Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 118 views

    316 Lopez v. Constantino, 74 Phil 160

    Uploaded by

    Mik Zeid
    The appellant sold land and buildings to her daughter, the appellee, with the condition that the appellant would receive half the rents from the buildings as a life pension. A court found this was a valid condition of the sale. The buildings were later destroyed by fire through no fault of the appellee. The appellee sought to cancel the annotation of the condition on the title, arguing her obligation ended with the buildings' destruction. The appellant argued her right to the pension affected the land as well and the insurance money should rebuild. The court found the appellant was a co-usufructuary of the buildings, so even if the obligation was tied to the buildings, its destruction did not end the appellant's right to pension under code

    Copyright:

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

    316 Lopez v. Constantino, 74 Phil 160

    Uploaded by

    Mik Zeid
    118 views2 pages
    The appellant sold land and buildings to her daughter, the appellee, with the condition that the appellant would receive half the rents from the buildings as a life pension. A court found this was a valid condition of the sale. The buildings were later destroyed by fire through no fault of the appellee. The appellee sought to cancel the annotation of the condition on the title, arguing her obligation ended with the buildings' destruction. The appellant argued her right to the pension affected the land as well and the insurance money should rebuild. The court found the appellant was a co-usufructuary of the buildings, so even if the obligation was tied to the buildings, its destruction did not end the appellant's right to pension under code

    Original Description:

    property law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant sold land and buildings to her daughter, the appellee, with the condition that the appellant would receive half the rents from the buildings as a life pension. A court found this was a valid condition of the sale. The buildings were later destroyed by fire through no fault of the appellee. The appellee sought to cancel the annotation of the condition on the title, arguing her obligation ended with the buildings' destruction. The appellant argued her right to the pension affected the land as well and the insurance money should rebuild. The court found the appellant was a co-usufructuary of the buildings, so even if the obligation was tied to the buildings, its destruction did not end the appellant's right to pension under code

    Copyright:

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

    316 Lopez v. Constantino, 74 Phil 160

    Uploaded by

    Mik Zeid
    The appellant sold land and buildings to her daughter, the appellee, with the condition that the appellant would receive half the rents from the buildings as a life pension. A court found this was a valid condition of the sale. The buildings were later destroyed by fire through no fault of the appellee. The appellee sought to cancel the annotation of the condition on the title, arguing her obligation ended with the buildings' destruction. The appellant argued her right to the pension affected the land as well and the insurance money should rebuild. The court found the appellant was a co-usufructuary of the buildings, so even if the obligation was tied to the buildings, its destruction did not end the appellant's right to pension under code

    Copyright:

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

    316 Lopez v.

    Constantino, 74 Phil 160


    FACTS:
    In January, 1936, appellant sold to her daughter, the appellee, a parcel of land with all the
    buildings and improvements thereon situated at Nos. 1215, 1217, 1219, and 1221 Juan
    Luna, Tondo, Manila, in consideration of the sum of P4,000. In civil case No. 49536 of the
    Court of First Instance of Manila, which was instituted by the present appellant against the
    present appellee in order that the sale be either rescinded or declared subject to the
    condition presently to be mentioned, final judgment was rendered in which the court found
    that the purchase price of the house was far below its assessed or market value and that the
    sale was subject to the condition that the vendor shall receive from the vendee by way of life
    pension one half of the rents from Nos. 1215, 1217 and the ground floor of Nos. 1219 and
    1221 Juan Luna. By virtue of that judgment said condition was annotated on the back of the
    certificate of title.
    On May 3, 1941, without appellee’s fault, the building or buildings above mentioned were
    totally destroyed by fire. Appellee and appellant, however, collected P5,000 and P1,000,
    respectively, on the insurance of their respective interests.
    After the destruction of the building appellee sought by motion in the land registration case to
    cancel the annotation on the certificate of title of the condition of the sale above mentioned,
    on the theory that her obligation to pay appellant a life pension had terminated upon the
    destruction of the building out of the rents from which said pension was payable. The Fourth
    Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila granted the motion over the opposition of the
    appellant and ordered the cancellation of the annotation and the issuance of a new
    certificate of title in favor of the appellee without such annotation.
    Appellant contends (a) that her right to receive a life pension as a condition of the sale
    affected not only the building but also the lot on which it was erected and, hence, such right
    was not extinguished upon the loss of the building; and (b) that the proceeds of the fire
    insurance policy which appellee collected should be ordered invested in the construction of
    another building.
    The trial court believed that the life pension was an incumbrance on the building alone, and
    held that said building having been destroyed without appellee’s fault, and there remaining
    nothing but the lot, "which in Manila constitutes a liability when it has no building," the life
    pension could no longer subsist.

    ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is a co-usufructuary of the said building.


    RULING: YES.
    RIGHT OF PENSIONER AS CO-USUFRUCTUARY OF BUILDING. — But even granting
    that the obligation of the appellee to pay to the appellant during the latter’s lifetime one half
    of the rents of the building in question or of certain portions thereof is an incumbrance on the
    building alone, such obligation may properly be considered as constituting the appellant a
    co-usufructuary of said building. Article 469 of the Civil Code provides that usufruct may be
    created on the whole or a part of the fruits of a thing, in favor of one or more persons,
    simultaneously or successively, and in any case from or to a certain day, conditionally or
    unconditionally. And article 517 of the same Code pertinently provides that if the usufruct be
    created upon the building only and the latter should be destroyed, the usufructuary shall be
    entitled to enjoy the use of the land and materials. It is clear, therefore, that from whatever
    aspect the case is viewed, the conclusion is inescapable that appellee’s obligation towards
    appellant under the contract above mentioned has not been extinguished.

    You might also like