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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 244 views

    DE GUZMAN V CA

    Uploaded by

    Mis Dee
    Deogracias Queriza executed a deed of pacto de retro sale of land in favor of Raymunda Quirmit, with the right to repurchase. Quirmit took possession but did not register the deed. Queriza later mortgaged then donated the same land to Miguel Queriza, who sold to Gregorio de Guzman Jr. and Corazon Quinto. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision declaring the spouses owners, finding that absolute ownership vested in Quirmit when Queriza failed to repurchase. As Queriza no longer owned the land, his donation to Miguel was invalid and thus the spouses' title from Miguel failed. The Supreme

    Copyright:

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

    DE GUZMAN V CA

    Uploaded by

    Mis Dee
    244 views1 page
    Deogracias Queriza executed a deed of pacto de retro sale of land in favor of Raymunda Quirmit, with the right to repurchase. Quirmit took possession but did not register the deed. Queriza later mortgaged then donated the same land to Miguel Queriza, who sold to Gregorio de Guzman Jr. and Corazon Quinto. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision declaring the spouses owners, finding that absolute ownership vested in Quirmit when Queriza failed to repurchase. As Queriza no longer owned the land, his donation to Miguel was invalid and thus the spouses' title from Miguel failed. The Supreme

    Original Description:

    DE GUZMAN v CA

    Original Title

    DE GUZMAN 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?

    Deogracias Queriza executed a deed of pacto de retro sale of land in favor of Raymunda Quirmit, with the right to repurchase. Quirmit took possession but did not register the deed. Queriza later mortgaged then donated the same land to Miguel Queriza, who sold to Gregorio de Guzman Jr. and Corazon Quinto. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision declaring the spouses owners, finding that absolute ownership vested in Quirmit when Queriza failed to repurchase. As Queriza no longer owned the land, his donation to Miguel was invalid and thus the spouses' title from Miguel failed. The Supreme

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    244 views1 page

    DE GUZMAN V CA

    Uploaded by

    Mis Dee
    Deogracias Queriza executed a deed of pacto de retro sale of land in favor of Raymunda Quirmit, with the right to repurchase. Quirmit took possession but did not register the deed. Queriza later mortgaged then donated the same land to Miguel Queriza, who sold to Gregorio de Guzman Jr. and Corazon Quinto. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision declaring the spouses owners, finding that absolute ownership vested in Quirmit when Queriza failed to repurchase. As Queriza no longer owned the land, his donation to Miguel was invalid and thus the spouses' title from Miguel failed. The Supreme

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SPOUSES GREGORIO DE GUZMAN, JR. and CORAZON QUINTO vs. HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS and RAYMUNDA


    RINGOR QUIRIMIT
    FACTS:
    Deogracias Queriza, owner of an unregistered land executed a Deed of Pacto de Retro sale in favor of his niece, Quirmit,
    with the stipulation that the "vendor a retro may exercise the right of repurchase and failure to take advantage of the right,
    then the contract shall acquire the character of absolute sale. Respondent did not register the Deed of Pacto de Retro
    Sale, but took possession of the land by building her house. D. Queriza mortgaged the same parcel of land to the
    Manaoag Rural Bank; it was allegedly redeemed on his behalf by his nephew Miguel Queriza. D. Queriza, without
    exercising his right to repurchase, executed over said parcel of land a Deed of "Rimunitary Inter-vivos Donation in favor of
    Miguel Queriza, who declared the land in his name for taxation purposes and registered the Deed of Donation. Miguel
    Queriza sold the land to Gregorio de Guzman, Jr. and Corazon Quinto. Petitioners sent private respondent written notice
    to vacate the land in question, and upon refusal by the latter, instituted a case for Quieting of Title and Recovery of
    Possession. The trial court declared petitioners owner. CA reversed.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not Spouses De Guzman has the better right to the property in dispute. Whether or not the action for quieting
    of title and recovery of possession should prevail.
    RULING:
    The transaction between Deogracias Queriza and private respondent was a true Pacto de retro sale. The essence of a
    pacto de retro sale is that title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro, subject to
    the resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated period. Failure thus of the vendor a retro
    to perform said resolutory condition vests upon the vendee by operation of law absolute title and ownership over the
    property sold and failure of the vendee a retro to consolidate his title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code does not impair
    such title or ownership for the method prescribed there under is merely for the purpose of registering the consolidated
    title. In the case at bar, absolute ownership of the land in question was vested on private respondent upon failure of
    Deogracias Queriza to repurchase said land. Thus when he allegedly donated the same to Miguel Queriza, he was no
    longer the owner thereof. Settled is the rule that a donor cannot lawfully convey what is not his property. There being no
    title to the property which Deogracias Queriza could convey to Miguel Queriza, it necessarily follows that no title to the
    property could be conveyed by the latter to petitioners. Registration does not vest title. It is not a mode of acquiring
    ownership but is merely evidence of such title over a particular property. It does not give the holder any better title than
    what he actually has. Besides, petitioners' registration of their deed of sale was done in bad faith. The effect is that it is as
    if no registration was made at all in so far as private respondent is concerned. Conversely, actual knowledge of petitioners
    of the sale to private respondent amounted to registration thereof. Petition Denied, decision affirmed.

    You might also like