Scribd
Upload
201 views

Document 4 PDF

1. Abet's action to annul the sale of land from Sam to Bobot will prosper. The initial deed of sale from Sam to Abet was notarized, even if it was unregistered. Since Abet was the first to acquire ownership, the ownership will be transferred to Abet under the law. 2. The sale of land from M to her daughter for a price that is too low (Php50,000 when M bought it for Php1,000,000) is not valid, as the price is considered simulated. 3. S does not need to deliver the house and lot to B, and B does not need to pay, because the house was destroyed by

Uploaded by

Miljane Perdizo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
201 views

Document 4 PDF

1. Abet's action to annul the sale of land from Sam to Bobot will prosper. The initial deed of sale from Sam to Abet was notarized, even if it was unregistered. Since Abet was the first to acquire ownership, the ownership will be transferred to Abet under the law. 2. The sale of land from M to her daughter for a price that is too low (Php50,000 when M bought it for Php1,000,000) is not valid, as the price is considered simulated. 3. S does not need to deliver the house and lot to B, and B does not need to pay, because the house was destroyed by

Uploaded by

Miljane Perdizo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PERDIZO, Miljane

BSA-202

1. Sam is the owner of a parcel of unregistered land in Alfonso, Cavite. Sam executed a notarized
deed of sale over the land in favor of Abet. The deed of sale was not registered nor did Abet occupy
the land. Subsequently Sam sold the same parcel of land in favor of Bobot. The deed of sale in
favor of Bobot was registered with the register of deeds. Bobot occupied the land after the
execution of the sale. When Abet learned of the sale in favor of Bobot, Abet filed an action for
annulment of the sale against Bobot. Will Abet’s action prosper? (20 points)

Yes, the action of abet will prosper. Stated on the Article 1544 if it is immovable property, the
ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property. The first buyer was abet and the land that he acquire from Sam was
unregistered. The fact that sale of Sam in favor of Bobot was registered and it’s not determined
since the land was not registered. Since abet is the first acquired ownership and the sale was
notarized therefore the ownership will transferred to abet.

2. M bought from S a specific parcel of land for Php1,000,000.00. Three months after, M sold the
same land to her daughter for Php50,000.00. Is the sale to M's daughter valid? (10 points).
- No, for it is inconsiderateness and the price is simulated. Stated in the article 1471 that if the
price is simulated then it is void.

3. S on March 1, 2019 sold for 1M to B a house and lot. It was agreed that the delivery of the
house and lot and payment would be made on April 1, 2020. Unfortunately, X, a stranger
negligently set the house on fire on March 2, 2019 which completely destroyed it. On April 1, 2020,
does S still have to deliver anything, and does B have to pay for anything? (20 points)
- No, S doesn’t have to deliver to B and B doesn’t need to pay for the damages to S. The thing was
already destroyed before the due date or the delivery to B. Stated the article 1174, no persons shall
be liable for the fortuitous event. Thus, the obligation is extinguished.

4. B bought from S (a minor), a ferrari - flaming red, B sold the same car to X, a buyer in good faith,
Is X the owner of the car? (10 points).
Yes, X can acquire a title in good faith. Since X did not aware the seller’s defect of a title.
Therefore the title was voidable. Also if the contract had not yet been annulled by a proper action of
a court. Hence, X is the owner of the car.

5. B, in good faith, bought a diamond ring from S. Two years after, X identified the ring as one she
lost about a year ago. There is no question as to the veracity of X's claim. Can X get the ring from B
without reimbursing B the value of the ring even if B is a buyer in good faith? (10 points)
- Yes, S who sold the ring to B is entitled as a theft. Stated under article 308 revised of the penal
code, the persons who failed to deliver or return the lost of found property to the local authorities or
to it’s owner is subject to theft. And on the article 1505, B acquires no better title to the goods than
X had. Thus, B can’t get the ring without reimbursing B.

You might also like