Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 127 views

    1960s: Pastrano Sold To Ledesma

    Uploaded by

    Pio Mathay
    1. This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was allegedly sold twice by the original owners to different parties. The Badillas claim they purchased a portion of the land from Ledesma in 1970, while Bragat claims to have purchased the entire land from Pastrano in the 1980s based on documentation. 2. The Court examined the facts and found that Ledesma had validly sold a portion of the land to the Badillas in 1970, prior to selling a different portion to Bragat in 1978. Therefore, ownership of the portion occupied by the Badillas was rightfully transferred to them. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the Badillas, declaring their

    Copyright:

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

    1960s: Pastrano Sold To Ledesma

    Uploaded by

    Pio Mathay
    127 views4 pages
    1. This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was allegedly sold twice by the original owners to different parties. The Badillas claim they purchased a portion of the land from Ledesma in 1970, while Bragat claims to have purchased the entire land from Pastrano in the 1980s based on documentation. 2. The Court examined the facts and found that Ledesma had validly sold a portion of the land to the Badillas in 1970, prior to selling a different portion to Bragat in 1978. Therefore, ownership of the portion occupied by the Badillas was rightfully transferred to them. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the Badillas, declaring their

    Original Title

    Badilla v. Bragat

    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. This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was allegedly sold twice by the original owners to different parties. The Badillas claim they purchased a portion of the land from Ledesma in 1970, while Bragat claims to have purchased the entire land from Pastrano in the 1980s based on documentation. 2. The Court examined the facts and found that Ledesma had validly sold a portion of the land to the Badillas in 1970, prior to selling a different portion to Bragat in 1978. Therefore, ownership of the portion occupied by the Badillas was rightfully transferred to them. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the Badillas, declaring their

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    127 views4 pages

    1960s: Pastrano Sold To Ledesma

    Uploaded by

    Pio Mathay
    1. This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land that was allegedly sold twice by the original owners to different parties. The Badillas claim they purchased a portion of the land from Ledesma in 1970, while Bragat claims to have purchased the entire land from Pastrano in the 1980s based on documentation. 2. The Court examined the facts and found that Ledesma had validly sold a portion of the land to the Badillas in 1970, prior to selling a different portion to Bragat in 1978. Therefore, ownership of the portion occupied by the Badillas was rightfully transferred to them. 3. The Court ruled in favor of the Badillas, declaring their

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Case Name Badilla v.

    Bragat
    Topic Special Problems in Sale
    Case No. | Date April 22, 2015
    Ponente Peralta, J.
    An issue surrounding ownership of a lot arose when the original owners Pastrano sold the property
    twice to different people: Ledesma and Bragat. The situation was made more complicated when
    Ledesma further sold the property twice, a portion to Badilla and later, the entire lot to Bragat.
    Case Summary
    The Court discussed article 1544 which governs instances of double sales eventually ruling that
    Badilla rightfully owns their portion of the lot.
    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated
    October 9, 2008 arid Resolution dated February 12, 2009. of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
    No. 70423-MIN.are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-
    47759 is DECLARED VOID, and, in its place, two (2) new transfer certificates of titles are
    Decision
    ORDERED ISSUED, namely: (1) in the name of the Spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla,
    covering the 152 sq. m. that they are occupying, and (2) in the name of Fe Bragat, covering the
    remaining 863 sq. m. of the property, of which measurements are to be based on Exhibits "N" and
    Exhibit "N-2".
    1. Article 1544 of the Civil Code relates that ownership shall belong to the person acquiring the
    property who, in good faith, first recorded such acquisition.
    2. Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that when neither buyer registered, in good faith, the
    Doctrine
    sale of the properties with the register of deeds, the one who took prior possession of the
    properties shall be the lawful owner thereof.

    RELEVANT FACTS (Important Facts are in Bold)

    This is a petition for review on certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision dated
    October 9, 2008 and Resolution dated February 12, 2009 of the Court of Appeals rendered in CA-G.R. CV No.
    70423-MIN.The case involves the issue of ownership of the subject real property.

    1. Azur Pastrano and his wife Profitiza Ebaning (Spouses Pastrano) were the original owners of Lot No.
    19986 (subject property), located at Tabion, Cagayan de Oro City.

    1960s: Pastrano sold to Ledesma


    2. Novermber 18, 1968: BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE OCT: the Spouses Pastrano sold the lot to
    Eustaquio P. Ledesma, Jr. (Ledesma), as evidenced by a Deed of Definite Sale of Unregistered
    Coconut and Residential Land.

    1970s: Ledesma allegedly sold portion of lot to Badilla AND Bragat


    3. Sometime in 1970: The petitioners, the spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla (Spouses Badilla)
    claimed that in 1970, Ledesma sold to them, "on installment" basis, a portion amounting to 200 sq. m.
    of Lot No. 19986 (subject property). The sale was not reduced in writing, however, but possession
    of the portion sold was transferred to the Badillas, which portion the Badillas claim was designated
    as Lot No. 19986-B.
    4. April 18, 1978: the spouses Florito Bragat and Fe Bragat (Spouses Bragat) bought 991 sq. m. of the
    property from Ledesma and his wife, via a Deed of Absolute Sale of a Residential Lot. Two (2) tax
    declarations were allegedly issued as a result of the sale: one designated a lot as Lot No. 19986-A with
    an area of 642 sq. m., while another designated the other lot as Lot No. 19986-B withan area of 349
    sq. m.

    1980s: OCT P-2035; Pastrano sale to Bragat twice; New OCT issued in name of Bragat
    5. November 18, 1980: its Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-2035, consisting of 1,015 sq. m.
    was issued. The OCT was in the name of Azur Pastrano.
    6. May 5, 1984: the Spouses Pastrano executed another Deed of Absolute Sale of Registered Land in
    favor of herein petitioner Fe Bragat (Bragat), covered by OCT No. P-2035 and with an area of 1,015
    sq. m. On the same date, Azur Pastrano executed an Affidavit of Loss reporting the loss of the owner's
    duplicate copy of OCT No. P-2035. It was Bragat, however, who petitioned the court for the issuance
    of a new owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. P-2035.
    7. July 24, 1987: the RTC ordered the issuance of a new owner's copy of OCT No. P-2035.
    8. October 2, 1987: the Spouses Pastrano executed yet another Deed of Sale of Registered Land in favor
    of Bragat, which land is again covered by OCT No. P-2035 with an area of 1,015 sq. m. As a result,
    OCT No. P-2035 was canceled and TCT No. T-47759 was issued in the name of Bragat.

    1990s: Bragat demanded Badilla vacate the land


    9. March 7, 1991: Bragat, through her counsel, made a written demand to vacate against the Spouses
    Badilla. In response, the Spouses Badilla, also through their counsel's letter, refused the demand and
    raised the earlier sale made by the Spouses Pastrano to Ledesma and the subsequent sale by Ledesma
    to the Badillas. Hence, the parties filed their respective complaints within days of each other.

    Procedural

    10. Bragat Complaint:


    a. Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages against Sps Badilla
    b. Claimed to have purchased property from Ledesma but later found out Ledesma was
    unauthorized to sell, so she purchased from Pastrano and has TCT in her name.
    c. Prayyed for Sps Badilla to be ordered to vacate the around 149-spm portion they occupy.
    11. Badilla Filed Own Complaint
    a. Quieting of Title and Declaration of Nullity of Bragat’s TCT and Damages
    b. They claim they are lawful owners and possessors of the portion of the lot in their possession
    having acquired it from Ledesma
    c. Claim that although Pastrano made a sale to Bragat, the sale was not valid since Pastrano was
    no longer the owner of the property on that date.
    12. RTC: ruled in favor of Bragat
    a. Bragat's title as valid for what it saw as the result of a purchase in good faith and for value.
    b. Badilla lack of evidence:
    i. allegedly presented handwritten and typewritten receipts which were purportedly
    signed by Ledesma, dated March 5, 1989, March 1, 1991 and March 23, 1991
    acknowledging Ledesma's receipt of certain amounts, but the court claimed that it
    found no evidence of (Ledesma's) absolute ownership on these dates.
    ii. The court noted that Ledesma had sold previously to the Spouses Bragat via a Deed
    of Absolute Sale of Residential Land dated April 18, 1978. Hence, in the trial court's
    view, on March 5, 1989, March 1, 1991 and March 23, 1991, Ledesma no longer
    owned the land and transferred nothing to the Badillas.
    13. CA: Affirmed with modification.
    a. Ledesma sold only 991 sq. m. of the property to Bragat in 1978; hence, it held that the
    remaining 24 sq. m. of the 1,015-sq.-m. property was validly sold to the Badillas in 1991 and,
    therefore, must be reconveyed to the latter.

    Hence the petition


    RATIO DECIDENDI
    Issue Ratio
    W/N the Court can 1. This Court notes that the arguments raised call for a re-examination of the
    re-examine the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate court. It must be stressed
    factual findings of that it is a time-honored rule that in a petition for review on certiorari under
    the trial and appellate Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised.
    court 2. Certainly, it is equally observed that factual findings of the Court of
    Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are binding on this Court.
    3. However, these rules admit of certain exceptions, such as when the
    judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts,
    or is belied by the evidence on record, or fails to notice certain relevant facts
    which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion.
    4. After a thorough examination of the findings of the trial court and Court of
    Appeals, this Court concludes that the case falls under these exceptional
    situations. Such findings must be reversed.
    W/N Badilla own the 3. The Civil Code states that ownership of the thing sold is transferred to the
    portion of the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery of the same. And the thing is
    property they occupy understood as delivered when it is placed in the control and possession of
    YES the vendee. Payment of the purchase price is not essential to the transfer of
    ownership as long as the property sold has been delivered; and such delivery
    (traditio) operated to divest the vendor of title to the property which may not
    be regained or recovered until and unless the contract is resolved or
    rescinded in accordance with law.
    4. Pastranos sold to Ledesma on November 18, 1968. Therefore, as early as
    such date, it is established that the Pastranos no longer had ownership over
    the property.Then, as Ledesma subsequently sold to Badilla.
    5. That the parties intended for ownership to be transferred may be inferred
    from their lack of any agreement stipulating that ownership of the property
    is reserved by the seller and shall not pass to the buyer until the latter has
    fully paid the purchase price.
    6. The fact is, Ledesma even delivered to the Badillas the owner's duplicate
    copy of OCT No. P-2035.

    Relevant Discussion on Article 1544


    Article 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. (1473)

    ITC:
    7. Double Sales:
    a. Pastrano to Ledesma (1968) then again to Bragat (1984 and 1987).
    b. Ledesma sold portion to Badilla (1970) then entire lot to Bragat (1978)
    8. In such a situation of multiple sales, Article 1544 of the Civil Code relates
    that ownership shall belong to the person acquiring the property who,
    in good faith, first recorded such acquisition.
    9. It cannot be said that Bragat's recording of her 1987 purchase was in good
    faith because that sale was simulated and Bragat was aware of other persons
    who have an interest on the property.
    10. That the 1987 sale is void is further revealed by evidence to show that one of
    its signatories, Profitiza Pastrano was already dead when it was executed.
    Bragat herself also admitted that she knew of the Spouses Badillas'
    occupation prior to her purchase.
    11. In that case, the same Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that when
    neither buyer registered, in good faith, the sale of the properties with
    the register of deeds, the one who took prior possession of the properties
    shall be the lawful owner thereof. Such prior possessors, at least with
    respect to the 152-sq.-m. portion, are indisputably the Spouses Badilla.

    You might also like