Heirs of Herminio Marquez, represented by Alma Marie Marquez vs. Heirs of Epifania M. Hernandez, represented by Lourdes H. Tionson,
G.R. No. 236826, March 23 2022
Facts:
1. Since 1955, respondents and Epifania have been occupying a parcel of land with an area of 200 square meters.
2. The subject property forms part of a 1,417-square meter property previously owned by the spouses Sakay and spouses Cruz. Epifania and respondents had built their house on the subject property with the consent and tolerance of its previous owners.
3. In 1967, the spouses Sakay and the spouses Cruz sold the 1,417-square meter property to Herminio.
4. In 1985, Herminio sold to Epifania the 200-square meter portion of the land on which her house was built for P400.00 per square meter.
5. In view of this sale agreement, Epifania supposedly undertook to pay Herminio the total price of the subject property within the year of its purchase, or sometime before the end of 1985.
6. In the event that Epifania failed to comply with the terms of the sale the agreement would be considered or treated as a lease contract, and the amounts paid would be treated as rentals or advances to Herminio under a continuing lease of the subject property.
7. Epifania made an initial payment to Herminio in the amount of 2,000.00 as evidenced by a provisional receipt.
8. Epifania then made payment by way of installment to Herminio by depositing certain amounts of money in a joint account between them.
9. According to respondents, Epifania was able to pay in full the agreed purchase for the subject property before her death on July 28, 1995.
10. Sometime in March 2000, respondents executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Heirs of Epifania which stated, in part, that the proceeds of the joint savings account of their mother and Herminio shall be considered as full payment for the subject property. Herminio signified his conformity to the abovequoted provision in the said extrajudicial settlement between respondents by affixing his signature thereon.
11. Meanwhile, on December 15, 1999 and July 17, 2000, respondents received from Marquez demand letters to vacate the premises
12. It appears that on August 4, 1994, Marquez and Herminio executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights whereby Herminio waived all his rights, interest and participation over the 1,417-square meter property in favor of Marquez.
Issues:
· Whether or not there is a valid contract of sale between Herminio and Epifania.
· Whether or not the complaint is only for specific performance
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
FIRST ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that taking all the pieces of evidence together, there is no doubt that both Herminio and Epifania intended to, and did in fact, enter into a contract of sale of the subject property.
In the case at bar, the parties’ contract was consummated when Herminio accepted the initial payment of P2,000.00 from Epifania. Too, Herminio transferred his ownership over the questioned portion of the property when he allowed Epifania and her heirs to continue their occupation thereof consequent to their agreement. Ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof. The thing is understood as delivered when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee. Ergo, and even assuming, for the sake of argument that there is no full satisfaction of the stipulated purchase price, the actual turn-over of the possession of the property renders the contract consummated, albeit partially. This is true since the 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.
SECOND ISSUE
The Supreme Court held that Respondents complaint is not only for specific performance but also for quieting of title.
The nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action was filed irrespective of whether he is entitled to all or only some of such relief.
Accordingly, the allegations in the amended complaint of respondents readily show that the complaint was not only for specific performance, but also for quieting of title.
In the instant case, ownership over the subject property was transferred to Epifania as early as 1985 by virtue of its delivery by Herminia. Respondents, as heirs of Epifania, thus acquired art equitable title to the subject property. However, the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver of Rights presented by Marquez, which resulted. in the, issuance of TCT in the latter's name, was casting a cloud on the said equitable title of respondents over the said property.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment