Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 183 views

    Modina V CA

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    1) Merlinda challenged the sale of land between her husband Ramon and Modina on the grounds that the titles were never legally transferred to Ramon. 2) The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Merlinda, declaring the sales between Merlinda and Ramon and then Ramon to Modina to be null and void. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Merlinda was not guilty of being "in pari delicto" or equally at fault, as there was no evidence she was at fault in the transaction between her and Ramon. The court also found Modina was not a purchaser in good faith, as he was aware the land belonged to

    Copyright:

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

    Modina V CA

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    183 views2 pages
    1) Merlinda challenged the sale of land between her husband Ramon and Modina on the grounds that the titles were never legally transferred to Ramon. 2) The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Merlinda, declaring the sales between Merlinda and Ramon and then Ramon to Modina to be null and void. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Merlinda was not guilty of being "in pari delicto" or equally at fault, as there was no evidence she was at fault in the transaction between her and Ramon. The court also found Modina was not a purchaser in good faith, as he was aware the land belonged to

    Original Description:

    Modina v CA

    Original Title

    Modina v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Merlinda challenged the sale of land between her husband Ramon and Modina on the grounds that the titles were never legally transferred to Ramon. 2) The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Merlinda, declaring the sales between Merlinda and Ramon and then Ramon to Modina to be null and void. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Merlinda was not guilty of being "in pari delicto" or equally at fault, as there was no evidence she was at fault in the transaction between her and Ramon. The court also found Modina was not a purchaser in good faith, as he was aware the land belonged to

    Copyright:

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

    Modina V CA

    Uploaded by

    Liaa Aquino
    1) Merlinda challenged the sale of land between her husband Ramon and Modina on the grounds that the titles were never legally transferred to Ramon. 2) The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Merlinda, declaring the sales between Merlinda and Ramon and then Ramon to Modina to be null and void. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Merlinda was not guilty of being "in pari delicto" or equally at fault, as there was no evidence she was at fault in the transaction between her and Ramon. The court also found Modina was not a purchaser in good faith, as he was aware the land belonged to

    Copyright:

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

    ModinavCA

    F:
    RamonChiangexecutedasaleof3parcelsoflandunderhisnametoSerafinModina.He
    theorizedthatsubjectpropertiesweresoldtohimbyhiswife,MerlindaPlanaChiang,as
    evidencedbyaDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedDecember17,1975.Asstated,itwassubsequently
    soldbyRamontopetitionerSerafinModina,asshownbytheDeedsofSale,datedAugust3,
    1979andAugust24,1979,respectively.

    MODINAbroughtaComplaintforRecoveryofPossessionwithDamagesagainsttheprivate
    respondentsErnestoHontarciego,PaulFigueroaandTeodoroHipallabeforetheIloiloCityRTC.
    ThethreearethelesseesofthepropertyofMerlinda.Uponlearningthatasuitwasfiled,
    MerlindapresentedaComplaintinintervention,seekingthedeclarationofnullityoftheDeedof
    SalebetweenherhusbandandMODINAonthegroundthatthetitlesoftheparcelsofland
    indisputewereneverlegallytransferredtoherhusband.
    Merlindaalsoadmittedthatsaidparcelsoflandareadministeredbyherasadministratrixofthe
    estateofherfirsthusbandNelsonPlana.
    RTCruledinfavorofMerlinda:1)itdeclarednullandvoidthesaleofsubjectlotsbetween
    MerlindaandRamonChiang,2)Italsodeclaredvoidandinexistentthesaleofthesame
    propertiesbyRamontoModina.
    CAaffirmedthedecisionintoto.
    Issues:
    1)WONMerlindaisguiltyofbeinginparidelictoandthusbepreventedfromattackingthesale
    andrecoveringtheproperty?
    Modinasargument:SalebetweenRamonandMerlindaisnullandvoidashusbandsandwives
    cannotsellpropertiesinfavorofeachotherbutsincebothareinparidelicto,theycannotrecover
    fromeachotherandrightsofthirdpersonswhoacquiresthepropertymustberespected.
    MerlindacannotattackthesalebetweenhimandRamonbecauseshewasalsoaguiltyparty.
    ThereisnosufficientevidenceestablishingfaultonthepartofMerlinda,thereforetheprinciple
    ofinparidelictoisinapplicableintheircase.Ineffect,Merlindacanrecoverthepropertyfrom
    herhusbandwhichhadbeensoldtoModinaasshewasnotaguiltypartyinthesaidtransaction.
    Besides,Art.1411and1412concerningtheinparidelictoprinciplecannotapplyinthecaseat
    barforthesimplereasonthatthereisnocontractbetweenRamonandMerlinda.Inparidelicto
    doctrineappliesonlytocontractwithillegalconsiderationorsubjectmatter(howcanitthen
    applytothiscasewhenthereisinfactnocontracttospeakof?).
    MerlindacanrecoverthepropertysincethecontractbetweenModinaandRamonisvoid.Itdoes
    notproduceanyeffect,assuchModinaneveracquiredtitlethereof.

    2)WONModinaisapurchaseringoodfaith?

    Asageneralrule,inasaleundertheTorrenssystem,avoidtitlecannotgiverisetoavalidtitle.
    Theexceptioniswhenthesaleofapersonwithavoidtitleistoathirdpersonwhopurchasedit
    forvalueandingoodfaith.
    Apurchaseringoodfaithisonewhobuysthepropertyofanotherwithoutnoticethatsomeother
    personhasarighttoorinterestinsuchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceatthetimeofthe
    purchaseorbeforehehasnoticeoftheclaimorinterestofsomeotherpersonintheproperty.
    Fromtheattendantfactsofthecaseatbar,itisclearthatModinaisnotapurchaseringoodfaith.
    CAfoundthattherewerecircumstancesknowntoModinawhichrenderedtheirtransaction
    fraudulentundertheattendantcircumstances.Thecircumstancesare:1)heaskedhisnephew,
    PlacidoMatta,toinvestigatetheoriginofthepropertyandthelatterlearnedthatthepropertyis
    ownedbyMerlindaandherfirsthusband,2)upninspectionModinametallthelesseesandhe
    wasinformedthatthelandbelongtoMerlinda.

    You might also like