Addison vs Felix, 38 Phil 404
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
The defendants-appellees spouses
Maciana Felix and Balbino Tioco purchased from plaintiff-appellant A.A. Addison
four parcels of land to which Felix paid, at the time of the execution of
the deed, the sum of P3,000 on account of the purchase price. She
likewise bound herself to the remainder in installments, the first of P,2000
on July 15, 1914, the second of P5,000 thirty days after the issuance to her
of a certificate of title under the Land Registration Act, and further,
within ten years from the date of such title, P10 for each cocoanut tree in
bearing and P5 for each such tree not in bearing that might be growing on said
parcels of land on the date of the issuance of title to her, with the
condition that the total price should not exceed P85,000. It was further
stipulated that Felix was to deliver to the Addison 25% of the value
of the products that she might obtain from the four parcels "from the
moment she takes possession of them until the Torrens certificate of title be
issued in her favor," and that within 1 year from the date of the
certificate of title in her favor, Marciana Felix may rescind the contract
of purchase and sale.
In January 1915, Addison, filed suit in
the CFI of Manila to compel Felix to pay the first installment of P2,000,
demandable, in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale. The defendants
Felix and her husband Tioco contended that Addison had absolutely failed to
deliver the lands that were the subject matter of the sale,
notwithstanding the demands they made upon him for this purpose. The evidence
adduced shows Addison was able to designate only two of the four parcels,
and more than two-thirds of these two were found to be in the possession
of one Juan Villafuerte, who claimed to be the owner of the parts he so
occupied. The trial court held the contract of sale to be rescinded and
ordered Addison to return to Felix the P3,000 paid on account of the price,
together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum.
ISSUE
Whether or not there was a delivery
made and, therefore, a transfer of ownership of the thing sold.
RULING
No, the record shows that the plaintiff did not deliver the thing sold. With respect to two
of the parcels of land, he was not even able to show them to the
purchaser; and as regards the other two, more than two-thirds of their
area was in the hostile and adverse possession of a third person.
Under the law, the vendor has the obligation to deliver the thing sold. The
thing is considered to be delivered when it is placed "in the hands
and possession of the vendee."
In this case, it is true that
the same article declares that the execution of a public instruments is
equivalent to the delivery of the thing, which is the object of the contract,
but, in order that this symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over
the thing sold that, at the moment of the sale, its
material delivery could have been made. It is not enough to confer
upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing
sold must be placed in his control. When there is no impediment whatever to
prevent the thing sold passing into the tenancy of the purchaser by
the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a
public instrument is sufficient. But if, notwithstanding the execution of the
instrument, the purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the
thing and make use of it himself or through another in his name, because
such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by the interposition of another
will, then fiction yields to reality the delivery has not been
effected. It is evident, then, in the case at bar, that the mere execution
of the instrument was not a fulfillment of the vendors' obligation to
deliver the thing sold, and that from such non-fulfillment arises the
purchaser's right to demand, as she has demanded, the rescission of the sale
and the return of the price. Of course, if the sale had been made under the
express agreement of imposing upon the purchaser the obligation to take the
necessary steps to obtain the material possession of the thing sold,
and it were proven that she knew that the thing was in the possession
of a third person claiming to have property rights therein, such agreement
would be perfectly valid. But there is nothing in the instrument which would
indicate, even implicitly, that such was the agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment