University of Mindanao - College of Legal Education
SALES
Case Name SANTIAGO VS VILLAMOR
Docket Number | G.R. No. 168499 November 26, 2012
Date
Ponente BRION, J
Petitioners SPOUSES EROSTO SANTIAGO and NELSIE SANTIAGO
Respondents MANCER VILLAMOR, CARLOS VILLAMOR, JOHN VILLAMOR
and DOMINGO VILLAMOR, JR.
Case summary
Doctrine Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the "ownership of
the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual
or constructive delivery thereof."
Article 1497 which provides that "the thing sold shall be
understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and
possession of the vendee."
Trigger Delivery
words/Phrase
Relevant Facts
Spouses Villamor, Sr., the parents of respondents and the grandparents of respondent
John Villamor, mortgaged their 4.5-hectare coconut land in Sta. Rosa, San Jacinto,
Masbate, known as Lot No. 1814, to the Rural Bank of San Jacinto, Inc. as security for
a P10,000.00 loan.
San Jacinto Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage for non-payment and
bought the land through public auction. The spouses Villamor, Sr. failed to redeem the
property and the San Jacinto Bank acquired the same in 1991. The San Jacinto Bank
then offered the land for sale to any interested buyer.
Respondents, together with his sister Catalina are in actual possession and
cultivation of the land. They decided to acquire the land from the bank by paying in four
monthly installments. However, the bank refused to issue a deed of reconveyance
prompting the respondent to file a civil case for specific performance with damages.
The San Jacinto Bank claimed that it already issued a deed of repurchase in
favor of the spouses Villamor, Sr.; the payments made by the respondents and Catalina
were credited to the account of Domingo, Sr. since the real buyers of the land were the
spouses Villamor, Sr.
RTC ruled that the issuance of the deed of registration of San Jacinto Bank to
Spouses Villamor was done in good faith.
CA reversed RTC ruling saying that the children Villamor spouses did not act as
representatives of their parents.
On July 19, 1994 (or prior to the filing of the respondents and Catalina’s
complaint for specific performance), the San Jacinto Bank issued a deed of sale in favor
of Domingo, Sr. On July 21, 1994, the spouses Villamor, Sr. sold the land to the
Spouses Santiago for P150,000.00.
RTC rules that spouses Santiago were purchasers in good faith, hence they are
the legal owners.
CA rule that the action for quieting the title cannot prosper for they have no legal
or equitable title over the land.
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
The petitioners argue that the The respondents and respondent
spouses Villamor, Sr.’s execution of the John submit that they hold legal title to
July 21, 1994 deed of sale in the the land since they perfected the sale
petitioners’ favor was equivalent to with the San Jacinto Bank as early as
delivery of the land under Article 1498 of November 4, 1991, the first installment
the Civil Code; the petitioners are payment, and are in actual possession of
purchasers in good faith since they had the land; the petitioners are not
no knowledge of the supposed purchasers in good faith since they failed
transaction between the San Jacinto to ascertain why the respondents were in
Bank and the respondents and Catalina; possession of the land.
and the respondents and Catalina’s
possession of the land should not be
construed against them (petitioners)
since, by tradition and practice in San
Jacinto, Masbate, the children use their
parents’ property.
Ratio Decidendi
[LAW]
Whether or not the CA
committed a reversible error Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the
when it set aside the RTC removal of any cloud, doubt or uncertainty affecting
decision and dismissed the title to real property. The plaintiffs must show not
petitioners’ complaint for only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over
quieting of title and recovery of the subject real property, but that they have a valid
possession. title to it. Worth stressing, in civil cases, the plaintiff
must establish his cause of action by
Ans: NO. preponderance of evidence; otherwise, his suit will
not prosper.
Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the
"ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to
the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery
thereof." Related to this article is Article 1497 which
provides that "the thing sold shall be understood as
delivered, when it is placed in the control and
possession of the vendee."
With respect to incorporeal property, Article 1498 of
the Civil Code lays down the general rule: the
execution of a public instrument "shall be
equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the
object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary
does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred."
However, the execution of a public instrument gives
rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery,
which is negated by the failure of the vendee to
take actual possession of the land sold. "A person
who does not have actual possession of the thing
sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the
execution and delivery of a public instrument."
[APPLICATION]
Execution of the deed of sale only a prima facie
presumption of delivery.
In this case, no constructive delivery of the land
transpired upon the execution of the deed of sale
since it was not the spouses Villamor, Sr. but the
respondents who had actual possession of the
land. The presumption of constructive delivery is
inapplicable and must yield to the reality that the
petitioners were not placed in possession and
control of the land.
Ruling
Since the specific performance case already settled the respondents and
respondent John's claim over the disputed land, the dispositive portion of the CA
decision (dismissing the complaint without prejudice to the outcome of the specific
performance case29 ) is modified to reflect this fact; we thus dismiss for lack of merit the
complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession.
