the bank issued a deed of sale to the original owners instead. [2] The original owners then sold the land to the petitioners. [3] However, the respondents had actual possession of the land. The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the petitioners did not have constructive delivery or valid title since the respondents had actual possession, not the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    273 views4 pages

    Santiago VS Villamor

    Uploaded by

    Ronnel Serato Cuesta
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 4.5-hectare coconut land in Masbate that was mortgaged, foreclosed, and sold through public auction. [1] The respondents paid the bank in installments to acquire the land, but the bank issued a deed of sale to the original owners instead. [2] The original owners then sold the land to the petitioners. [3] However, the respondents had actual possession of the land. The Court ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the petitioners did not have constructive delivery or valid title since the respondents had actual possession, not the petitioners.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    University of Mindanao - College of Legal Education

    SALES
    Case Name SANTIAGO VS VILLAMOR

    Docket Number | G.R. No. 168499 November 26, 2012


    Date

    Ponente BRION, J

    Petitioners SPOUSES EROSTO SANTIAGO and NELSIE SANTIAGO

    Respondents MANCER VILLAMOR, CARLOS VILLAMOR, JOHN VILLAMOR


    and DOMINGO VILLAMOR, JR.

    Case summary

    Doctrine Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the "ownership of
    the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual
    or constructive delivery thereof."

    Article 1497 which provides that "the thing sold shall be


    understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and
    possession of the vendee."

    Trigger Delivery
    words/Phrase

    Relevant Facts

    Spouses Villamor, Sr., the parents of respondents and the grandparents of respondent
    John Villamor, mortgaged their 4.5-hectare coconut land in Sta. Rosa, San Jacinto,
    Masbate, known as Lot No. 1814, to the Rural Bank of San Jacinto, Inc. as security for
    a P10,000.00 loan.

    San Jacinto Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage for non-payment and
    bought the land through public auction. The spouses Villamor, Sr. failed to redeem the
    property and the San Jacinto Bank acquired the same in 1991. The San Jacinto Bank
    then offered the land for sale to any interested buyer.

    Respondents, together with his sister Catalina are in actual possession and
    cultivation of the land. They decided to acquire the land from the bank by paying in four
    monthly installments. However, the bank refused to issue a deed of reconveyance
    prompting the respondent to file a civil case for specific performance with damages.

    The San Jacinto Bank claimed that it already issued a deed of repurchase in
    favor of the spouses Villamor, Sr.; the payments made by the respondents and Catalina
    were credited to the account of Domingo, Sr. since the real buyers of the land were the
    spouses Villamor, Sr.
    RTC ruled that the issuance of the deed of registration of San Jacinto Bank to
    Spouses Villamor was done in good faith.

    CA reversed RTC ruling saying that the children Villamor spouses did not act as
    representatives of their parents.

    On July 19, 1994 (or prior to the filing of the respondents and Catalina’s
    complaint for specific performance), the San Jacinto Bank issued a deed of sale in favor
    of Domingo, Sr. On July 21, 1994, the spouses Villamor, Sr. sold the land to the
    Spouses Santiago for P150,000.00.

    RTC rules that spouses Santiago were purchasers in good faith, hence they are
    the legal owners.

    CA rule that the action for quieting the title cannot prosper for they have no legal
    or equitable title over the land.

    PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
    The petitioners argue that the The respondents and respondent
    spouses Villamor, Sr.’s execution of the John submit that they hold legal title to
    July 21, 1994 deed of sale in the the land since they perfected the sale
    petitioners’ favor was equivalent to with the San Jacinto Bank as early as
    delivery of the land under Article 1498 of November 4, 1991, the first installment
    the Civil Code; the petitioners are payment, and are in actual possession of
    purchasers in good faith since they had the land; the petitioners are not
    no knowledge of the supposed purchasers in good faith since they failed
    transaction between the San Jacinto to ascertain why the respondents were in
    Bank and the respondents and Catalina; possession of the land.
    and the respondents and Catalina’s
    possession of the land should not be
    construed against them (petitioners)
    since, by tradition and practice in San
    Jacinto, Masbate, the children use their
    parents’ property.

    Ratio Decidendi

    [LAW] 
    Whether or not the CA
    committed a reversible error Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the
    when it set aside the RTC removal of any cloud, doubt or uncertainty affecting
    decision and dismissed the title to real property. The plaintiffs must show not
    petitioners’ complaint for only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over
    quieting of title and recovery of the subject real property, but that they have a valid
    possession. title to it. Worth stressing, in civil cases, the plaintiff
    must establish his cause of action by
    Ans: NO.  preponderance of evidence; otherwise, his suit will
    not prosper.

    Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the


    "ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to
    the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery
    thereof." Related to this article is Article 1497 which
    provides that "the thing sold shall be understood as
    delivered, when it is placed in the control and
    possession of the vendee."

    With respect to incorporeal property, Article 1498 of


    the Civil Code lays down the general rule: the
    execution of a public instrument "shall be
    equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the
    object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary
    does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred."
    However, the execution of a public instrument gives
    rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery,
    which is negated by the failure of the vendee to
    take actual possession of the land sold.  "A person
    who does not have actual possession of the thing
    sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the
    execution and delivery of a public instrument."

    [APPLICATION]

    Execution of the deed of sale only a prima facie


    presumption of delivery.

    In this case, no constructive delivery of the land


    transpired upon the execution of the deed of sale
    since it was not the spouses Villamor, Sr. but the
    respondents who had actual possession of the
    land. The presumption of constructive delivery is
    inapplicable and must yield to the reality that the
    petitioners were not placed in possession and
    control of the land.

    Ruling

    Since the specific performance case already settled the respondents and
    respondent John's claim over the disputed land, the dispositive portion of the CA
    decision (dismissing the complaint without prejudice to the outcome of the specific
    performance case29 ) is modified to reflect this fact; we thus dismiss for lack of merit the
    complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession.

    You might also like