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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    VILLARTA V. CA (May 29, 1987) : Facts

    Uploaded by

    DiorVelasquez
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between petitioner Carbonell and respondents Poncio and Infante. Carbonell purchased the land from Poncio on January 27, 1955, and recorded an adverse claim on February 8, 1955 after learning Poncio had sold the same land to Infante. Infante registered her deed of sale on February 12, 1955. The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of Carbonell but later reversed its decision. The Supreme Court held that based on Article 1544 of the Civil Code, Carbonell had superior right as the first purchaser in good faith who recorded her claim, while Infante acted in bad faith by registering after learning of Carbonell's prior purchase.

    Copyright:

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

    VILLARTA V. CA (May 29, 1987) : Facts

    Uploaded by

    DiorVelasquez
    15 views4 pages
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between petitioner Carbonell and respondents Poncio and Infante. Carbonell purchased the land from Poncio on January 27, 1955, and recorded an adverse claim on February 8, 1955 after learning Poncio had sold the same land to Infante. Infante registered her deed of sale on February 12, 1955. The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of Carbonell but later reversed its decision. The Supreme Court held that based on Article 1544 of the Civil Code, Carbonell had superior right as the first purchaser in good faith who recorded her claim, while Infante acted in bad faith by registering after learning of Carbonell's prior purchase.

    Original Description:

    update

    Original Title

    Monday

    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 parcel of land between petitioner Carbonell and respondents Poncio and Infante. Carbonell purchased the land from Poncio on January 27, 1955, and recorded an adverse claim on February 8, 1955 after learning Poncio had sold the same land to Infante. Infante registered her deed of sale on February 12, 1955. The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of Carbonell but later reversed its decision. The Supreme Court held that based on Article 1544 of the Civil Code, Carbonell had superior right as the first purchaser in good faith who recorded her claim, while Infante acted in bad faith by registering after learning of Carbonell's prior purchase.

    Copyright:

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

    VILLARTA V. CA (May 29, 1987) : Facts

    Uploaded by

    DiorVelasquez
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between petitioner Carbonell and respondents Poncio and Infante. Carbonell purchased the land from Poncio on January 27, 1955, and recorded an adverse claim on February 8, 1955 after learning Poncio had sold the same land to Infante. Infante registered her deed of sale on February 12, 1955. The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of Carbonell but later reversed its decision. The Supreme Court held that based on Article 1544 of the Civil Code, Carbonell had superior right as the first purchaser in good faith who recorded her claim, while Infante acted in bad faith by registering after learning of Carbonell's prior purchase.

    Copyright:

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

    Monday, October 4, 2010

    VILLARTA V. CA (May 29, 1987)


    FACTS:
    Respondent Rosalinda Cruz entrusted to petitioner Victoria Villarta seven pieces of jewelry on November
    1968. On December of the same year, Villarta exchanges one jewelry to another and issued a post-dated
    check in favor of Cruz. Cruz deposited the check but it was dishonored for lack of funds.
    An estafa case was filed against Villarta but she argued that she can only be civilly liable because even
    though the check bounced, she only gave it for a pre-existing obligation. She contends a person cannot
    be imprisoned for non-payment of debt.
    ISSUE:
    WON the transaction is a sale or return
    HELD:
    The transaction is not a sale or return but a sale on approval or sale on acceptance.
    When Cruz gave the jewelry to Villarta on November, the clear intention is to make the latter choose
    which item she wanted to buy. There was no meeting of the minds yet at this point and hence, it cannot
    be considered as delivery.
    If ownership over the jewelry was not transmitted on that date, then it could have been transmitted only in
    December 1968, the date when the check was issued. In which case, it was a "sale on approval" since
    ownership passed to the buyer. Vallarta, only when she signified her approval or acceptance to the seller,
    Cruz, and the price was agreed upon.
    It is still criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the Revised
    Penal Code, and not the non-payment of the debt.

    ROSARIO CARBONELL, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT


    OF APPEALS, JOSE PONCIO, EMMA INFANTE and RAMON
    INFANTE, respondents.
    G.R. No. L-29972 January 26, 1976
    FACTS:
    Petitioner Carbonell lives in an adjoining lot owned by Respondent Poncio, latters lot is
    mortgaged in favor of Republic Savings Bank for P1,500.
    Petitioner and another Respondent (Infante) offered to buy the land owned by Poncio. Which
    Poncio, in his failure to pay the mortgaged agreed for the petitioner to buy the land including his
    house for P9.50 per square meter on the condition that from the purchase price would come the
    money to be paid to the bank.
    Both parties settled the arrears of the mortgaged amounting P247.26. However, Petitioner only
    have P200.00 as per respondents information that he only owes the same to the bank.
    Respondent then withdrew the deficit amount and was reimbursed by Carbonell the following
    day.
    The parties executed a document stipulating that, Poncio may still occupy the land sold by him
    to the petitioner and if after a year, he still cant find a place to move, that he shall pay rent in
    favor of the petitioner.
    Subsequently, Poncio had told Carbonell that the former can no longer pursue with the sale for
    he had given the land to Infante, to which he cannot withdraw even if he goes to jail. The said lot
    was fenced by Infante.
    Atty. Jose Garcia advised her to present an adverse claim over the land in question with the
    Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
    Poncio, admittedly sold the land to Infante when she improved her offer.
    With the information that the land was not yet registered, Atty. Garcia in favor of the petitioner
    prepared an adverse claim over the property. Whereby upon registration of the same by Infante,
    the said adverse claim was noted in the Transfer Certificate of Title.
    Petitioner filed a second complaint, alleging that the sale between Poncio and Infante be
    declared null and void. Respondents allegation was that, Petitioners claim was unenforceable
    for lack of written document.
    Trial Court ruled that the second sale was null and void. However, after re-trial, Trial Court
    reversed its decision ruling that the claim of the respondents were greater than that of the
    petitioner.
    CA ruled in favor of petitioner, alleging that it has a superior right over the respondent. After a
    motion for reconsideration CA reversed its decision.
    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Petitioner have the superior right over the property.
    HELD:
    YES.
    Article 1544, New Civil Code, which is decisive of this case, recites:
    If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred
    to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should movable
    property.
    Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in
    good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
    Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was
    first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
    provided there is good faith (emphasis supplied).
    When Carbonell bought the lot from Poncio on January 27, 1955, she was the only buyer
    thereof and the title of Poncio was still in his name solely encumbered by bank mortgage duly
    annotated thereon. Carbonell was not aware and she could not have been aware of any
    sale of Infante as there was no such sale to Infante then. Hence, Carbonell's prior purchase of
    the land was made in good faith. Her good faith subsisted and continued to exist when she
    recorded her adverse claim four (4) days prior to the registration of Infantes's deed of sale.
    Carbonell's good faith did not cease after Poncio told her on January 31, 1955 of his second
    sale of the same lot to Infante. Because of that information, Carbonell wanted an audience with
    Infante, which desire underscores Carbonell's good faith. With an aristocratic disdain unworthy
    of the good breeding of a good Christian and good neighbor, Infante snubbed Carbonell like a
    leper and refused to see her. So Carbonell did the next best thing to protect her right she
    registered her adversed claim on February 8, 1955. Under the circumstances, this recording of
    her adverse claim should be deemed to have been done in good faith and should emphasize
    Infante's bad faith when she registered her deed of sale four (4) days later on February 12,
    1955

    You might also like