Skip to main content

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts:Sales - Double Sale - Ruperta Cano and Jesus Carlo Gerard Vda. De Viray v. Sps. Jose and Amelita Usi G.R. No. 192486

Ruperta Cano and Jesus Carlo Gerard Vda. De Viray v. Sps. Jose and Amelita Usi
G.R. No. 192486, November 21, 2012
Facts:
Lot 733, registered in the name of Mendoza is the subject of this case. Geodetic Engr Fajardo prepared the Fajardo Plan, in which Lot 733 was divided into 6 smaller parcels of differing size dimensions: Lot 733(A-F). Mendoza executed 2 separate deeds of absolute sale, the first, transferring Lot 733-F to Jesus and the second deed conveying Lot 733-A to Sps Viray. Vda. de Viray is the surviving spouse of Jesus. Mendoza, Vda. de Mallari and Sps. Usi, as purported co-owners of Lot 733, executed the 1st Subdivision Agreement (SA) in accordance with Galang Plan. Then they executed the 2nd SA. The subdivision of Lot 733, per the Galang Plan, and the 2 SAs concluded based on that plan, virtually resulted in the loss of the identity of what under the Fajardo Plan were Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F. The Sps. Viray and the late Jesus purchased Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F, respectively, from Mendoza. As to be expected, the foregoing overlapping transactions involving the same property or portions thereof spawned several suits and counter-suits.
Issue: Whether or not the sale to Sps Usi constituted as a double sale and therefore invalid.
Ruling:
Yes. The earlier sale of Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F was valid and effective conveyances. The subsequent transfers to the Sps. Usi of substantially the same portions of Lot 733 accomplished through the subdivision agreements constitute in effect double sales of those portions. The Deeds of Absolute Sale of Lot 733-A and Lot 733-F are valid. It must be noted that the RTC upheld the validity of the separate deeds of absolute sale of Lots 733-A and 733-F. There can be no question as to the ownership of the Sps. Viray and Vda. de Viray over the specified and delineated portions of Lot 733 which they purchased for value from Mendoza. Mendoza, as vendor, was bound to transfer the ownership of and deliver, as well as warrant, the thing which is the object of the sale.
The survey report of LMB surveyor, Engr. Nicdao, would support a finding of double sale. His report, as earlier indicated, contained the following key findings: (1) Lot 733-A sold to the Sps. Viray is within Lot 733-B, the part assigned to Sps. Usi under the division; and (2) Lot 733-F is almost identical to the combined area of Lots 733-C-8 to 733-C-12 awarded to Ellen Mendoza and her children, McDwight, Bismark, Beverly and Georgenia, and a portion of Lot 733-C-10 (Galang Plan) adjudicated to Sps. Usi. A double sale situation, which would call, if necessary, the application of Art. 1544 of the Civil Code, arises when, as jurisprudence teaches, the following requisites concur: (a) The two (or more) sales transactions must constitute valid sales; (b) The two (or more) sales transactions must pertain to exactly the same subject matter; (c) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each represent conflicting interests; and (d) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each have bought from the very same seller.

There is no valid sale from Mendoza to respondents Usi. The parties did not execute a valid deed of sale conveying and transferring the lots in question to respondents. The third element of cause of the obligation which is established under Art. 1318 of the Civil Code is likewise visibly absent from the two SAs. The transfer of title to respondents based on said SAs is flawed, irregular, null and void. Thus the two SAs are not "sales transactions" nor "valid sales" under Art. 1544 of the Civil Code and, hence, the first essential element under said legal provision was not satisfied.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Waiver of a Compromise Agreement - DoƱa Adela Export International v. Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP), and the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) G.R. No. 201931

DoƱa Adela Export International, Inc. v. Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP), and the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) G.R. No. 201931, February 11, 2015 Facts: Sometime in 2006, DoƱa Adela Export International, Inc., (DAEI) filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency. RTC issued an order declaring it insolvent and staying all civil proceedings against it. Sometime in August 2011 TIDCORP and BPI as creditors of DAEI filed a Joint Motion to Approve Agreement which contained among others a waiver of confidentiality clause wherein DAEI and the members of its Board of Directors shall waive all rights to confidentiality provided under the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits and The General Banking Law of 2000. The RTC approved the compromise agreement between BPI and TIDCORP. DAEI filed a motion for partial reconsideration and claimed that TIDCORP and BPIā€˜s agreement imposes on it several obligations such as payment of expenses and taxes and waiver of confidential...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Accessory Contract - Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. v. Spouses Rune and Lea Stroem G.R. No. 204869

Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. v. Spouses Rune and Lea Stroem G.R. No. 204869, [January 21, 2015] Facts: Spouses Stroem entered an Owners-Contractor Agreement with Asis-Leif & Company, Inc. (ALCI) represented by Cynthia Asis-Leif for the construction of a two-storey house on their lot. ALCI secured a performance bond in the amount of P4.5M from Stronghold Insurance Company (SIC) whereby the latter and ALCI bound themselves solidarily to pay the Stroem spouses the agreed amount in the event the construction is not completed. ALCI failed to finish the project on time despite repeated demands and the Spouses Stroem rescinded the agreement and hired an independent appraiser to evaluate the progress of the construction project. They later filed a complaint for breach of contract with damages against ALCI and SIC. Only SIC was served with summons. The RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses Stroem and ordered SIC to pay damages. SIC argued that the RTC should have dismissed th...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Void Contracts - Jose Menchavez, et al vs. Florentino Teves, Jr., G.R. No. 153201

Jose Menchavez, et al vs. Florentino Teves, Jr.,  G.R. No. 153201, January 26, 2005 Facts:  Sometime in 1986, a ā€œContract of Leaseā€ was executed by Menchavez as lessor and Teves Jr. as lessee for a term of five years.  In 1988, RTC Sheriffs demolished the fishpond dikes constructed by the respondent and delivered possession of the subject property to other parties. As a result, he filed a Complaint for damages against the petitioner, alleging violation of their Contract of Lease, specifically the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the property for the entire duration of the Contract.  The lessors had withheld from respondents the findings of the trial court in a separate case. In that case involving the same property, subject of the lease, Menchavez was ordered to remove the dikes illegally constructed and to pay damages. After the trial, the RTC ruled that the contract is a patent nullity. Respondent elevated the case to the CA. The CA disagreed with t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Compromise Agreement - Alexander Gaisano v. Benjamin Akol G.R. No. 193840

Alexander Gaisano v. Benjamin Akol G.R. No. 193840, June 15, 2011 Facts: Akol filed a complaint for recovery of shares of stock against Gaisano. The RTC dismissed the complaint while the CA reversed the decision of the RTC. While the case was pending with the SC, the parties jointly filed an Agreement to Terminate Action duly signed by them and their respective counsels. Issue: Whether the agreement filed by the parties allows the court to validly render judgment based on said agreement. Ruling: Yes. A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation, or put an end to one already commenced. Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public policy and public order. A scrutiny of the aforequoted agreement reveals it is a compromise agreement sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Cod...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Trusts - Beneficiary - Security and Exchange Commission v. Hon. Laygo et al. G.R. No. 188639

Security and Exchange Commission v. Hon. Laygo et al. G.R. No. 188639, September 02, 2015 Facts: Pursuant to the mandate of Securities Regulation Code, the SEC issued the New Rules on the Registration and Sale of Pre-Need Plans to govern the pre-need industry prior to the enactment of the Pre-Need Code. It required from the pre-need providers the creation of trust funds as a requirement for registration. Legacy, being a pre-need provider, complied with the trust fund requirement and entered into a trust agreement with Land Bank. In mid-2000, the industry collapsed for a range of reasons. Legacy, like the others, was unable to pay its obligations to the plan holders. This resulted in Legacy being the subject of a petition for involuntary insolvency by private respondents in their capacity as plan holders. Through its manifestation filed in the RTC, Legacy did not object to the proceedings and was declared insolvent by the RTC. The trial court also ordered Legacy to submit an i...
Post a Comment
Read more