Posts Tagged property related cases

Adelfa Demafelis vs Court of Appeals and Fernando Condez

Posted by Kirsten Monzon in Law on December 3, 2009

On April 17, 1987, petitioner Adelfa Demafelis bought from the heirs of Hermogenes Rodriguez a parcel of land, part of a larger undivided parcel covered by a Tax Declaration. The land is situated in the Barrio of San Dionisio, Parañaque City. Petitioner said that she had allowed respondent Fernando Condez to stay in the property but later, she asked respondent to vacate the property. However, respondent did not leave. Thus, she filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 78, Parañaque City, a complaint for ejectment against respondent.

Respondent for his part maintains that on March 7, 1988, he bought the property from Antonio F. Bernabe and that he had stayed in the said property as early as 1985, even before he acquired it from Bernabe.

The MeTC ordered respondent’s eviction.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision.

The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the document of sale in favor of respondent transferred ownership. The Court held in the affirmative, stating that it would seem that the Kasunduan, showing payment by installment, embodied a contract to sell or a conditional sale, reserving ownership in the vendor Bernabe until the full payment by respondent of the purchase price. However, the fact that the Kasunduan was a contract to sell does not necessarily mean that the Court of Appeals erred when it said “a portion of 75 square meters of which was in turn sold by Bernabe to petitioner Condez, is described as Lot 1, Psu-55940, and covered by TCT No. 272.” Patently, the Court of Appeals implied only that ownership had transferred to the respondent when it said this, a fact which is not inconsistent with the Deed of Sale being conditional at first. That the Court of Appeals concluded that the document of sale or the Kasunduan in favor of respondent transferred ownership cannot be inferred in its assailed Decision or Resolution.

, , , , ,

No Comments

Spouse Nestor Castillo and Rosie Reyes – Castillo vs Spouse Rudy Reyes and Consolacion Reyes

Posted by Kirsten Monzon in Law on December 3, 2009

On November 7, 1997, Emmaliza Bohler and respondents negotiated for the sale of the former’s house and lot located at Poblacion, New Washington, Aklan, to the latter for the consideration of P165,000.00, with an agreement signed on the following day. Upon the signing of the said contract, respondents handed to Bohler P20,000.00 cash and allegedly a P110,000.00-check. Bohler nonetheless insisted that the entire partial payment should be in cash as she needed it to redeem the subject property from the bank on the following Monday. She hence demanded for its payment up to midnight on that day otherwise she would cancel the sale. Because the respondents failed to make good the P110,000.00, Bohler subsequently sold the property to the petitioners.

The issue is whether the transaction between Bohler and the respondents is a perfected contract of sale or a mere contract to sell. The Court held that the Agreement is a contract of sale. Sale is a consensual contract and is perfected by mere consent, which is manifested by a meeting of the minds as to the offer and acceptance thereof on the subject matter, price and terms of payment of the price. In the instant case, the November 8, 1997 Agreement clearly indicates that Bohler and the Spouses Reyes had a meeting of the minds on the subject matter of the contract, the house and lot; on the price, P165,000.00; and on the terms of payment, an initial payment of P130,000.00 on the date of execution of the agreement and the remaining balance on or before December 15, 1997. At that precise moment when the consent of both parties was given, the contract of sale was perfected.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

College Assurance Plan and Comprehensive Annuity Plan and Pension Corporation vs Belfranlt Development Inc.

Posted by Kirsten Monzon in Law on December 3, 2009

Belfranlt Development, Inc. (respondent) is the owner of Belfranlt Building in Angeles City, Pampanga. It leased to petitioners College Assurance Plan Phil., Inc. (CAP) and Comprehensive Annuity Plans and Pension Corporation (CAPP) several units on the second and third floors of the building.

On October 8, 1994, fire destroyed portions of the building, including the third floor units being occupied by petitioners. An October 20, 1994 field investigation report by an unnamed arson investigator assigned to the case disclosed that the origin of the fire was the store room occupied by CAP. Respondent sent petitioners on November 3, 1994 a notice to vacate the leased premises to make way for repairs, and to pay reparation estimated at P1.5 million.

Respondent wrote petitioners another letter, reiterating its claim for reparation, this time estimated by professionals to be no less than P2 million.

On November 11, 1994, petitioners vacated the leased premises, including the units on the second floor, but they did not act on the demand for reparation, pointing out that the fire was a fortuitous event for which they could not be held responsible.

The issue is whether the fire that partially burned respondent’s building was a fortuitous event. The Supreme Court held in the negative since it was fire that caused the damage to the units being occupied by petitioners. The legal presumption therefore is that petitioners were responsible for the damage. Petitioners insist, however, that they are exempt from liability for the fire was a fortuitous event that took place without their fault or negligence.

, , , , , ,

No Comments

Adelaida Amado and the heirs and/or estate of the late judge Noe Amado. Vs Renato Salvador

Posted by Kirsten Monzon in Law on December 2, 2009

Petitioners are the heirs of the late Judge Amado, who was the owner of a parcel of land situated at Barangay Burgos, Rodriguez, Rizal. The property subject of the present controversy is a portion thereof registered under Original Certificate of Title with the Registry of Deeds of Rizal in the name of Judge Amado. Salvador alleges that in or around September 1979, Judge Amado agreed to sell to him the subject property for P60.00 per square meter, or in the total sum of P66,360.00, payable in cash or construction materials which would be delivered to Judge Amado, or to whomsoever the latter wished during his lifetime. Salvador though failed to state the terms of payment, such as the period within which the payment was supposed to be completed, or how much of the payment should be made in cash. In view of the sale in his favor, Salvador undertook the transfer and relocation of about five squatter families residing on the subject property.

The issue is whether there was a perfected contract of sale. The Court held in the negative, as Salvador fails to allege the manner of payment of the purchase price on which the parties should have agreed. No period was set within which the payment must be made. This means that the parties had no exact notion of the consideration for the contract to which they supposedly gave their consent. Thus, such failure is fatal to Salvador’s claim that a sale had been agreed upon by the parties.

korte_suprema

, , , , ,

No Comments

Eliodoro Aleligay, substituted by Ceferino Aleliga, vs Teodorico Laserna, Priscilla Villagracia and Angustia Villagracia

Posted by Kirsten Monzon in Law on December 2, 2009

Subject of the present controversy is a parcel of land located in Dao, Capiz, originally owned by Anselmo Aleligay. Upon Anselmo’s death in 1927, the lot passed on to his heirs. At present, the lot is covered by an Original Certificate of Title issued by the Register of Deeds of the Province of Capiz in the name of respondents Priscilla and Angustia Villagracia. In his Complaint, Eliodoro claimed that after inheriting said lot, he mortgaged it in 1946 to respondent Teodorico Laserna although he retained its possession. He also averred he tried several times to redeem the property from Laserna but was persuaded by the latter not to hurry. He alleged that it was only in 1976 when he discovered a deed of sale in Laserna’s favor. Allegedly it was signed by him, but he insisted that his purported signature was a forgery committed by Laserna. Hence, Laserna’s sale of the lot to the Villagracias, according to complainant, was illegal and void.

The issue is whether the Deed of Sale executed by heirs of Aleligay and respondent Lacerna only an equitable mortgage. The Court held in the negative, stating that records on hand show that the questioned deed of sale is really one of sale and not an equitable mortgage. Eliodoro’s assertion of continued possession over the lot was not substantiated by any indubitable evidence nor was it attested to by any other witness. Except for his self-serving claims, Eliodoro could not refute the overwhelming evidence of respondents that the disputed contract is one of sale.

parcel of land

, , , , , , ,

No Comments