Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 632 views

    Sales - Villamar Vs Mangaoil

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Blanca Ramos
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of property from Estelita Villamar to Balbino Mangaoil. While their deed of sale indicated Mangaoil would pay Villamar ₱185,000, Villamar failed to deliver title to the property to Mangaoil. Mangaoil also informed Villamar that he was backing out of the sale due to tenants still occupying the land. Mangaoil demanded refund of his down payment but Villamar refused. The court ruled that Villamar's failure to deliver physical possession of the property to Mangaoil constituted a substantial breach, as mere execution of the sale agreement did not transfer constructive possession since Villamar did not have actual control over the property. The court affirmed

    Copyright:

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

    Sales - Villamar Vs Mangaoil

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Blanca Ramos
    632 views2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of property from Estelita Villamar to Balbino Mangaoil. While their deed of sale indicated Mangaoil would pay Villamar ₱185,000, Villamar failed to deliver title to the property to Mangaoil. Mangaoil also informed Villamar that he was backing out of the sale due to tenants still occupying the land. Mangaoil demanded refund of his down payment but Villamar refused. The court ruled that Villamar's failure to deliver physical possession of the property to Mangaoil constituted a substantial breach, as mere execution of the sale agreement did not transfer constructive possession since Villamar did not have actual control over the property. The court affirmed

    Original Description:

    Villamor vs. Mangaoil - Sales case digest (Consummation of sale)

    Original Title

    Sales - Villamar vs Mangaoil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a dispute over the sale of property from Estelita Villamar to Balbino Mangaoil. While their deed of sale indicated Mangaoil would pay Villamar ₱185,000, Villamar failed to deliver title to the property to Mangaoil. Mangaoil also informed Villamar that he was backing out of the sale due to tenants still occupying the land. Mangaoil demanded refund of his down payment but Villamar refused. The court ruled that Villamar's failure to deliver physical possession of the property to Mangaoil constituted a substantial breach, as mere execution of the sale agreement did not transfer constructive possession since Villamar did not have actual control over the property. The court affirmed

    Copyright:

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

    Sales - Villamar Vs Mangaoil

    Uploaded by

    Patricia Blanca Ramos
    This case involved a dispute over the sale of property from Estelita Villamar to Balbino Mangaoil. While their deed of sale indicated Mangaoil would pay Villamar ₱185,000, Villamar failed to deliver title to the property to Mangaoil. Mangaoil also informed Villamar that he was backing out of the sale due to tenants still occupying the land. Mangaoil demanded refund of his down payment but Villamar refused. The court ruled that Villamar's failure to deliver physical possession of the property to Mangaoil constituted a substantial breach, as mere execution of the sale agreement did not transfer constructive possession since Villamar did not have actual control over the property. The court affirmed

    Copyright:

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

    Estelita Villamar vs.

    Balbino Mangaoil
    G.R. No. 188661, April 11, 2012

    Facts:

    Estelita Villamar sold a property in San Francisco, Manuel, Isabela,


    with Balbino Mangaoil. Their deed of sale indicated that 185,000
    of the total price will be paid to the loan secured with Rural Bank
    of Cauyan for the payment of the mortgages in favor of Romeo
    Lacaden and Florante Parangan. Villamor failed to give the title to
    Mangaoil; the latter also informed the former that he was backing
    out from the sale agreed, giving as one of the reasons that the
    area was not yet fully cleared by encumbrances as there are
    tenants who are not willing to vacate the land without giving them
    back the amount that they mortgaged the land. Mangaoil
    demanded refund of his 185,000.00 down payment, but Villamar
    refused. Hence, Mangaoil filed a complaint of rescission of
    contract against Villamar. The latter argued that the execution of
    public instrument amounted to delivery. RTC ruled in favour of
    Mangaoil. Dissatisfied, Villamar appealed but it CA ruled also in
    favour of Mangaoil.

    Issue:

    Whether or not Villamars failure to deliver to the respondent the


    physical possession of the property amount to substantial breach.

    Ruling:

    Yes. Article 1498 of the NCC generally considers the execution of


    a public instrument as constructive delivery by the seller to the
    buyer of the property subject of a contract of sale. The case at
    bar, however, falls among the exceptions to the foregoing rule
    since a mere presumptive and not conclusive delivery is created
    as the respondent failed to take material possession of the
    subject property.
    Further, even if we were to assume for argument's sake that the
    agreement entered into by the contending parties does not
    require the delivery of the physical possession of the subject
    property from the mortgagors to the respondent, still, the
    petitioner's claim that her execution of an absolute deed of sale
    was already sufficient as it already amounted to a constructive
    delivery of the thing sold which

    Article 1498 of the NCC allows, cannot stand.


    In Philippine Suburban Development Corporation v. The Auditor
    General,29 we held:

    When the sale of real property is made in a public


    instrument, the execution thereof is equivalent to the
    delivery of the thing object of the contract, if from the deed
    the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be
    inferred.1wphi1
    In other words, there is symbolic delivery of the property
    subject of the sale by the execution of the public instrument,
    unless from the express terms of the instrument, or by clear
    inference therefrom, this was not the intention of the parties.
    Such would be the case, for instance, x x x where the vendor
    has no control over the thing sold at the moment of the sale,
    and, therefore, its material delivery could not have been
    made.

    Stated differently, as a general rule, the execution of a public


    instrument amounts to a constructive delivery of the thing subject
    of a contract of sale. However, exceptions exist, among which is
    when mere presumptive and not conclusive delivery is created in
    cases where the buyer fails to take material possession of the
    subject of sale. A person who does not have actual possession of
    the thing sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the
    execution and delivery of a public instrument.
    In the case at bar, the RTC and the CA found that the petitioner
    failed to deliver to the respondent the possession of the subject
    property due to the continued presence and occupation of
    Parangan and Lacaden. We find no ample reason to reverse the
    said findings. Considered in the light of either the agreement
    entered into by the parties or the pertinent provisions of law, the
    petitioner failed in her undertaking to deliver the subject property
    to the respondent.

    You might also like