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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 268 views

    Carabeo Vs Dingco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chester Pryze Ibardolaza Tabuena
    The document summarizes a court case between Domingo Carabeo and Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco regarding the sale of land. Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell the Dingcos rights to a parcel of land for 38,000 pesos, with 10,000 pesos paid up front and the remaining balance due in September 1990. However, when the Dingcos tried to pay the balance, Carabeo refused due to a dispute over the land. The Dingcos filed a complaint to enforce the contract. The court ruled that since the dispute involves property rights, the case survives Carabeo's death. The court also found the contract valid and ordered Carabeo

    Copyright:

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

    Carabeo Vs Dingco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chester Pryze Ibardolaza Tabuena
    268 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case between Domingo Carabeo and Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco regarding the sale of land. Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell the Dingcos rights to a parcel of land for 38,000 pesos, with 10,000 pesos paid up front and the remaining balance due in September 1990. However, when the Dingcos tried to pay the balance, Carabeo refused due to a dispute over the land. The Dingcos filed a complaint to enforce the contract. The court ruled that since the dispute involves property rights, the case survives Carabeo's death. The court also found the contract valid and ordered Carabeo

    Original Description:

    Digest only

    Original Title

    Carabeo vs Dingco Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case between Domingo Carabeo and Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco regarding the sale of land. Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell the Dingcos rights to a parcel of land for 38,000 pesos, with 10,000 pesos paid up front and the remaining balance due in September 1990. However, when the Dingcos tried to pay the balance, Carabeo refused due to a dispute over the land. The Dingcos filed a complaint to enforce the contract. The court ruled that since the dispute involves property rights, the case survives Carabeo's death. The court also found the contract valid and ordered Carabeo

    Copyright:

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

    Carabeo Vs Dingco Digest

    Uploaded by

    Chester Pryze Ibardolaza Tabuena
    The document summarizes a court case between Domingo Carabeo and Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco regarding the sale of land. Carabeo entered into a contract in 1990 to sell the Dingcos rights to a parcel of land for 38,000 pesos, with 10,000 pesos paid up front and the remaining balance due in September 1990. However, when the Dingcos tried to pay the balance, Carabeo refused due to a dispute over the land. The Dingcos filed a complaint to enforce the contract. The court ruled that since the dispute involves property rights, the case survives Carabeo's death. The court also found the contract valid and ordered Carabeo

    Copyright:

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

    Page 1 of 2

    G.R. No. 190823 : April 4, 2011

    DOMINGO CARABEO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES NORBERTO and


    SUSAN DINGCO, Respondents.

    FACTS:

    On July 10, 1990, Domingo Carabeo (petitioner) entered into a


    contract denominated as Kasunduan sa Bilihan ng Karapatan sa Lupa
    (kasunduan) with Spouses Norberto and Susan Dingco (respondents)
    whereby petitioner agreed to sell his rights over a 648 square meter parcel
    of unregistered land situated in Purok III, Tugatog, Orani, Bataan to
    respondents for P38,000.

    Upon the signing of the contract, the respondents paid an initial


    amount of P10,000 and the remaining balance would be paid on
    September 1990. However, when the respondents were about to pay the
    balance, the petitioner refused to accept the amount due to an on-going
    dispute over the land. Nevertheless, the respondents occasionally gave the
    petitioner small sums of money which totaled P9,100. These amounts
    were allegedly given due to the request of the petitioner.

    Despite the respondents insistence of paying the remaining balance


    of P19,800, the petitioner remained firm in his refusal. He reasoned that
    he would register the land first. However, when the dispute was finally
    settled and the registration of the land was made, the petitioner still
    declined to accept the payment. Thus, forcing the respondents to file a
    complaint before the Katarungan Pambarangay. Nevertheless, the parties
    were not able to reach a settlement. Hence, the filing of a complaint for
    specific performance before the RTC.

    In the petitioners Answer, he alleged that the sale was void for
    lack of object certain. The kasunduannot having specified the metes and
    bounds of the land. In addition to that, he alleged that assuming that the
    validity of the kasunduan is upheld, the respondent failed to comply with
    their reciprocal obligation in paying the balance of the P28,000 on
    September 1900. Thus, forcing him to accept the installment payments.

    After the case was submitted for decision, the petitioner passed
    away. However, the records do not show that petitioners counsel
    Page 2 of 2

    informed the lower court of his death and that proper substitution was
    effected. The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents ordering them to sell
    their rights over the land and to pay the costs of suit. The CA affirmed the
    decision of the lower court.

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the death of the petitioner causes dismissal of the


    action filed by the respondents.

    HELD:

    When the wrong complained of affects property rights, the death of


    the petitioner does not cause the dismissal of the case.

    In Bonilla v. Barcena, it was held that the question as to whether an


    action survives or not depends on the nature of the action and the damage
    sued for. In the causes of action which survive, the wrong complained of
    affects primarily and principally property and property rights, the injuries
    to the person being merely incidental, while in the causes of action which
    do not survive, the injury complained of is to the person, the property and
    rights of property affected being incidental.

    Thus, in the present case, the respondents are pursuing a property


    right arising from the kasunduan, whereas petitioner is invoking nullity of
    the kasunduan to protect his proprietary interest. Since the action involves
    property rights, it survives. Assuming arguendo, however, that the
    kasunduan is deemed void, there is a corollary obligation of petitioner to
    return the money paid by respondents.

    It bears noting that trial on the merits was already concluded before
    petitioner died. Since the trial court was not informed of petitioners
    death, it may not be faulted for proceeding to render judgment without
    ordering his substitution. Its judgment is thus valid and binding upon
    petitioners legal representatives or successors-in-interest, insofar as his
    interest in the property subject of the action is concerned.

    You might also like