Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1938 > September 1938 Decisions > G.R. No. 44388 September 22, 1938 - ENGRACIO DE ASIS v. MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO.

066 Phil 213:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 44388. September 22, 1938.]

ENGRACIO DE ASIS, appellant, v. MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO., Appellee.

Jesus Fidelino, for Appellant.

Ross, Lawrence & Selph, James M. Ross and Emilio E. Arevalo, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. SALE WITH RIGHT OF REPURCHASE; CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP. — A sale with pacto de retracto transfers the legal title to the vendee, subject to a resolutory condition. If the vendor does not at the expiration of the term for repurchase exercise his right, the purchaser acquires irrevocable ownership of the thing sold. The title of the appellant, was consolidated approximately two years before the sale by the sheriff and the recording thereof in the office of the register of deeds.

2. ID.; ID.; NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. — Though no notation was made of the consolidation of title in the appellant the notation of the contract of sale with pacto de retracto was a notice to all those dealing with the property of the character of the agreement entered into and duly recorded and, therefore, of the resolutory condition which implies the consolidation of ownership in the purchaser if the vendor a retro does not comply with the provisions of article 1518 of the Civil Code within the time stipulated or prescribed. (Articles 1508, 1509, Civil Code; Manresa, Vol. 10, p. 305.) The sale by the sheriff and the registration thereof could not affect the ownership of the appellant over the property.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


By virtue of a writ of execution issued in civil case No. 31749 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, the provincial sheriff of Nueva Ecija, on Marcy 30, 1929, sold to the herein appellee, Manila Trading and Supply Co., the property described in transfer certificate of title No. 1434. The sheriff’s deed of sale was recorded in the office of the register of deeds on June 7, 1929, and the final certificate of sale was also recorded on October 5, 1931. Previous to the levy and sale and the recording thereof, however, or on August 28, 1926, the same property had been sold with pacto de retracto by Ramon H. Severino, defendant in civil case No. 31749, to Engracio de Asis, the herein appellant, which sale was duly recorded and noted on the certificate of title No. 1434. On May 3, 1935, appellee filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the cancellation of transfer certificate of title No. 1434 and the issuance, in lieu thereof, of a new certificate of title in its favor. On June 6, 1935, appellant also filed a motion for the issuance of a copy of certificate of title No. 1434 because of the loss of the owner’s duplicate certificate. This motion of appellant appears to have been denied by the lower court on June 14, 1935. The appellant filed a motion for reconsideration but the motion was denied on June 21, 1935. Appellee’s petition of May 3, 1935, was granted in an order of August 9, 1935, in which order appellant’s motion for reconsideration of June 21, 1935, was also denied.

Of the three errors assigned by the appellant in his brief only the second need be considered. This error raises the question of preference in favor of the appellant, in view of the prior registration of the sale with pacto de retracto aforesaid.

A sale with pacto de retracto transfers the legal title to the vendee, subject to a resolutory condition. If the vendor does not at the expiration of the term for repurchase exercise his right, the purchaser acquires irrevocable ownership of the thing sold. In the present case, the title of the appellant, Engracio de Asis, was consolidated approximately two years before the sale by the sheriff and the recording thereof in the office of the register of deeds. It is true that no notation was made of the consolidation of title in the appellant De Asis. Proper notation, however, of the contract of sale with pacto de retracto is notice to all those dealing with the property of the character of the agreement entered into and duly recorded and, therefore, of the resolutory condition which implies the consolidation of ownership in the purchaser if the vendor a retro does not comply with the provisions of article 1518 of the Civil Code within the time stipulated or prescribed. (Articles 1508, 1509, Civil Code; Manresa, Vol. 10, p. 305.) It follows that the sale by the sheriff and the registration thereof could not affect the ownership of the appellant over the property.

The judgment of the lower court is accordingly reversed, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz and Concepcion, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1938 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45905 September 6, 1938 - ENRIQUE MEDINA v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    066 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 46051 September 9, 1938 - JARO EXPRESS CO., INC. v. CARLOS LOPEZ

    066 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 46001 September 12, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. VICENTE DE VERA

    066 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 46191 September 12, 1938 - JOAQUIN SURTIDA, ET AL. v. JUAN G. LESACA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 46196 September 12, 1938 - ANTONIO S. SAN AGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 173

  • G.R. No. 46206 September 12, 1938 - HACIENDA NAVARRA, INC. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 43547 September 13, 1938 - JOSEFA MARCELO v. FELICIANO ALCANTARA

    066 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 46135 September 19, 1938 - ALFREDO COPIACO, ET AL. v. LUZON BROKERAGE CO., INC.

    066 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. 45503B September 20, 1938 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    066 Phil 193

  • G.R. No. 42752 September 21, 1938 - CATALINO SEVILLA, ET AL. v. GAUDENCIO TOLENTINO

    066 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 43933 September 22, 1938 - CHENG SIONG LAM & CO. v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    066 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 44100 September 22, 1938 - WM. H. ANDERSON v. JUAN POSADAS

    066 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 44388 September 22, 1938 - ENGRACIO DE ASIS v. MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO.

    066 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45629 September 22, 1938 - ATILANO G. MERCADO v. ALFONSO SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 43861 September 26, 1938 - THE MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY COMPANY v. TOMAS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 44471 September 26, 1938 - H. E. HEACOCK COMPANY v. BUNTAL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 44347 September 27, 1938 - FELIX PAULINO v. ALEJANDRO SEVA

    066 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 45578 September 27, 1938 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. EMILIANA SANTOS

    066 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45859 September 28, 1938 - GOLD CREEK MINING CORPORATION v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 44058 September 30, 1938 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. SMITH NAVIGATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 44612 September 30, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. C. N. HODGES

    066 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 45848 September 30, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. MENZI & CO., INC.

    066 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 45904 September 30, 1938 - PABLO G. UTULO v. LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA

    066 Phil 302