Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 93 views

    190 - Manotok Realty v. CA and Madlangawa

    Uploaded by

    Bea Charisse Maravilla
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and ruled in favor of Manotok Realty. The sale of the disputed lot by Vicente Legarda, husband of the deceased owner Clara Tambunting, to Felipe Madlangawa was not valid and binding against Manotok Realty because: (1) Vicente Legarda was not the administrator of Clara Tambunting's estate during her lifetime and thus could not validly dispose of the lot; and (2) the sale occurred prior to Vicente Legarda's appointment as administrator by the probate court after Clara's death, without authority from said court.

    Copyright:

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

    190 - Manotok Realty v. CA and Madlangawa

    Uploaded by

    Bea Charisse Maravilla
    93 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and ruled in favor of Manotok Realty. The sale of the disputed lot by Vicente Legarda, husband of the deceased owner Clara Tambunting, to Felipe Madlangawa was not valid and binding against Manotok Realty because: (1) Vicente Legarda was not the administrator of Clara Tambunting's estate during her lifetime and thus could not validly dispose of the lot; and (2) the sale occurred prior to Vicente Legarda's appointment as administrator by the probate court after Clara's death, without authority from said court.

    Original Title

    190_Manotok Realty v. CA and Madlangawa

    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 Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and ruled in favor of Manotok Realty. The sale of the disputed lot by Vicente Legarda, husband of the deceased owner Clara Tambunting, to Felipe Madlangawa was not valid and binding against Manotok Realty because: (1) Vicente Legarda was not the administrator of Clara Tambunting's estate during her lifetime and thus could not validly dispose of the lot; and (2) the sale occurred prior to Vicente Legarda's appointment as administrator by the probate court after Clara's death, without authority from said court.

    Copyright:

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

    190 - Manotok Realty v. CA and Madlangawa

    Uploaded by

    Bea Charisse Maravilla
    The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and ruled in favor of Manotok Realty. The sale of the disputed lot by Vicente Legarda, husband of the deceased owner Clara Tambunting, to Felipe Madlangawa was not valid and binding against Manotok Realty because: (1) Vicente Legarda was not the administrator of Clara Tambunting's estate during her lifetime and thus could not validly dispose of the lot; and (2) the sale occurred prior to Vicente Legarda's appointment as administrator by the probate court after Clara's death, without authority from said court.

    Copyright:

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

    MANOTOK REALTY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HON.

    COURT OF APPEALS and


    FELIPE MADLANGAWA, respondents.
    G.R. No. L-45038 April 30, 1987
    GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: SUPREME COURT SECOND DIVISION

    NATURE OF THE ACTION: petition for certiorari

    FACTS:
    1. Felipe Madlangawa claims that he has been occupying the subject lot since 1949 with
    permission from Andres Ladores (an overseer of the subdivision) with the understanding
    that the respondent would eventually buy the lot
    2. On April 2, 1950, the owner of the lot, Clara Tambunting, died and her entire estate,
    including the subject lot were placed under custodia legis
    3. On April 22, 1950, the private respondent made a deposit for the lot in the sum of
    P1,500.00 received by Vicente Legarda, husband of the late owner
    4. There remained an unpaid balance of P5,700.00 but the private respondent did not pay or
    was unable to pay this balance because after the death of Clara Tambunting de Legarda, her
    heirs could not settle their differences
    5. Apart from the initial deposit, no further payments were made from 1950
    6. On April 28, 1950, Don Vicente Legarda was appointed as a special administrator of the
    estate. Meanwhile the private respondent remained in possession of the lot in question.
    7. Subsequently, Manotok Realty became the successful bidder and vendee of the Tambunting
    de Legarda pursuant to the deeds of sale executed in its favor by the Philippine Trust
    Company as administrator of the Testate Estate of Clara Tambunting de Legarda
    8. The Deed of Sale provided that the vendee assumes the risk and expenses of ejecting the
    tenants or squatters, that any rentals or damages that may be due or collectible for the
    period subsequent to the date of this deed of sale shall belong to the vendee but those prior
    to the execution of the deed shall belong to the vendor, and that the vendee renounces the
    right to warranty in case of eviction with the knowledge of the risks of eviction and
    assumes its consequences
    9. To clear the lot of the squatters, Manotok Realty caused the publication of notices advising
    the occupants to vacate the premises, otherwise court action with damages would follow
    10. Madlangawa refused to vacate so Manotok Realty filed the action to recover the lot
    11. Trial court dismissed the case finding that the Identity of the parcel of land described in the
    complaint had not been sufficiently established as the same in possession of Madlangawa
    12. CA found the Identity of the lot sought to be recovered by the petitioner to be the same as
    that in the physical possession of Madlangawa

    ISSUE: Whether or not the sale by Don Vicente Legarda in favor of the private respondent is
    valid, binding, and enforceable against Manotok Realty

    RULING: No, the decision appealed from is reversed and set aside. Madlangawa is ordered to
    surrender the material and physical possession of the lot to Manotok Realty and to pay the latter
    the rentals.
    It is an undisputed fact that the lot in dispute is the paraphernal property of Dona Clara
    Tambunting and that at the time of the sale thereof, the owner was already dead. Thus, the only
    question to be resolved in this petition is: in what capacity did the husband of the deceased, Don
    Vicente Legarda, dispose of the lot?

    There is nothing in the records that wig show that Don Vicente Legarda was the administrator of
    the paraphernal properties of Dona Clara Tambunting during the lifetime of the latter. Thus, it
    cannot be said that the sale which was entered into by the private respondent and Don Vicente
    Legarda had its inception before the death of Dona Clara Tambunting and was entered into by
    the former for and on behalf of the latter, but was only consummated after her death. Don
    Vicente Legarda, therefore, could not have validly disposed of the lot in dispute as a continuing
    administrator of the paraphernal properties of Dona Clara Tambunting.

    It is also undisputed that the probate court appointed Don Vicente Legarda as administrator of
    the estate only on August 28, 1950, more than three months after the questioned sale had taken
    place.

    After the appointment of Don Vicente Legarda as administrator of the estate of Dona Clara
    Tambunting, he should have applied before the probate court for authority to sell the disputed
    property in favor of the private respondent. If the probate court approved the request, then Don
    Vicente Legarda would have been able to execute a valid deed of sale in favor of the respondent.
    Unfortunately, there was no effort on the part of the administrator to comply with the above-
    quoted rule of procedure nor on that of the respondent to protect his interests or to pay the
    balance of the installments to the court appointed administrator.

    You might also like