[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
112 views1 page

Manotok Realty vs. CA CCCVCVBNV

Manotok Realty claims ownership over a parcel of land occupied by Felipe Madlangawa since 1949. However, the original owner Clara Tambunting died and the estate, including the disputed land, was placed under custodia legis. Don Vicente Legarda then sold the land to Madlangawa but was neither the owner nor administrator of the property. When Manotok Realty purchased the subdivision, they sought to evict Madlangawa. The Court of Appeals ruled the sale to Madlangawa was valid, but the Supreme Court held that the sale by Don Vicente was void as he had no authority to sell the paraphernal property and could not be ratified.

Uploaded by

Monikka
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
112 views1 page

Manotok Realty vs. CA CCCVCVBNV

Manotok Realty claims ownership over a parcel of land occupied by Felipe Madlangawa since 1949. However, the original owner Clara Tambunting died and the estate, including the disputed land, was placed under custodia legis. Don Vicente Legarda then sold the land to Madlangawa but was neither the owner nor administrator of the property. When Manotok Realty purchased the subdivision, they sought to evict Madlangawa. The Court of Appeals ruled the sale to Madlangawa was valid, but the Supreme Court held that the sale by Don Vicente was void as he had no authority to sell the paraphernal property and could not be ratified.

Uploaded by

Monikka
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/ 1

28.

  Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CA, 149 SCRA 174

MANOTOK REALTY, INC., petitioner,


vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FELIPE
MADLANGAWA, respondents.
G.R. No. L-45038 April 30, 1987

Facts:
Felipe Madlangawa, respondent claims that he has been occupying a parcel of land
in the Clara de Tambunting de Legarda Subdivision since 1949 with the
understanding that the respondent would eventually buy the lot. The owner of the
lot, Clara Tambunting, died and her entire estate, including her paraphernal
properties covering the lot occupied by the respondent were placed under custodia
legis. Don Vicente received from Felipe the consideration for said lot. Petitioner
Manotok Realty, Inc. became the successful and vendee of the Tambunting de
Legarda Subdivision 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. The lot in dispute was one of those covered by the sale.
Petitioner caused the publication of several notices in the Manila Times and the
Taliba advising the occupants to vacate their respective premises, otherwise, court
action with damages would follow. However, the respondent refused to vacate the
lots. Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's action. CA ruled that the only right
remaining to the petitioner is to enforce the collection of the balance because
accordingly, it stepped into the shoes of its predecessor (Don Vicente Legarda).

Issue: Whether or not Don Vicente Legarda could validly dispose of the
paraphernal property?

Held:
NO. Sale of the paraphernal property of the deceased wife by the husband who was
neither an owner nor administrator of the property at the time of sale is void ab
initio; Sale which is void cannot be subject of ratification by the company or the
probate court. Hence, the sale between Don Vicente Legarda and the private
respondent is void ab initio, the former being neither an owner nor administrator of
the subject property. Such being the case, the sale cannot be the subject of the
ratification by the Philippine Trust Company or the probate court.

You might also like