Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Baluran v. Navarro

    Uploaded by

    Rizza
    The contract between Baluran and Paraiso stipulated that Baluran could construct a house on Paraiso's land and Paraiso could harvest the fruits of Baluran's riceland. It prohibited alienation of the properties and allowed Paraiso's heirs to repossess the residential lot. When Obedencio, Paraiso's grandchild, demanded Baluran vacate, Baluran argued the contract transferred ownership. The court ruled the contract established a usufruct, not ownership transfer, and allowed the parties to stipulate resolutory conditions like Paraiso's heirs repossessing the lot. Therefore, Baluran must return the land to Obedencio but may remove the house as the usufructuary.

    Copyright:

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

    Baluran v. Navarro

    Uploaded by

    Rizza
    96 views1 page
    The contract between Baluran and Paraiso stipulated that Baluran could construct a house on Paraiso's land and Paraiso could harvest the fruits of Baluran's riceland. It prohibited alienation of the properties and allowed Paraiso's heirs to repossess the residential lot. When Obedencio, Paraiso's grandchild, demanded Baluran vacate, Baluran argued the contract transferred ownership. The court ruled the contract established a usufruct, not ownership transfer, and allowed the parties to stipulate resolutory conditions like Paraiso's heirs repossessing the lot. Therefore, Baluran must return the land to Obedencio but may remove the house as the usufructuary.

    Original Title

    BALURAN V. NAVARRO

    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 contract between Baluran and Paraiso stipulated that Baluran could construct a house on Paraiso's land and Paraiso could harvest the fruits of Baluran's riceland. It prohibited alienation of the properties and allowed Paraiso's heirs to repossess the residential lot. When Obedencio, Paraiso's grandchild, demanded Baluran vacate, Baluran argued the contract transferred ownership. The court ruled the contract established a usufruct, not ownership transfer, and allowed the parties to stipulate resolutory conditions like Paraiso's heirs repossessing the lot. Therefore, Baluran must return the land to Obedencio but may remove the house as the usufructuary.

    Copyright:

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

    Baluran v. Navarro

    Uploaded by

    Rizza
    The contract between Baluran and Paraiso stipulated that Baluran could construct a house on Paraiso's land and Paraiso could harvest the fruits of Baluran's riceland. It prohibited alienation of the properties and allowed Paraiso's heirs to repossess the residential lot. When Obedencio, Paraiso's grandchild, demanded Baluran vacate, Baluran argued the contract transferred ownership. The court ruled the contract established a usufruct, not ownership transfer, and allowed the parties to stipulate resolutory conditions like Paraiso's heirs repossessing the lot. Therefore, Baluran must return the land to Obedencio but may remove the house as the usufructuary.

    Copyright:

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

    143 DARLUCIO

    BALURAN V. NAVARRO

    FACTS:
    Baluran and Paraiso (ancestor of Obedencio) entered into a contract which they called
    barter, but in fact stipulated that they would only transfer the material possession of their
    respective properties to each other. Thus, Baluran will be allowed to construct a
    residential house on the land of Paraiso while Paraiso is entitled to reap the fruits of the
    riceland of Baluran. The contract prohibited them from alienating the properties of the
    other and contained a stipulation that should the heirs of Paraiso desire to re-possess the
    residential lot, Baluran is obliged to return the lot. Indeed, years after, Obedencio
    (grandchild of Paraiso) acquired the ownership of the residential lot from his mother and
    demanded that Baluran, who was in possession, vacate. Baluran now counters that the
    barter already transferred ownership.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the contract was usufruct

    RULING:
    Yes. First, the contract is what the law defines it to be and not what the parties call it. It is
    very clear that what the parties exchanged was not ownership, but merely material
    possession or the right to enjoy the thing.

    Now, because it is usufruct, the law allows the parties to stipulate the conditions including
    the manner of its extinguishment. In this case, it was subject to a resolutory condition
    which is in case the heir of Paraiso (a third party) desires to repossess the property. Upon
    the happening of the condition, the contract is extinguished.
    Therefore, Baluran must return the land to Obedencia. But since Art. 579 allows the
    usufructuary to remove improvements he made, Baluran may remove the house he
    constructed. One last point. At the time of this case, the Obedencias were also in
    possession of the riceland of Baluran. Although it was not proper to decide the issue of
    possession in this case, the Court nevertheless decided on the matter and order the
    Obedencias to vacate the property inasmuch as there was an extinguishment of a
    reciprocal obligations and rights. The manner of terminating the right of usufruct may be
    stipulated by the parties such as in this case, the happening of a resolutory condition.

    You might also like