A. A. ADDISON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARCIANA FELIX and BALBINO TIOCO, defendants-appellees, G.R. No.

L-12342, August 3, 1918

Facts: The defendants-appellees spouses Maciana Felix and Balbino Tioco purchased from plaintiff-appellant A.A.
Addison four parcels of land to which Felix paid, at the time of the execution of the deed, the sum of P3,000 on account of the purchase price. She likewise bound herself to the remainder in installments, the first of P,2000 on July 15, 1914, the second of P5,000 thirty days after the issuance to her of a certificate of title under the Land Registration Act, and further, within ten years from the date of such title, P10 for each cocoanut tree in bearing and P5 for each such tree not in bearing that might be growing on said parcels of land on the date of the issuance of title to her, with the condition that the total price should not exceed P85,000. It was further stipulated that Felix was to deliver to the Addison 25% of the value of the products that she might obtain from the four parcels "from the moment she takes possession of them until the Torrens certificate of title be issued in her favor," and that within 1 year from the date of the certificate of title in her favor, Marciana Felix may rescind the contract of purchase and sale. In January 1915, Addison , filed suit in the CFI of Manila to compel Felix to pay the first installment of P2,000, demandable, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. The defendants Felix and her husband Tioco contended that Addison had absolutely failed to deliver the lands that were the subject matter of the sale, notwithstanding the demands they made upon him for this purpose. The evidence adduced shows Addison was able to designate only two of the four parcels, and more than two-thirds of these two were found to be in the possession of one Juan Villafuerte, who claimed to be the owner of the parts he so occupied. The trial court held the contract of sale to be rescinded and ordered Addison to return to Felix the P3,000 paid on account of the price, together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum.

Issue: Whether or not there was a delivery made and, therefore, a transfer of ownership of the thing sold. Held: No. The record shows that the plaintiff did not deliver the thing sold. With respect to two of the parcels of land,
he was not even able to show them to the purchaser; and as regards the other two, more than two-thirds of their area was in the hostile and adverse possession of a third person. The Code imposes upon the vendor the obligation to deliver the thing sold. The thing is considered to be delivered when it is placed "in the hands and possession of the vendee." (Civ. Code, art. 1462.) It is true that the same article declares that the execution of a public instruments is equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, but, in order that this symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over the thing sold that, at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been made. It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed in his control. When there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the tenancy of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a public instrument is sufficient. But if, notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and make use of it himself or through another in his name, because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by the interposition of another will, then fiction yields to reality the delivery has not been effected. It is evident, then, in the case at bar, that the mere execution of the instrument was not a fulfillment of the vendors' obligation to deliver the thing sold, and that from such non-fulfillment arises the purchaser's right to demand, as she has demanded, the rescission of the sale and the return of the price. (Civ. Code, arts. 1506 and 1124.) Of course if the sale had been made under the express agreement of imposing upon the purchaser the obligation to take the necessary steps to obtain the material possession of the thing sold, and it were proven that she knew that the thing was in the possession of a third person claiming to have property rights therein, such agreement would be perfectly valid. But there is nothing in the instrument which would indicate, even implicitly, that such was the agreement.