Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 702 views

    Tanedo vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Golangco
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a property that was subject to multiple sales. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The initial 1962 sale of the future inheritance was invalid according to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, which prohibits contracts made upon a future inheritance unless authorized by law. 2) For immovable property, Article 1544 provides that ownership belongs to the person acquiring it in good faith who first registers the sale in the Registry of Property. Even though private respondents' deed of sale was later, ownership vested in them because they registered first. Petitioners did not register their sale at all. 3) Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the private respondents' sale and registration,

    Copyright:

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

    Tanedo vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Golangco
    702 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a property that was subject to multiple sales. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The initial 1962 sale of the future inheritance was invalid according to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, which prohibits contracts made upon a future inheritance unless authorized by law. 2) For immovable property, Article 1544 provides that ownership belongs to the person acquiring it in good faith who first registers the sale in the Registry of Property. Even though private respondents' deed of sale was later, ownership vested in them because they registered first. Petitioners did not register their sale at all. 3) Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the private respondents' sale and registration,

    Original Description:

    Tanedo vs. CA

    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 involves a dispute over ownership of a property that was subject to multiple sales. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The initial 1962 sale of the future inheritance was invalid according to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, which prohibits contracts made upon a future inheritance unless authorized by law. 2) For immovable property, Article 1544 provides that ownership belongs to the person acquiring it in good faith who first registers the sale in the Registry of Property. Even though private respondents' deed of sale was later, ownership vested in them because they registered first. Petitioners did not register their sale at all. 3) Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the private respondents' sale and registration,

    Copyright:

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

    Tanedo vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Claudine Golangco
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a property that was subject to multiple sales. The Supreme Court held that: 1) The initial 1962 sale of the future inheritance was invalid according to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, which prohibits contracts made upon a future inheritance unless authorized by law. 2) For immovable property, Article 1544 provides that ownership belongs to the person acquiring it in good faith who first registers the sale in the Registry of Property. Even though private respondents' deed of sale was later, ownership vested in them because they registered first. Petitioners did not register their sale at all. 3) Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the private respondents' sale and registration,

    Copyright:

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

    CASE TITLE

    Belinda Tanedo v. Court of Appeals


    GR NO. DATE
    G.R. No. 104482; January 22, 1996
    PONENTE
    Panganiban, J.

    DOCTRINE:
    Article 1347 of the Civil Code, “(n)o contract may be entered into upon a future
    inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.”
    FACTS:
    Lazardo Tañ edo executed a notarized deed of absolute sale in favor of his eldest brother,
    Ricardo Tañ edo, and the latter’s wife, Teresita Barera. Private respondents recorded the
    Deed of Sale in their favor in the Registry of Deeds and the corresponding entry was made
    in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 166451.
    On January 13, 1981, Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale in favor of private
    respondent. In February 1981, Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his
    children, petitioners herein, through a deed of sale dated December 29, 1980.
    Petitioners on July 16, 1982, filed a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of the deeds
    of sale executed by Lazardo in favor of private respondents covering the property
    inherited by Lazaro from his father. Petitioners claimed that their father, Lazaro, executed
    an “Absolute Deed of Sale” dated December 29, 1980.
    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the sale of a future inheritance valid?
    2. Whether or not the subsequent execution on January 13, 1981 (and registration
    with the Registry of Property) of a deed of sale covering the same property to the
    same buyers valid?
    HELD:
    1. No.
    We hereby categorically rule that, pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, “(n)o
    contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly
    authorized by law.”
    Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot be the source of any
    right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties.
    Hence, the “affidavit of conformity” dated February 28, 1980, insofar as it sought to
    validate or ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless and, in the words of the respondent Court,
    “suffers from the same infirmity.” Even private respondents in their memorandum
    concede this.
    2. Yes.
    Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in cases of
    multiple sales, as follows:
    Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership
    shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good
    faith, if it should be movable property.
    Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it
    who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
    Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good
    faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents
    the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
    The property in question is land, an immovable, and following the above-quoted law,
    ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it first in the registry of
    property. Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later
    than the one in favor of petitioners, ownership would vest in the former because of
    the undisputed fact of registration. On the other hand, petitioners have not registered
    the sale to them at all

    You might also like