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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 132 views

    19 Pichel V Alonzo

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    Respondent Prudencio Alonzo was awarded land by the government that was later cancelled and then reinstated. Alonzo then sold the fruits from the coconut trees on the land to Luis Pichel from 1968 to 1976 in exchange for payment. Alonzo argued the contract was invalid as it violated the terms of the land award. The Court ruled that until the government reacquires the land, Alonzo retained rights over the property. As such, the contract between Pichel and Alonzo during the period the award was cancelled but before it was reinstated was valid. The Court also found the contract was clearly for the sale of coconut fruits, not a lease of the land.

    Copyright:

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

    19 Pichel V Alonzo

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    132 views2 pages
    Respondent Prudencio Alonzo was awarded land by the government that was later cancelled and then reinstated. Alonzo then sold the fruits from the coconut trees on the land to Luis Pichel from 1968 to 1976 in exchange for payment. Alonzo argued the contract was invalid as it violated the terms of the land award. The Court ruled that until the government reacquires the land, Alonzo retained rights over the property. As such, the contract between Pichel and Alonzo during the period the award was cancelled but before it was reinstated was valid. The Court also found the contract was clearly for the sale of coconut fruits, not a lease of the land.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    19 PICHEL V ALONZO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Respondent Prudencio Alonzo was awarded land by the government that was later cancelled and then reinstated. Alonzo then sold the fruits from the coconut trees on the land to Luis Pichel from 1968 to 1976 in exchange for payment. Alonzo argued the contract was invalid as it violated the terms of the land award. The Court ruled that until the government reacquires the land, Alonzo retained rights over the property. As such, the contract between Pichel and Alonzo during the period the award was cancelled but before it was reinstated was valid. The Court also found the contract was clearly for the sale of coconut fruits, not a lease of the land.

    Copyright:

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

    19 Pichel V Alonzo

    Uploaded by

    Erwin Bernardino
    Respondent Prudencio Alonzo was awarded land by the government that was later cancelled and then reinstated. Alonzo then sold the fruits from the coconut trees on the land to Luis Pichel from 1968 to 1976 in exchange for payment. Alonzo argued the contract was invalid as it violated the terms of the land award. The Court ruled that until the government reacquires the land, Alonzo retained rights over the property. As such, the contract between Pichel and Alonzo during the period the award was cancelled but before it was reinstated was valid. The Court also found the contract was clearly for the sale of coconut fruits, not a lease of the land.

    Copyright:

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

    GR No.

    L-36902

    LUIS PICHEL vs PRUDENCIO ALONZO

    FACTS:

    Respondent Prudencio Alonzo was awarded by the Government that parcel of land in Basilan
    City in accordance with Republic Act No. 477. The award was cancelled by the Board of
    Liquidators on January 27, 1965 on the ground that, previous thereto, plaintiff was proved to
    have alienated the land to another, in violation of law. In 1972, plaintiff's rights to the land were
    reinstated.

    On August 14, 1968, plaintiff and his wife sold to defendant Luis Pichel all the fruits of the
    coconut trees which may be harvested in the land in question for the period, September 15, 1968
    to January 1, 1976, in consideration of P4,200.00. Even as of the date of sale, however, the land
    was still under lease to one, Ramon Sua, and it was the agreement that part of the consideration
    of the sale, in the sum of P3,650.00, was to be paid by defendant directly to Ramon Sua so as to
    release the land from the clutches of the latter. Pending said payment plaintiff refused to allow
    the defendant to make any harvest. In July 1972, defendant for the first time since the execution
    of the deed of sale in his favor, caused the harvest of the fruit of the coconut trees in the land.

    Alonzo filed for the annulment of the contract on the ground that it violated the provisions of
    R.A. 477, which states that lands awarded under the said law shall not be subject to encumbrance
    or alienation, otherwise the awardee shall no longer be entitled to apply for another piece of land.
    The lower court ruled that the contract, which it held as a contract of lease, is null and void.

    ISSUE:
    WoN the contract between Pichel and Alonzo is valid and can be a source of obligation.

    RULING:

    The Court held that until and unless an appropriate proceeding for reversion is instituted by the
    State, and its reacquisition of the ownership and possession of the land decreed by a competent
    court, the grantee cannot be said to have been divested of whatever right that he may have over
    the same property. Herein respondent is not deemed to have lost any of his rights as grantee
    during the period material to the case at bar, i.e., from the cancellation of the award in 1965 to its
    reinstatement in 1972. Within said period, respondent could exercise all the rights pertaining to a
    grantee. Hence the contract between Pitchel and Alonzo valid.

    Further, the "Deed of Sale dated August 14, 1968 is precisely what it purports to be. It is a
    document evidencing the agreement of herein parties for the sale of coconut and not for
    the lease of the land itself as found by the lower Court. In clear and express terms, the document
    defines the object of the contract thus: "the herein sale of the coconut fruits are for an the fruits
    on the aforementioned parcel of land during the years ...(from) SEPTEMBER 15, 1968; up to
    JANUARY 1, 1976." Moreover, as petitioner correctly asserts, the document in question
    expresses a valid contract of sale. It has the essential elements of a contract of sale as defined
    under Article 1485 of the New Civil Code which provides thus:

    Art. 1458. By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself
    to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to
    pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent.

    You might also like