Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > July 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13646 July 26, 1960 - BENITO MANALANSAN v. LUIS MANALANG, ET AL.

108 Phil 1041:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13646. July 26, 1960.]

BENITO MANALANSAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUIS MANALANG, JULIO CUBA and JOSE SY, Defendants-Appellees.

Macapagal, Alafriz & Mutuc for Appellant.

L. Manalang & Ass. for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. SALE; PACTO DE RETRO SALE OF BUILDING; CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP; RIGHT VESTED BEFORE NEW CIVIL CODE; ARTICLE 1607 OF NEW CODE INAPPLICABLE; OLD LAW GOVERNS. — Assuming that the building here involved is such kind of real property as is included within the scope of Article 1607 of the New Civil code, said Article cannot apply to the contract of sale con pacto de retro in question for the reason that it was executed before the New Civil Code came into effect. To impose upon appellee the additional conditions found in Article 1607 for the consolidation of his ownership would thus impair and diminish the rights that had already vested in him under the old Code.

2. ID.; ID.; REGISTRY OF BUILDING, NON-EXISTENCE OF. — Appellant contends that inasmuch as the sale with the right to repurchase of the house in question and appellee’s consolidation of ownership were not registered as notice to third persons, he is not bound thereby. Unfortunately for appellant, there is no registry of buildings in this jurisdiction apart from the lands on which they stand, so that there is no legal compulsion to register, as notice to third persons, transactions over or dealings on buildings that do not belong to the owners of the lands on which they stand.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


This is an appeal taken directly to this Court on questions of law.

The undisputed facts as found by the trial court may be summarized as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The spouses Augusto Manalang and Victoria Dabu were the original owners of the two-story building located at 2268-2270 España Street. On August 14, 1951, they executed a deed of chattel mortgage over this property in favor of Benito Manalansan to secure the payment of a loan. Because of their failure to pay the loan on the date of maturity, the mortgage was foreclosed and on May 14, 1956, the sheriff of Manila sold the building at public auction to the mortgagee Manalansan as the highest bidder.

Thereafter, Manalansan went to the premises in question to take possession thereof. There he found Jose Sy and Julio Cuba occupying the building as tenants of Luis Manalang. Manalansan consequently asked his lawyer to formally notify Luis Manalang and his tenants to vacate the premises, and eventually filed this case against them for the recovery of possession thereof.

At the trial, defendant Luis Manalang established that the building in question was sold to him on September 24, 1949, by the spouses Augusto Manalang and Victoria Dabu with the right to repurchase within one year; that the vendors failed to redeem the property within the period stipulated; that the property had been assessed for taxation purposes in his name for the years 1950-57, and he had paid the corresponding taxes thereon for that period; that on January 25, 1955, he obtained a judgment from the Municipal Court of Manila in Civil Case No. 34346 against Augusto Manalang, Et Al., ordering the latter to vacate the building in question; and that since the finality of the aforesaid judgment, he has been in the possession of said building, which he leased to his co-defendants Jose Sy and Julio Cuba.

Convinced that defendant Luis Manalang had acquired full ownership of the building in question before the execution of the deed of chattel mortgage relied upon by plaintiff for his cause of action, the lower court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint with costs. Unable to obtain reconsideration of this judgment, plaintiff Manalansan appealed directly to this Court.

It is urged by appellant that a building, although standing on land belonging to another, is an immovable property, as held by us in Evangelista v. Alto Surety & Insurance Co., 103 Phil., 401; 55 Off. Gaz. (20) 3672; Lopez v. Luzon Surety Co., Inc., 103 Phil., 98; 56 Off. Gaz. (13)2820; and other cases; and that as the expiration of the period of redemption under appellee’s contract of sale over the building in question with the former owners Manalang and Dabu occurred after the New Civil Code had already come into effect, the consolidation of his title over said building should be governed by, and follow the procedure laid down in Art. 1607 thereof, a new provision not found in the Old Code, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 1607. In case of real property, the consolidation of ownership in the vendee by virtue of the failure of the vendor to comply with the provisions of article 1676 shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property without a judicial order, after the vendor has been duly heard."cralaw virtua1aw library

We see no merit in the contention.

Assuming that the building here in question is such kind of real property as is included within the scope of Art. 1607, a question that we need not decide here, said Article can not apply to the contract of sale con pacto de retro between appellee and the spouses Manalang and Dabu for the reason that said contract was executed before the New Civil Code came into effect. The nature of a sale with the right of redemption is such that ownership over the thing sold is transferred to the vendee upon execution of the contract, subject only to the resolutory condition that the vendor exercise his right of repurchase within the period agreed upon (Aquino v. Deala, 63 Phil., 582; Lichauco v. Berenguer, 20 Phil., 12; Aldereto v. Amandoron, 46 Phil., 488). Consequently, this contract is covered by Art. 2255 of the transitional provisions of the New Code, providing:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 2255. The former laws shall regulate acts and contracts with a condition or period, which were executed or entered into before the effectivity of this Code, even though the condition or period may still be pending at the time this body of laws goes into effect."cralaw virtua1aw library

Furthermore, Art. 2252 of the New Code likewise provides that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Changes and new provisions and rules laid down by this Code which may prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the old legislation shall have no retroactive effect."cralaw virtua1aw library

Under Article 1509 of the Old Code, the vendee irrevocably acquires ownership over the thing sold upon failure of the vendor to redeem — i.e., ownership is consolidated in the vendee by operation of law (Dorado v. Viriña, 34 Phil., 264; Rafols v. Rafols, 22 Phil., 236; Gonzales v. Salas, 49 Phil., 1; Krapfenbauer v. Orbeta, 52 Phil., 201). From the time appellee and his vendors executed their sale with the right to repurchase, therefore, the former had already acquired the right to consolidate full title over the building in question merely upon his vendors’ failure to redeem, as well as the right to sell or convey this acquired right for value, subject to no other condition than that the vendors could repurchase within the period stipulated. To impose upon appellee the additional conditions found in Article 1607 for the consolidation of his ownership would thus impair and diminish the rights that had already vested in him under the Old Code.

Lastly, appellant contends that the sale with the right to repurchase between appellee and his vendors should have been registered as a notice to third persons, and so with appellee’s consolidation of ownership; and that as appellant took the building in question without notice of its former sale to or consolidation of ownership in appellee because they had not been registered, he is not bound thereby. Unfortunately for appellant, there is no registry of buildings in this jurisdiction apart from the lands on which they stand, so that there is no legal compulsion to register, as notice to third persons, transactions over or dealings on buildings that do not belong to the owners of the lands on which they stand. Appellant should have known this when he accepted a chattel mortgage on the building in question and accordingly, he had a duty to conduct an investigation as to his mortgagors’ title. Had he made such an investigation, he would have discovered that as of 1950, said building has already been assessed for taxation purposes in the name of appellee, and taxes thereon paid by the latter. This fact alone would have placed appellant on his guard as to the supposed title of his mortgagors over said building. Likewise, on January 25, 1955, before appellant bought the same building at the public auction sale in foreclosure of his mortgage thereon (on May 14, 1956), appellee Manalang had obtained a final judgment in the Municipal Court of Manila against appellant’s mortgagors ejecting the latter from the premises, and in the records of said case may be found an affidavit by Augusto Manalang recognizing appellee’s ownership of said building and stating that he was occupying the same only as mere tenant. Thus, whether on the basis of prior possession or of earlier title, as required by Article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Art. 1473 of the old Code) in case of double sale of unregistered property, appellee Luis Manalang is entitled to priority.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellant Benito Manalansan.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David, 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






July-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-12998 July 25, 1960 - BIENVENIDA JOCSON, ET AL. v. MANUEL P. SILOS

    108 Phil 923

  • G.R. No. L-13299 July 25, 1960 - PERFECTO ADRID, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MORGA, ETC.

    108 Phil 927

  • G.R. No. L-14934 July 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAVENTURA BULAN, ET AL.

    108 Phil 932

  • G.R. No. L-11241 July 26, 1960 - VALENTIN ILO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-11834 July 26, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GREGORIO ABIERA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-11840 July 26, 1960 - ANTONIO C. GOQUIOLAY, ET AL. v. WASHINGTON Z. SYCIP, ET AL.

    108 Phil 947

  • G.R. No. L-11994 July 26, 1960 - LUISA A. VDA. DE DEL CASTILLO v. RAFAEL P. GUERRERO

    108 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-12495 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO LIDRES

    108 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-12628 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: YU KAY GUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1001

  • G.R. No. L-12984 July 26, 1960 - WARNER, BARNES & CO., LTD. v. EDMUNDO YASAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1005

  • G.R. No. L-12999 July 26, 1960 - PAFLU v. HON. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1010

  • G.R. No. L-13267 July 26, 1960 - SALVADOR CRESPO v. MARIA BOLANDOS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13364 July 26, 1960 - HIND SUGAR CO., INC. v. HON. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1026

  • G.R. No. L-13373 July 26, 1960 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. MAXIMINO SALVADOR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1037

  • G.R. No. L-13646 July 26, 1960 - BENITO MANALANSAN v. LUIS MANALANG, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1041

  • G.R. No. L-13684 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13953 July 26, 1960 - MONS. CARLOS INQUIMBOY v. MARIA CONCEPCION PAEZ VDA. DE CRUZ

    108 Phil 1054

  • G.R. No. L-14096 July 26, 1960 - CITY OF MANILA v. FORTUNE ENTERPRISES, INC.

    108 Phil 1058

  • G.R. No. L-14229 July 26, 1960 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT CO. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1063

  • G.R. No. L-14258 July 26, 1960 - NATIONAL DEV’T CO. v. JUAN ARALAR, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1068

  • G.R. No. L-14313 July 26, 1960 - DIONISIO ESGUERRA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    108 Phil 1078

  • G.R. No. L-14428 July 26, 1960 - AGATON SEGARRA v. FELIX MARONILLA, JR.

    108 Phil 1086

  • G.R. No. L-14432 July 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO LIM

    108 Phil 1091

  • G.R. No. L-14505 July 26, 1960 - MIGUEL KAIRUZ v. ELENA S. PACIO, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1097

  • G.R. No. L-14519 July 26, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. v. LUIS G. ABLAZA

    108 Phil 1105

  • G.R. No. L-14550 July 26, 1960 - IN RE: ONG KUE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    108 Phil 1109

  • G.R. No. L-14689 July 26, 1960 - GENERAL MARITIME STEVEDORES’ UNION OF THE PHILS, ET AL. v. SOUTH SEA SHIPPING LINE, ET AL.

    108 Phil 1112

  • G.R. No. L-14743 July 26, 1960 - GLORIA ABRERA v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ

    108 Phil 1124

  • G.R. No. L-15544 July 26, 1960 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

    108 Phil 1129

  • G.R. No. L-15743 July 26, 1960 - OMBE v. VICENTE DIGA

    108 Phil 1137

  • G.R. No. L-16011 July 26, 1960 - DOMINGO T. PARRAS v. LAND REGISTRATION COMMISSION

    108 Phil 1142

  • G.R. No. L-16263 July 26, 1960 - DR. JOSE CUYEGKENG v. DR. PEDRO M. CRUZ

    108 Phil 1147

  • G.R. No. L-16464 July 26, 1960 - VICENTE MALINAO v. MARCOS RAVELES

    108 Phil 1159

  • G.R. No. L-16835 July 26, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    108 Phil 1164

  • G.R. No. L-13435 July 27, 1960 - EUSEBIO MANUEL v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, SR., ET AL.

    109 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-13632 July 27, 1960 - FEDERICO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL. v. HON. GUSTAVO VICTORIANO, ET AL.

    109 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-13851 July 27, 1960 - DEOGRACIAS F. MALONZO v. GREGORIA T. GALANG, ET AL.

    109 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-15853 July 27, 1960 - FERNANDO AQUINO v. CONCHITA DELIZO

    109 Phil 21

  • G.R. No. L-13369 July 28, 1960 - RICARDO PALMA v. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ETC.

    109 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. L-11151 July 30, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-12747 July 30, 1960 - RIZAL CEMENT CO., INC. v. RIZAL CEMENT WORKERS’ UNION (FFW), ET AL.

    109 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-13268 July 30, 1960 - LUCIANA SASES, ET AL. v. HON. PASTOR P. REYES, ET AL.

    109 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-13760 July 30, 1960 - FILEMON MARIBAO v. LUCIO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    109 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-13767 July 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAQUITO PRIAS, ET AL.

    109 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-14806 July 30, 1960 - ZAMBOANGA COPRA PROCUREMENT CORP. v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

    109 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-14936 July 30, 1960 - GENERAL SHIPPING CO., INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COM., ET AL.

    109 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-14970 July 30, 1960 - MARIA B. CASTRO v. GERONIMO DE LOS REYES

    109 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-15093 July 30, 1960 - NARIC v. CELSO HENSON, ET AL.

    109 Phil 81