Case Digest

1986 was valid while the sale made to Wilfredo in
Smith, Bell and Co. v. Sotelo Matti (44 Phil 874) 1989 was void. If a co-owner sells more than his
aliquot share in the property, the sale will affect
Facts: only his share and not that of others. The rights of
Plaintiff entered into a contract with Matti Gabino Jr are thus preserved and were not
(defendant) for the purchase and sale of various effectively transferred to Wilfredo in the Deed of
goods. It included two steel tanks, two expellers, Absolute Sale. Thus, what Gabino Jr obtained by
and two electric motors. The contract did not fix a virtue of the sale were the same rights as Loreto
definite date for delivery, but rather stated that the had as co-owner. Registration of property by
goods would be delivered within a certain Wilfredo is not a means of acquiring ownership
timeframe or as soon as possible. The tanks soon and cannot be successfully invoked by him.
arrived in Manila along with the expellers and the Certificates of title cannot be used to protect a
motors. The plaintiff notified Matti of the arrival of usurper from the true owner or be used as a shield
the goods, but he refused to receive them and pay for the commission of fraud.
the prices stipulated. The plaintiff filed a complaint
alleging that it had fulfilled its obligation to deliver
the goods within a reasonable time and that the Cruz vs. Cabana (GR No. 56232, June 22, 1984)
defendant had breached the contract by refusing
to receive them. Facts:
Respondents-spouses Teofilo Legaspi and
Ruling: Iluminada Cabana purchased a property in
SC held that since no definite date was fixed for October 1968 under a deed of absolute sale. They
the delivery of the goods, the obligation must be were unable to register the sale due to the absence
regarded as conditional and not one with a term. of the owner's duplicate of the title, which was
The court also noted that when the time of delivery held by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) as a
is not fixed in the contract, time is considered mortgage.
unessential, and delivery must be made within a Petitioner Cruz also purchased the property in
reasonable time to be determined by the courts in November 1968, under a deed of sale with a right
accordance with the circumstances of the case. of repurchase. He was able to register the sale in
In this case, the plaintiff had made all the efforts it his name in February 1971, after being informed of
could possibly make under the circumstances to the prior sale to the Legaspi spouses.
bring the goods to Manila as soon as possible and
fulfilled its obligation within a reasonable time. Issue: Who has a better title to the property?
Ruling:
Vagilidad vs. Vagilidad (G.R. No. 161136, SC held the Legaspi spouses are the rightful
November 16, 2006) owners of the property and Cruz's title is vitiated
by the prior transfer. The Court applies Article
Facts: 1544 of the Civil Code, which states that in case of
The land was originally owned by Zoilo Labiao and a double sale, ownership will be transferred to the
was later inherited by his children, Loreto Labiao, person who first took possession in good faith if
Efren Labiao, and Priscilla Espanueva. Loreto sold the property is movable.
a portion of the land, to Gabino Vagilidad Jr. in If the property is immovable, ownership will belong
1986 while Wilfredo Vagilidad claimed to have to the person who first recorded it in good faith in
purchased the same portion of land from Loreto in the Registry of Property.
1989. The Legaspi spouses were the first buyers, as they
RTC initially ruled in favor of Wilfredo but the CA purchased the property on June 1, 1965, under a
reversed this decision and declared the sale to sale with a right of repurchase.
Wilfredo as void. They held that Loreto did not They also took possession of the property.
have the right to sell the land to Wilfredo as he was Although they were unable to register the absolute
no longer the owner of Lot 1253-B at the time of sale due to the absence of the owner's duplicate
the sale. certificate, they registered the sale with a right of
repurchase.
Ruling: Therefore, the Court rules in favor of the Legaspi
SC held the sale made by Loreto to Gabino Jr. in spouses

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1986 was valid while the sale made to Wilfredo in

You might also like