Case Digest: Dacasin vs. Court of Appeals, 80 SCRA 89

Dacasin vs. Court of Appeals, 80 SCRA 89

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Sometime prior to January 1943, the property in question, a parcel of rural land in the barrio of Patayac Municipality of Sta. Barbara, Province of Pangasinan was being possessed in persons of Jose Maramba and a certain Sabina Capua.

Jose Maramba filed a civil case against Sabina Capua and companions for revindication. In September l952, the CFI of Pangasinan declared Jose Maramba as the absolute owner and condemned Sabina and companions to vacate and deliver to Maramba. Unfortunately, the decision was not executed within the reglementary period of five (5) years from the time it had become final. Sabina remained in possession of the property.

While the above civil case was pending, Sabina sold the property unto Gualberto Calulot who later sold the same unto now plaintiffs, spouses Felipe Capua and Sinforosa Padilla.

Jose Maramba died, and his heirs sold the property to herein defendant Juan Dacasin and his wife. Jose (Maramba) having tried to possess and thwarted in his efforts by Felipe Capua, went to the Court and secured a writ of possession in October 1960 and possession was unto him delivered by the Sheriff.

Notwithstanding the writ, Felipe Capua tried to come in once again; (Jose Maramba) asked to punish him for contempt but the Pangasinan Court by order held that there could be no contempt because the writ of possession having been issued more than 5 years from the date the judgment had become final became a nullity and so it was that the Pangasinan Court restored Felipe Capua to possession; with that development, the heirs of Jose Maramba filed a civil case in February 1962 against Sabina Capua and companions in the old civil case for revival of the judgment.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Dacasin is the rightful owner of the lot.  

RULING

Yes.

Under the law (Art 1340, NCC), the usual exaggeration in trade, when the other party had an opportunity to know the facts, are not in themselves fraudulent.

In this case, one of the deciding point of SC was the application of maxim “caveat emptor”. The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of the supposed title of the vendor and he who buys without checking the vendor's title takes all the risks and consequent to such failure. The facts are also undisputed that the deed of sale executed between Jose Maramba as vendee and Emiliana Abad as vendor in 1958 was duly registered in the Registry of Deeds as well as the deed of sale executed in 1929 between Emiliana Abad and the original owner Florentino Quinajon. SC held that the claim of the respondents based on acquisitive prescription is, therefore, without merit. The sole question of ownership which as respondent court itself held - if respondents' claim of acquisitive prescription is defeated - must unquestionably be rendered in favor of petitioner Jose Maramba and his co petitioners by right of res judicata.