69. JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P.

FOZ
20 Phil 388

Facts:

Eustaquio P. Foz executed in Manila a contract, ratified before a notary, obligating himself
to deliver his house and lot for a consideration of P6,000 to Jose Florendo. The latter already paid
P2, 000 of the purchase prize. In the contract, plaintiff fixed the period of the payment of the prize
wherein plaintiff has to pay the remainder of the prize when he goes to Vigan or if not to pay to
the Church wherein he has a debt and to obtain the title of the subject matter of the sale. Defendant
went to Vigan, plaintiff tendered payment of the remainder of the prize, however, the former
refused, saying that the true prize of the sale recorded in the other instrument was P10,000. As
defendant refused payment, plaintiff filed a suit to comply with the contract of absolute purchase
and sale, by delivering to the plaintiff the property sold.

Issue:

WON the plaintiff can compel the defendant to deliver his propertypursuant to the
notarized contract.

Held:

Yes. The contract is valid and effective. From the validity and force of the contract is
derived the obligation on the part of the vendor to deliver the thing sold. Pursuant to the contract,
it can’t be found that the payment of the prize is a precondition for the delivery of the thing. There
was no need, therefore, of assenton the part of the plaintiff to pay the P4, 000, the remainder of
the price, in order to oblige the defendant unconditionally to deliver the property sold. With still
more reason should the defendant be compelled to effect the material delivery of the property,
since, after the lapse of the period for the delivery of the price, the plaintiff hastened to pay it and,
on account of the defendant's refusal to receive it, duly deposited it, in order to avoid the
consequences that might issue from delinquency in the payment of a sum entrusted to him for a
fixed period. It is the material delivery of the property sold which the defendant must make in
compliance with the contract, inasmuch as the formal delivery de jure was made, according to
the provisions of article 1462, 2nd paragraph, of the same code.
 70. DOMICIANO GONZAGA vs ANGEL JAVELLANA
G.R. No. 6843 September 3, 1912

Facts:

Angel Javellana won a suit against Jose Lim and attached the lot of the latter for the
satisfaction of the judgement. A portion of which containing an area of 449.30 sq.m. is now the
subject of the litigation. This was already sold to one Domiciano Gonzaga in 1905 while the sale
to Javellana was on 1910. The sale to Gonzaga was recorded in 1909 in the Property Registry in
Iloilo City. In 1910. Gonzaga brought a suit against Javellana for the ownership of the said parcel
of land. The latter contended that the sale made to Gonzaga was fictitious for lack of consideration
as attested by witnesses. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed from
that judgment and forwarded his appeal to this court through the means of a bill of exceptions.

Issue:

Whether or not the contract of sale between Lim and Gonzaga a valid one.

Held:

There was a valid contract of sale between Lim and Gonzaga since all the elements for its
perfection has been complied with. the deed made in 1905 by Jose Lim to this plaintiff was made
for a valuable consideration. This is shown by the deed of itself, and the testimony of the more
reliable witness. The other facts alleged as proof of the simulation do not, either singly or jointly,
destroy the truth of the first contract of sale. The agreement of the payment of taxes of the vendor
even after the sale does not destroy the validity of the perfected contract of sale. As there was not
sufficient evidence of the simulation of the contract of sale on which the complaint is based, the
court right concluded that the sale was true, valid and effective one.
 71. Viegelmann & Co. vs Perez
37 Phil 678

Facts:

Three months after the date of the acknowledgment of the instrument presented, Yap Cangco
was declared insolvent. On the 4th day of November, 1913, K. Matsumato was designated as
assignee by the creditors; and on the same day he was ordered to sell all the insolvent's estate.

Under the order of the court the greater part of the property described in the foregoing document
was taken into possession of the assignee as the property of the insolvent. On November 18,
1913, Perez, the appellant in this case, presented a claim in the course of the insolvency
proceedings, setting forth that under the terms of the foregoing document, he had become the
owner of the property described therein, as a result of the failure of the insolvent to redeem or
repurchase it at the time stipulated therefor; and that he was entitled to possession as against the
assignee and the creditors of the insolvent, or to the proceeds arising from its sale in the course
of the bankruptcy proceedings.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the instrument presented is valid

2. Whether or not Perez is entitled to the possession of the properties

Held:

1. The Supreme Court held citing the cases of Laureano vs. Kilayko (34 Phil. Rep.,
148); Cuyugan vs. Santos (34 Phil. Rep., 100); and PP. Agustinos Recoletos vs. Lichauco (34
Phil. Rep., 5), that, “we have no hesitation in holding that the instrument in question did not
evidence a genuine sale with the right to repurchase reserved to the vendor, and that although
it was cast in the form usually adopted in evidencing such a transaction, it was in truth and in
fact no more than a solemn declaration in a public document acknowledging his indebtedness,
in the sum of P1,000, the borrower at the same time solemnly obligating himself to hold the
property described in the instrument under the conditions set forth therein as security for the
payment of the loan.” The instrument, not having been recorded in the mortgage registry,
cannot be given the effect of the mortgage, so as to prejudice the rights of third persons in and
to the property; or the proceeds of its sale in the hands of the assignee on bankruptcy
proceedings on the ground that he held a mortgage, either legal or equitable, upon the property.
2. The SC held that the creditor, Perez, whose indebtedness is acknowledged in a public
instrument, executed more than three months prior to the institution of the bankruptcy
proceedings, is entitled to a preference in the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of his
debtor's property in the hands of the assignee in these bankruptcy proceedings, as against
unsecured creditors. (Subsection 3, article 1924, Civil Code.)
 72. CAMPILLO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
129 SCRA 513

Facts:

Tomas de Vera was the owner of two parcels of land in Tondo, Manila. In 1961, de Vera
sold the lands to Simplicio Santos. Santos however did not register the sale in the Registry of
Deeds, which means that the land was still under de Vera’s name. On the other hand, de Vera was
indebted to Campillo. Campillo obtained a judgment for sum of money. De Vera’s 3 parcels of
land, including those sold to Santos were levied in 1962 in favor of Campillo. \ acquired the land
and he was able to have the lands be registered under his name.

Issue:

Who has better right over the property: Santos who first bought it w/o registering it or
Campillo who subsequently purchased it at a public auction and have it registered under his name?

Held:
Campillo has the right over the said properties. It is settled in this jurisdiction that a sale
of real estate, whether made as a result of a private transaction or of a foreclosure or execution
sale, becomes legally effective against third persons only from the date of its registration. Santos
purchase of the two parcels of land may be valid but it is not enforceable against third persons
for he failed to have it registered. Campillo is a purchaser in good faith as he was not aware of
any previous sale for Santos never caused the annotation of the sale. Section 51, PD No. 1529,
otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree, provides as follows:

"Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. -An owner of registered
land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance
with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary
instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary
instrument except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as
a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and
as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.

"The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third
persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the
office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies."
The purchaser (Campillo) in the execution sale of the registered land in suit acquires such right
and interest as appears in the certificate of title unaffected by prior lien or encumbrances not noted
therein. This must be so in order to preserve the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of
title which is sanctified under our Torrens system of land registration.
 73. OBANA vs. COURT of APPEALS and SANDOVAL
135 SCRA 557, March 29, 1985

Facts:

On November 21, 1964, Anicleto Sandoval (owner of Sandoval’s and Sons Rice Mill) was
approached by Chan Lin who offered to purchase from him 170 cavans of rice at the price of
P37.25 per cavan. The driver attempted to collect the payment from Chan Lin and Petitioner
Anacleto Sandoval but the latter refused, stating that he had already made the payment to Chan
Lin. Further demands having been met with refusal, Sandoval, as plaintiff, filed suit for Replevin
against petitioner, before the Municipal Court of San Fernando, La Union which ordered
petitioner- defendant to pay to Sandoval ½ of the cost of the rice or P2,805. On appeal by the
petitioner to the court of First Instance, judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint. On
appeal to respondent Appellate Court, Sandoval obtained a reversal in his favor. Hence, the present
petition seeks for the review of the decision of Court of Appeals ordering Obaña in action for
Replevin to return to Sandoval, Private Respondent herein, 170 cavans of rice or to pay its value
in the amount P37.25 per cavan, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner-dependent had unjustly enriched himself at the expense of
another by holding on to property no longer belonging to him.

Held:

The judgment under review is hereby affirmed. Costs against petitioner. No person should
be benefited without a valid basis or justification, shall enrich himself at the expense of another
and hold on to a property no longer belonging to him. The petition- defendant in his own testimony
said that he was repaid the sum of P5,600 by Chan Lin and claimed that he delivered the rice back
to them. However, the driver denied that the rice had ever been returned. The driver’s version is
more credible since Sandoval’s lawyer had manifested in open court that they would have
withdrawn the complaint if the return of the rice had been effected. In law and equity, therefore,
Sandoval is entitled to recover the rice, or the value thereof since he was not paid the price therefor.
 74. DANGUILAN VS IAC
168 SCRA 22

Facts:
On January 29, 1962, the Apolonia Melad, assisted by her husband, filed a complaint
against the petitioner in the then Court of First Instance of Cagayan for recovery of a farm lot and
a residential lot which she claimed she had purchased from Domingo Melad in 1943 which is now
possessed by Felix Danguilan. At the trial, the plaintiff presented a deed of sale dated December
4, 1943, purportedly signed by Domingo Melad and duly notarized, which conveyed the said
properties to her for the sum of P80.00. She claimed to have stayed with Domingo, being an
illegitimate child of the latter until his death in 1945. She moved out of the farm only when in
1946 Felix Danguilan approached her and asked permission to cultivate the land and to stay
therein. She had agreed on condition that he would deliver part of the harvest from the farm to her,
which he did from that year to 1958. For his part, the defendant testified that he was the husband
of Isidra Melad, Domingo’s niece. The latter took them to their home and in 1941 and 1943, two
separate documents were executed to effect the conveyance of the farm lot and the residential lot
respectively on condition that they will take care of Domingo until his death. The Trial Court ruled
in favor of Danguilan deciding mainly based on possession. The decision concluded that where
there was doubt as to the ownership of the property, the presumption was in favor of the one
actually occupying the same, which in this case was the defendant. The issue was raised for review
to the IAC who ruled in favor of Apolonia Melad and held that the documents for the conveyance
of the two parcels of land to the petitioner are null and void because it is in substance a donation
so they should have been executed in a public instrument.

Issue:
Whether or not the transfer of land from Domingo to Danguilan is considered sale.

Held:

Yes, the conveyance of the two parcels of land is considered sale. It was alleged and not
denied that he died when he was almost one hundred years old, which would mean that the
petitioner farmed the land practically by himself and so provided for the donee (and his wife)
during the latter part of Domingo Melad's life. We may assume that there was a fair exchange
between the donor and the donee that made the transaction an onerous donation. Therefore the
transfer was not a donation and Daguilan being the possessor of the land is considered the owner
of the same.