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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 46 views

    Quimson Vs Rosete

    Uploaded by

    I.G. Mingo Mula
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a property originally belonging to Dionisio Quimson. Quimson executed a deed transferring the property to his daughter, Tomasa Quimson, but remained in possession. He later sold the property to another party with a right to repurchase, and it was further sold to Francisco Rosete also with a repurchase right. When Dionisio repurchased from the first buyer, Rosete remained in possession. The Court ruled that the possession mentioned in article 1473 includes symbolic possession from a public instrument. As Dionisio executed a deed transferring the property to Tomasa, she was deemed the owner. The Court of Appeals decision in favor of Rosete was reversed

    Copyright:

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

    Quimson Vs Rosete

    Uploaded by

    I.G. Mingo Mula
    46 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a property originally belonging to Dionisio Quimson. Quimson executed a deed transferring the property to his daughter, Tomasa Quimson, but remained in possession. He later sold the property to another party with a right to repurchase, and it was further sold to Francisco Rosete also with a repurchase right. When Dionisio repurchased from the first buyer, Rosete remained in possession. The Court ruled that the possession mentioned in article 1473 includes symbolic possession from a public instrument. As Dionisio executed a deed transferring the property to Tomasa, she was deemed the owner. The Court of Appeals decision in favor of Rosete was reversed

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    15.-Quimson-vs-Rosete

    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 involved a dispute over ownership of a property originally belonging to Dionisio Quimson. Quimson executed a deed transferring the property to his daughter, Tomasa Quimson, but remained in possession. He later sold the property to another party with a right to repurchase, and it was further sold to Francisco Rosete also with a repurchase right. When Dionisio repurchased from the first buyer, Rosete remained in possession. The Court ruled that the possession mentioned in article 1473 includes symbolic possession from a public instrument. As Dionisio executed a deed transferring the property to Tomasa, she was deemed the owner. The Court of Appeals decision in favor of Rosete was reversed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    46 views2 pages

    Quimson Vs Rosete

    Uploaded by

    I.G. Mingo Mula
    This case involved a dispute over ownership of a property originally belonging to Dionisio Quimson. Quimson executed a deed transferring the property to his daughter, Tomasa Quimson, but remained in possession. He later sold the property to another party with a right to repurchase, and it was further sold to Francisco Rosete also with a repurchase right. When Dionisio repurchased from the first buyer, Rosete remained in possession. The Court ruled that the possession mentioned in article 1473 includes symbolic possession from a public instrument. As Dionisio executed a deed transferring the property to Tomasa, she was deemed the owner. The Court of Appeals decision in favor of Rosete was reversed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Gomba, Dimpsey Mariz S.

    JD 2-1 September 18, 2018

    TOMASA QUIMSON v. FRANCISCO ROSETE +


    GR No. L-2397, Aug 09, 1950
    TUASON, J
    DOCTRINE: We are of the opinion that the possession mentioned in article 1473 (for
    determining who has better right when the same piece of land has been sold several
    times by the same seller) includes not only the material but also the symbolic
    possession, which is acquired by the execution of a public instrument.

    ISSUE: Who owns the subject property in this case?

    FACTS: The property in question in this instant case originally belonged to a certain
    Dionisio Quimson and the same property was transferred by him, executing a deed in
    favor of his daughter Tomasa Quimson. However, he still remained in possession and
    enjoyment of the property. That on May 3, 1935, the said property was sold to the
    spouses Magno Agustin and Paulina Manzano with a right to repurchase within 6
    years. Thereafter, the said property was further sold to FransiscoRosete also with a
    right to repurchase within 5 years. After verifying his right to repurchase, Dionisio
    repurchase the property from the Spouses Manzano with the money given to him by
    Rosete. But Rosete possessed the said property in a peaceful manner even after the
    death of Dionisio. Tomasa then filed before the Justice of Peace in San Marcelino,
    Zambales and that in the registration and inscription of the property Tomasa arrived
    an hour earlier (9:30am) than Fransisco (10:30am) of the same day.

    Ruling: The Court ruled in this case reiterating the decision of Sanchez Vs. Ramos,
    “as a public instrument is a title, it is claimed that the inference is that the law has
    deliberately intended to place the symbolic possession, which the execution of the
    public document implies, after the material possession. This argument, however,
    would only be forceful if the title, mentioned by this article, includes public
    instruments, and would be true if public instruments are not included in the idea of
    possession spoken of in said article. In other words, the strength of the argument
    rests.in that this possession is precisely the material and does not include the
    symbolic. Consequently, the argument is deficient for it is the same question, because
    if it is included in the symbolic, which is acquired by the execution of a public
    instrument, it should be understood that the title, tolerance and, in this sense, his
    possession is vendor's possession. 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
    anything to the second vendee and if the latter, by virtue of this second sale, takes
    material possession of the thing, and it would be unjust to protect this detention
    against the rights to the thing lawfully acquired by the first vendee.We are of the
    opinion that the possession mentioned in article 1473 (for determining who has better
    right when the same piece of land has been sold several times by the same seller)
    includes not only the material but also the symbolic possession, which is acquired by
    Gomba, Dimpsey Mariz S. JD 2-1 September 18, 2018

    the execution of a public instrument.” Furthermore, the finding that a deed of


    conveyance was made by Dionisio Quimson in favor of his daughter could have no
    other meaning, and it is deemed as sale. Therefore, Tomasa is the owner of the subject
    property and the decision made by the Court of Appeals in favor of Fransisco Rosete
    was reversed.

    You might also like