[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
266 views2 pages

Modina V CA

1) Merlinda challenged the sale of land between her husband Ramon and Modina on the grounds that the titles were never legally transferred to Ramon. 2) The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Merlinda, declaring the sales between Merlinda and Ramon and then Ramon to Modina to be null and void. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Merlinda was not guilty of being "in pari delicto" or equally at fault, as there was no evidence she was at fault in the transaction between her and Ramon. The court also found Modina was not a purchaser in good faith, as he was aware the land belonged to

Uploaded by

Liaa Aquino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
266 views2 pages

Modina V CA

1) Merlinda challenged the sale of land between her husband Ramon and Modina on the grounds that the titles were never legally transferred to Ramon. 2) The trial court and appellate court both ruled in favor of Merlinda, declaring the sales between Merlinda and Ramon and then Ramon to Modina to be null and void. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding that Merlinda was not guilty of being "in pari delicto" or equally at fault, as there was no evidence she was at fault in the transaction between her and Ramon. The court also found Modina was not a purchaser in good faith, as he was aware the land belonged to

Uploaded by

Liaa Aquino
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

ModinavCA

F:
RamonChiangexecutedasaleof3parcelsoflandunderhisnametoSerafinModina.He
theorizedthatsubjectpropertiesweresoldtohimbyhiswife,MerlindaPlanaChiang,as
evidencedbyaDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedDecember17,1975.Asstated,itwassubsequently
soldbyRamontopetitionerSerafinModina,asshownbytheDeedsofSale,datedAugust3,
1979andAugust24,1979,respectively.

MODINAbroughtaComplaintforRecoveryofPossessionwithDamagesagainsttheprivate
respondentsErnestoHontarciego,PaulFigueroaandTeodoroHipallabeforetheIloiloCityRTC.
ThethreearethelesseesofthepropertyofMerlinda.Uponlearningthatasuitwasfiled,
MerlindapresentedaComplaintinintervention,seekingthedeclarationofnullityoftheDeedof
SalebetweenherhusbandandMODINAonthegroundthatthetitlesoftheparcelsofland
indisputewereneverlegallytransferredtoherhusband.
Merlindaalsoadmittedthatsaidparcelsoflandareadministeredbyherasadministratrixofthe
estateofherfirsthusbandNelsonPlana.
RTCruledinfavorofMerlinda:1)itdeclarednullandvoidthesaleofsubjectlotsbetween
MerlindaandRamonChiang,2)Italsodeclaredvoidandinexistentthesaleofthesame
propertiesbyRamontoModina.
CAaffirmedthedecisionintoto.
Issues:
1)WONMerlindaisguiltyofbeinginparidelictoandthusbepreventedfromattackingthesale
andrecoveringtheproperty?
Modinasargument:SalebetweenRamonandMerlindaisnullandvoidashusbandsandwives
cannotsellpropertiesinfavorofeachotherbutsincebothareinparidelicto,theycannotrecover
fromeachotherandrightsofthirdpersonswhoacquiresthepropertymustberespected.
MerlindacannotattackthesalebetweenhimandRamonbecauseshewasalsoaguiltyparty.
ThereisnosufficientevidenceestablishingfaultonthepartofMerlinda,thereforetheprinciple
ofinparidelictoisinapplicableintheircase.Ineffect,Merlindacanrecoverthepropertyfrom
herhusbandwhichhadbeensoldtoModinaasshewasnotaguiltypartyinthesaidtransaction.
Besides,Art.1411and1412concerningtheinparidelictoprinciplecannotapplyinthecaseat
barforthesimplereasonthatthereisnocontractbetweenRamonandMerlinda.Inparidelicto
doctrineappliesonlytocontractwithillegalconsiderationorsubjectmatter(howcanitthen
applytothiscasewhenthereisinfactnocontracttospeakof?).
MerlindacanrecoverthepropertysincethecontractbetweenModinaandRamonisvoid.Itdoes
notproduceanyeffect,assuchModinaneveracquiredtitlethereof.

2)WONModinaisapurchaseringoodfaith?

Asageneralrule,inasaleundertheTorrenssystem,avoidtitlecannotgiverisetoavalidtitle.
Theexceptioniswhenthesaleofapersonwithavoidtitleistoathirdpersonwhopurchasedit
forvalueandingoodfaith.
Apurchaseringoodfaithisonewhobuysthepropertyofanotherwithoutnoticethatsomeother
personhasarighttoorinterestinsuchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceatthetimeofthe
purchaseorbeforehehasnoticeoftheclaimorinterestofsomeotherpersonintheproperty.
Fromtheattendantfactsofthecaseatbar,itisclearthatModinaisnotapurchaseringoodfaith.
CAfoundthattherewerecircumstancesknowntoModinawhichrenderedtheirtransaction
fraudulentundertheattendantcircumstances.Thecircumstancesare:1)heaskedhisnephew,
PlacidoMatta,toinvestigatetheoriginofthepropertyandthelatterlearnedthatthepropertyis
ownedbyMerlindaandherfirsthusband,2)upninspectionModinametallthelesseesandhe
wasinformedthatthelandbelongtoMerlinda.

You might also like