Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 726 views

    Abuan v. Garcia (Villarama)

    Uploaded by

    Binkee Villarama
    - In 1953, the plaintiffs sold land to the defendants through a Deed of Absolute Sale, transferring ownership. However, the plaintiffs later alleged the sale was fraudulent and filed a case. - In 1955, the parties entered into an Agreement where the defendants paid partial payment and agreed to pay the remaining balance, with the Agreement superseding all previous contracts. - The plaintiffs filed the current case in 1960 seeking to recover the land. The defendants argued the case was barred by the 5-year redemption period under the Public Land Law. - The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants acquired ownership of the land when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1953, making the redemption period start then. D

    Copyright:

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

    Abuan v. Garcia (Villarama)

    Uploaded by

    Binkee Villarama
    726 views1 page
    - In 1953, the plaintiffs sold land to the defendants through a Deed of Absolute Sale, transferring ownership. However, the plaintiffs later alleged the sale was fraudulent and filed a case. - In 1955, the parties entered into an Agreement where the defendants paid partial payment and agreed to pay the remaining balance, with the Agreement superseding all previous contracts. - The plaintiffs filed the current case in 1960 seeking to recover the land. The defendants argued the case was barred by the 5-year redemption period under the Public Land Law. - The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants acquired ownership of the land when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1953, making the redemption period start then. D

    Original Description:

    Digest (Sales)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - In 1953, the plaintiffs sold land to the defendants through a Deed of Absolute Sale, transferring ownership. However, the plaintiffs later alleged the sale was fraudulent and filed a case. - In 1955, the parties entered into an Agreement where the defendants paid partial payment and agreed to pay the remaining balance, with the Agreement superseding all previous contracts. - The plaintiffs filed the current case in 1960 seeking to recover the land. The defendants argued the case was barred by the 5-year redemption period under the Public Land Law. - The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants acquired ownership of the land when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1953, making the redemption period start then. D

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    726 views1 page

    Abuan v. Garcia (Villarama)

    Uploaded by

    Binkee Villarama
    - In 1953, the plaintiffs sold land to the defendants through a Deed of Absolute Sale, transferring ownership. However, the plaintiffs later alleged the sale was fraudulent and filed a case. - In 1955, the parties entered into an Agreement where the defendants paid partial payment and agreed to pay the remaining balance, with the Agreement superseding all previous contracts. - The plaintiffs filed the current case in 1960 seeking to recover the land. The defendants argued the case was barred by the 5-year redemption period under the Public Land Law. - The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants acquired ownership of the land when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in 1953, making the redemption period start then. D

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Bianca Danica Santiago Villarama

    G.R. No. L-20091 July 30, 1965 Bengzon, C.J.


    PERPETUA ABUAN, ET AL. v. EUSTAQUIO S. GARCIA, ET AL.

    On August 7, 1953, petitioners Perpetua Abuan et al. sold a parcel of rice land to defendants
    Eustaquio Garcia et al. through a Deed of Absolute Sale. A TCT was issued to defendants.
    Later, petitioners filed an action to recover the land, alleging the sale was tainted with fraud and
    was without consideration. Reaching an amicable settlement, the parties entered into an
    "Agreement" dated February 28, 1955, under which defendants paid P500 as partial payment of
    the purchase price of the land, and promised to pay the balance of P1,500 on or before April 30,
    1955, with a grace period of 30 days. The Agreement also stated that it "shall supersede all
    previous agreements or contracts heretofore entered into..."
    Plaintiffs instituted the present action on March 4, 1960. Defendants moved to dismiss, on the
    ground that plaintiffs' right of action was already barred, because the five-year redemption
    period had already expired. Section 119 of the Public Land Law

    provides:
    o Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patient or homestead provisions,
    when proper, shall be subject to re-purchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs,
    for a period of five years from the date of conveyance.
    Plaintiffs argue that the period should be counted from the date of full payment (May 1965)
    since it was on this date that the contract was consummated.
    CFI Nueva Vizcaya dismissed the complaint, fixing the starting date as February 28, 1955,
    when the Agreement was entered into. CA certified the case to SC.
    SC: "Conveyance" means transfer of ownership; it means the date when the title to the land is
    transferred from one person to another. The 5-year period should, therefore, be reckoned with
    from the date that defendants acquired ownership.

    When did defendants legally acquire ownership of the land?
    ! Upon execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale (August 7, 1953). Dismissal affirmed.

    Under Art. 1498, When the sale is made through a public instrument, as in this case, the
    execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if
    from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot be clearly inferred. This manner of delivery is
    common to personal as well as real property. It is clear, therefore, that defendants acquired ownership
    to the land in question upon the execution of the Deed of Absolute on August 7, 1953. The Agreement
    of February 28, 1955, only superseded the deed as to the terms and conditions of payment. The
    Agreement did not operate to revest the ownership of the land in the plaintiffs.
    Assuming arguendo that the Deed is null and void as petitioners allege, we can consider the
    date of the Agreement at the latest, as the time within which ownership is vested in the defendants.
    While it is a private instrument the execution of which could not be construed as constructive delivery
    under Art. 1498, Art. 1496 explicitly provides that ownership of the thing sold is acquired by the
    vendee from the moment it is delivered to him "in any other manner signifying an agreement
    that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee." The intention to give
    possession (and ownership) is manifest in the Agreement, especially considering the following
    circumstances: (1) the payment of part of the purchase price, there being no stipulation in the
    agreement that ownership will not vest in the vendees until full payment of the price; and (2) the
    fact that the agreement was entered into in consideration of plaintiffs' desistance, as in fact they
    did desist, in prosecuting their reivindicatory action, thereby leaving the property in the hands
    of the then and now defendants as owners thereof, necessarily. This was delivery brevi manu
    permissible under Articles 1499 and 1501 of the New Civil Code. In the absence of an express
    stipulation to the contrary, the payment of the price is not a condition precedent to the transfer of
    ownership, which passes by delivery of the thing to the buyer.

    You might also like