Tiana Vs Torrejon

Case Title: Tiana vs Torrejon, 21 Phil 127
Topic: Warranty of Title to the Property
Ponente: Johnson, J.
Doctrine: The vendor cannot escape his obligation of warranty by alleging that although
there may be a final judgment against the vendee, such judgment became final with the
latter's consent.
Facts:
The plaintiff, Don Leopoldo Canizares Tiana, purchased from the defendant, Don Jose Maria
Torrejon, for the sum of P2,500, a lot with buildings and improvements, situated in the
municipality of Jolo, Moro Province, Philippine Islands. At the sale of the said lot and
improvements, the vendor, Jose Maria Torrejon, warranted the title thereto as appears from
the wording of the contract of sale and purchase. Before executing the deed of sale to the
estate in question, the defendant seller, Jose Maria Torrejon, filed an application in the Court
of Land Registration (case No. 1440), requesting registration of the land and improvements.
Although the said Torrejon had executed the deed of sale to the land and improvements in
favor of Tiana, he continued to prosecute the case No. 1440.
Tiana continued the prosecution of the case in the usual manner until decision therein was
rendered. Tiana asked the court for a continuation in order to present more evidence in
support of the requested registration of the property which is the subject of the present
litigation, doing this in compliance with instructions from Torrejon. The court granted this
request and continued the case, and notification of this action by the court was transmitted to
Torrejon. During the period granted by the court, the plaintiff Tiana requested the defendant
Torrejon, on various occasions, to bring forward the evidence required but the latter failed to
do so. On August 8, 1908, the court issued a decree dismissing the application in case No. 1440
and declaring the estate in question to be public property and notification thereof was sent to
Torrejon. It further appears that the lot with its buildings and improvements, the subject of
this litigation, passed into the possession of the military authorities; that the plaintiff Tiana
received no payment whatsoever for it; and that, at that time, the value of it was P2,500, the
amount for which Torrejon sold it to Tiana. Since the said month of May, 1908, or about the
middle thereof, when the plaintiff in the present suit was deprived of possession, the estate has
produced rent at the rate of P36 a month, of which the plaintiff has also been deprived. On
December 14, 1909, the plaintiff Tiana demanded that the defendant Torrejon return or repay
to him the sum of P2,500. It further appears that Torrejon knew of the Government's
objection to the application in case No. 1440, and that the land, buildings and improvements,
described in case No. 1440, were wholly included within the boundaries of the military
reservation of Jolo, Sulu, Moro Province.
Issue (must be in question form):
Can the vendor escape his obligation of warranty by alleging that although there may be a
final judgment against the vendee, such judgment became final with the latter's consent?
Held:
No, and the vendee's right does not suffer the least impairment because he did not appeal.
This is an action upon the warranty of the title to the property in case of eviction, under
article 1475 of the Civil Code. In such case there are three indispensable requisites: (1) Final
judgment; (2) that the vendee be deprived of the whole or a part of the thing sold; and, (3) a
right prior to the sale (Manresa on the Civil Code, volume 10, pages 161 to 170); and, finally,
another indispensable requisite is that prescribed in article 1481 of the Civil Code: that the
vendor be given notice of the suit at the instance of the vendee. On the merits of the present
case, and the preponderance of the plaintiff's evidence, and from the facts established, all the
foregoing requisites appear herein. In his brief the defendant alleges that the decree issued
in case No. 1440 was not final and that the plaintiff could and should have appealed from it.
With reference to the allegation of the defendant, Torrejon, that he was not notified of the
suit, that is, of the objection presented by the government in case No. 1440, he cannot set up
such a defense, for he was himself the applicant in that case, without the intervention of
Tiana, and such objection on the part of the government to his claims already subsisted.
By virtue of the foregoing considerations, and of the facts established in this cause, the court
held that the plaintiff, Don Leopoldo Canizares Tiana, is entitled to recover from the
defendant, Don Jose Maria Torrejon, the sum of P2,500, the price of the real estate involved
in the present suit, and that he is also entitled to receive the sum of P36 a month from May,
1908, up to the day on which this judgment is executed.

Tiana Vs Torrejon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiana Vs Torrejon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tiana Vs Torrejon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Title: Tiana vs Torrejon, 21 Phil 127

Topic: Warranty of Title to the Property

Issue (must be in question form):

You might also like