Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    Vendor Did Not Intend To Deliver Outright The Possession of The Lands To The Vendee?

    Uploaded by

    Bianca Paloma
    1) Alejandra bought two parcels of land from Josefa for PHP 5,000 but was prevented from taking physical possession by Martin Deloso, who claimed to own the lands. 2) Alejandra sued to remove Deloso but later abandoned the case. She then asked Josefa either convey replacement lands or return the purchase price plus expenses. 3) The court found that Josefa did not comply with her obligation under Article 1462 of the Civil Code to place Alejandra in control and possession of the lands, as Alejandra was never able to take possession due to Deloso's refusal. Execution of the public deed alone did not constitute delivery since Alejandra was impeded from taking

    Copyright:

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

    Vendor Did Not Intend To Deliver Outright The Possession of The Lands To The Vendee?

    Uploaded by

    Bianca Paloma
    14 views2 pages
    1) Alejandra bought two parcels of land from Josefa for PHP 5,000 but was prevented from taking physical possession by Martin Deloso, who claimed to own the lands. 2) Alejandra sued to remove Deloso but later abandoned the case. She then asked Josefa either convey replacement lands or return the purchase price plus expenses. 3) The court found that Josefa did not comply with her obligation under Article 1462 of the Civil Code to place Alejandra in control and possession of the lands, as Alejandra was never able to take possession due to Deloso's refusal. Execution of the public deed alone did not constitute delivery since Alejandra was impeded from taking

    Original Description:

    b

    Original Title

    h

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Alejandra bought two parcels of land from Josefa for PHP 5,000 but was prevented from taking physical possession by Martin Deloso, who claimed to own the lands. 2) Alejandra sued to remove Deloso but later abandoned the case. She then asked Josefa either convey replacement lands or return the purchase price plus expenses. 3) The court found that Josefa did not comply with her obligation under Article 1462 of the Civil Code to place Alejandra in control and possession of the lands, as Alejandra was never able to take possession due to Deloso's refusal. Execution of the public deed alone did not constitute delivery since Alejandra was impeded from taking

    Copyright:

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

    Vendor Did Not Intend To Deliver Outright The Possession of The Lands To The Vendee?

    Uploaded by

    Bianca Paloma
    1) Alejandra bought two parcels of land from Josefa for PHP 5,000 but was prevented from taking physical possession by Martin Deloso, who claimed to own the lands. 2) Alejandra sued to remove Deloso but later abandoned the case. She then asked Josefa either convey replacement lands or return the purchase price plus expenses. 3) The court found that Josefa did not comply with her obligation under Article 1462 of the Civil Code to place Alejandra in control and possession of the lands, as Alejandra was never able to take possession due to Deloso's refusal. Execution of the public deed alone did not constitute delivery since Alejandra was impeded from taking

    Copyright:

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

    5.

    TRIAL COURT: Rescinded the deed of sale entered into by Alejandra and
    3 Vda. de Sarmiento v Lesaca Josefa, and ordering Josefa to pay Alejandra to pay Josefa the sum of PP
    5,000.
    GR No. L-15385 | June 30, 1960 | Delivery | Binky
    ISSUES: Whether or not the execution of the deed of sale in a public document is
    Petitioner: ALEJANDRA BUGARIN VDA. DE SARMIENTO
    equivalent to delivery of possession of the lands sold to appellee thus relieving her
    Respondents: JOSEFA R. LESACA
    of the obligation to place appellee in actual possession thereof?
    Recit-Ready: Alejandra bought 2 parcels of land from Josefa for Php5,000.
    RATIO:
    However, when Alejandra tried to take actual physical possession of the said lands,
    LAW APPLIED (They used the old Civil Code here):
    she was prevented by Martin Deloso who claims to be the owner of the two parcels
    ART. 1461. The vendor is bound to deliver and warrant the thing which is the
    of land.
    subject-matter of the sale.

    Doctrine:
    ART. 1462. The thing sold shall be deemed delivered when the vendee is placed
    Art. 1498. When the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution
    in the control and possession thereof.
    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 clearly be
    If the sale should be made by means of a public instrument, the execution
    inferred.
    thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the subject-
    matter of the contract unless the contrary appears or is clearly to be inferred
    With regard to movable property, its delivery may also be made by the delivery of
    from such instrument.
    the keys of the place or depository where it is stored or kept.

    When a contract of sale is executed the vendor is bound to deliver to the vendee
    When a contract of sale is executed the vendor is bound to deliver to the vendee
    the thing sold by placing the vendee in the control and possession of the subject-
    the thing sold by placing the vendee in the control and possession of the subject-
    matter of the contract. However, if the sale is executed by means of a public
    matter of the contract. However, if the sale is executed by means of a public
    instrument, the mere execution of the instrument is equivalent to delivery unless
    instrument, the mere execution of the instrument is equivalent to delivery unless
    the contrary appears or is clearly to be inferred from such instrument.
    the contrary appears or is clearly to be inferred from such instrument.

    IN THE CASE AT BAR:


    FACTS: Q: Is there any stipulation in the sale in question from which we can infer that the
    vendor did not intend to deliver outright the possession of the lands to the vendee?
    1. Alejandra bought from Josefa 2 parcels of land for Php 5,000
    2. After the sale, Alejandra tried to take actual physical possession of the A: We find none. On the contrary, it can be clearly seen therein that the vendor
    lands but was prevented from doing so by Martin Deloso who claims to intended to place the vendee in actual possession of the lands immediately as
    be the owner of the said lands can be inferred from the stipulation that the vendee "takes actual possession
    3. Alejandra instituted an action before the Tenancy Enforcement Division thereof ... with full rights to dispose, enjoy and make use thereof in such manner
    of the Department of Justice to oust Martin Deloso from the possession and form as would be most advantageous to herself." The possession referred
    of the lands which she later abandoned for reasons known only to her. to in the contract evidently refers to actual possession and not merely
    4. Alejandra wrote to Josefa asking Josefa to either: (1) to change the lands symbolical inferable from the mere execution of the document. [THERE WAS NO
    sold with another of the same kind and class; or (2) to return the purchase POSSESSION SO ART. 1462 WAS NOT OBTAINED]
    price together with the expenses she had incurred in the execution of the
    sale + 6% interest. Josefa did not agree. Q: Has the vendor complied with this express commitment?
    A: She did not. As provided in Article 1462, the thing sold shall be deemed
    delivered when the vendee is placed in the control and possession thereof, which
    situation does not here obtain because from the execution of the sale up to the
    present the vendee was never able to take possession of the lands due to the
    insistent refusal of Martin Deloso to surrender them claiming ownership thereof.
    [CONDITION FOR ART. 1462 TO APPLY] And although it is postulated in the
    same article that the execution of a public document is equivalent to delivery,
    this legal fiction only holds true when there is no impediment that may prevent
    the passing of the property from the hands of the vendor into those of the
    vendee.

    You might also like