Digest By: Shimi Fortuna Balatbat Vs CA

Digest by: Shimi Fortuna cannot be inferred.
The execution of the public instrument,

Balatbat vs CA without actual delivery of the thing, transfers the ownership
G.R No. 109410 | August 28, 1996 from the vendor to the vendee, who may thereafter
FACTS exercise the rights of an owner over the same. In the
The lot in question covered by Transfer Certificate of Title instant case, vendor Roque delivered the owner's certificate
No. 51330 was acquired by plaintiff Aurelio Roque and of title to herein private respondent. It is not necessary that
Maria Mesina during their conjugal union and the house vendee be physically present at every square inch of the
constructed thereon was likewise built during their marital land bought by him, possession of the public instrument of
union. Out of their union, plaintiff and Maria Mesina had the land is sufficient to accord him the rights of ownership.
four children. When Maria Mesina died on August 28, 1966, Thus, delivery of a parcel of land may be done by placing
the only conjugal properties left are the house and lot the vendee in control and possession of the land (real) or by
above stated of which plaintiff herein, as the legal spouse, is embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive).
entitled to one-half share pro-indiviso thereof. With respect
to the one-half share pro-indiviso now forming the estate of The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity of a public
Maria Mesina, plaintiff and the four children, the document is only for convenience, not for validity or
defendants here, are each entitled to one-fifth (1/5) share enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of a
pro-indiviso. contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in
a public instrument.
Aurelio Roque then entered into a contract of Absolute Sale
with the spouses Aurora and Jose Repuyan. However, on A contract of sale being consensual, it is perfected by the
August 20, 1980, Aurelio filed a complaint for Rescission of mere consent of the parties. Delivery of the thing bought or
Contract against Spouses Repuyan for the latter’s failure to payment of the price is not necessary for the perfection of
pay the balance of the purchase price. A deed of absolute the contract; and failure of the vendee to pay the price after
sale was then executed on February 4, 1982 between the execution of the contract does not make the sale null
Aurelio S. Roque, Corazon Roque, Feliciano Roque, Severa and void for lack of consideration but results at most in
Roque and Osmundo Roque and Clara Balatbat, married to default on the part of the vendee, for which the vendor may
Alejandro Balatbat. exercise his legal remedies.
On April 14, 1982, Clara Balatbat filed a motion for the PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHO FIRST CAUSED THE
issuance of a writ of possession which was granted by the ANNOTATION OF THE ADVERSE CLAIM IN GOOD FAITH
trial court on September 14, 1982 "subject, however, to SHALL HAVE A BETTER RIGHT
valid rights and interest of third persons over the same Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that in case of double
portion thereof, other than vendor or any other person or sale of an immovable property, ownership shall be
persons privy to or claiming any rights or interests under it." transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith
The corresponding writ of possession was issued on first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default
September 20, 1982. The lower court then rendered thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in
judgment in favor of the Spouses Repuyan and declared the possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who
Deed of Absolute Sale as valid. On appeal by petitioner presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
Balatbat, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s
decision. In the case at bar, vendor Aurelio Roque sold 6/10 portion
of his share in TCT No. 135671 to private respondents
ISSUE/S Repuyan on April 1, 1980. Subsequently, the same lot was
1. WON the alleged sale to the private respondents sold again by vendor Aurelio Roque (6/10) and his children
was merely executory and not a consummated (4/10), represented by the Clerk of Court pursuant to
transaction. NO, IT WAS A CONSUMMATED Section 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on February 4,
TRANSACTION 1982. Undoubtedly, this is a case of double sale
contemplated under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.
2. WON there was a double sale as contemplated
under Art 1544 of the Civil Code. YES This is an instance of a double sale of an immovable
property hence, the ownership shall vests in the person
3. WON petitioner was a buyer in good faith and acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry
for value. NO of Property. Evidently, private respondents Repuyan's
caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the title of
RULING the subject property denominated as Entry No. 5627/T-
135671 on July 21, 1980. The annotation of the adverse
THE SALE WAS CONSUMMATED, AND THEREFORE VALID claim on TCT No. 135671 in the Registry of Property is
AND ENFORCEABLE sufficient compliance as mandated by law and serves notice
The Supreme Court found that the sale between Aurelio to the whole world.
and the Spouses Repuyan is not merely for the reason that
there was no delivery of the subject property and that PETITIONER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A BUYER IN
consideration/price was not fully paid but the sale as GOOD FAITH
consummated, hence, valid and enforceable. In the complaint for rescission filed by vendor Aurelio
Roque on August 20, 1980, herein petitioner filed a motion
The non-delivery of the possession of the subject property for intervention on May 20, 1982 but did not file her
to the private respondent, suffice it to say that ownership of complaint in intervention, hence, the decision was rendered
the thing sold is acquired only from the time of delivery adversely against her. If petitioner did investigate before
thereof, either actual or constructive. Article 1498 of the buying the land on February 4, 1982, she should have
Civil Code provides that when the sale is made through a known that there was a pending case and an annotation of
public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent adverse claim was made in the title of the property before
to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the the Register of Deeds and she could have discovered that
contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or the subject property was already sold to the private
respondents. It is incumbent upon the vendee of the
property to ask for the delivery of the owner's duplicate
copy of the title from the vendor.
Petitioner had nobody to blame but herself in dealing with
the disputed property for failure to inquire or discover a
flaw in the title to the property, thus, it is axiomatic that
culpa lata dolo aequiparatur gross negligence is equivalent
to intentional wrong.

Digest By: Shimi Fortuna Balatbat Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest By: Shimi Fortuna Balatbat Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest By: Shimi Fortuna Balatbat Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digest by: Shimi Fortuna cannot be inferred.

The execution of the public instrument,

You might also like