Scribd
Upload
128 views

Sale by A Nonowner or by One Having Voidable Title

1. Estoque argued she became a co-owner of the land after purchasing 1/3 of it based on a deed. However, the court ruled she did not become a co-owner because the next day the original owner acquired the entire interest in the land, validating the sale of the specific 1/3 portion to Estoque. When the original owner later sold the remaining 2/3 portion, Estoque had no right to redeem it. 2. D'Oro Land filed a case to recover possession of land from squatters claiming adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the case, finding D'Oro's claim was barred by laches as the squatters' possession was public and the company did

Uploaded by

Kristine Allen Cabrales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views

Sale by A Nonowner or by One Having Voidable Title

1. Estoque argued she became a co-owner of the land after purchasing 1/3 of it based on a deed. However, the court ruled she did not become a co-owner because the next day the original owner acquired the entire interest in the land, validating the sale of the specific 1/3 portion to Estoque. When the original owner later sold the remaining 2/3 portion, Estoque had no right to redeem it. 2. D'Oro Land filed a case to recover possession of land from squatters claiming adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the case, finding D'Oro's claim was barred by laches as the squatters' possession was public and the company did

Uploaded by

Kristine Allen Cabrales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Sale by a Nonowner or By One Having Voidable Title

1. ESTOQUE v. PAJIMULA Facts:

Estoque filed a complaint for legal redemption on a claim that she is a co-
owner of a lot, for having purchased 1/3 portion thereof, as evidenced by a
deed of sale, executed by Crispina Aquitania.

On the other hand, defendant Pajimula, who acquired the other 2/3 portion
of lot in question from Crispina Aquitania, claimed that Estoque bought the 1/3
southeastern portion, which is definitely identified and segregated hence there
existed no co-ownership at the time and after said plaintiff bought the
aforesaid portion, upon which right of legal redemption can be exercised.

Estoque argues that the deed in her favor was inoperative to convey the 1/3
portion of the lot notwithstanding the description in the deed itself, for the
reason that the vendor being a mere co-owner, had no right to sell any definite
portion of the land held in common but could only transmit her undivided share,
since the specific portion corresponding to the selling co-owner is not known
until partition takes place. From this premise, Estoque argues that the sale in
her favor (1/3 portion), although describing a definite area, should be construed
as having conveyed only the undivided 1/3 interest in Lot 802 owned at the
time by the vendor, Crispina Aquitania. Estoque became a co-owner upon
acquiring 1/3 portion of the land. Therefore, Estoque argues, when Crispina
sold the rest of the property to Pajimula spouses, the former was selling an
undivided 2/3 that appellant (Estoque), as co-owner was entitled to redeem,
pursuant to Article 1620 of the NCC.

Ruling of the Lower Court:

Dismissed. The deeds of sale show that the lot acquired by plaintiff
Estoque was different from that of the defendants Pajimula; hence, they never
become co-owners, and the alleged right of legal redemption was not proper.

Issue:

Whether or not Estoque became a co-owner of spouses Pajimula

Held:

No. While on the date of the sale to Estoque (Buyer 1) said contract may
have been ineffective, for lack of power in the vendor to sell the specific
portion described in the deed, the transaction was validated and became fully
effective when the next day, the vendor, Crispina Aquitania, acquired the entire
interest of her remaining co-owners and thereby became the sole owner of
said lot of the Rosario Cadastral survey. Article 1434 of the Civil Code
clearly prescribes that—

“When a person who is not the owner of the thing sells or alienates and
delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title
passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.”

Pursuant to this rule, Estoque became the actual owner of the southeastern
third of Lot 802. Wherefore, she never acquired an undivided interest in Lot
802. And when 8 year later Crispin Perez sold to Pajimula the western 2/3 of
the same lot, Estoque did not acquire a right to redeem the property thus
sold, since their respective portions were distinct and separate.

2. D’ORO LAND REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. CLAUNAN (Remedies


in case of Movables)

Facts:

Petitioner D’Oro Land Realty and the Regalados are registered owners of
3 parcels of land situated in CDO, which they purchased from Chacon
Enterprises Inc. sometime in the early 1990s.

Upon conducting a relocation survey, petitioner found out that certain


individuals entered the properties and introduced improvements thereon. After
demands to vacate went unheeded, petitioner filed an action for recovery of
possession and damages against more than 50 individuals who refused to
surrender possession of the lots.

In their Answer, respondents alleged that they entered the lots between
the years of 1970 to 1982; that their occupation of the lots has been
continuous, undisturbed, public and adverse and has therefore ripened into
ownership; that whatever rights petitioner had over the lots were barred by
laches.

Trial court:

Petitioner’s claim was barred by laches. There was no reason for


petitioner and its predecessor not to have knowledge of respondents’ possession
of the lots as the same was public and adverse. As such, the failure of
petitioner and its predecessor to assert its right of ownership over the lots
within a reasonable length of time necessarily barred its claim against
respondents.

The trial court also faulted petitioner for not making the necessary
inquiries when it bought the disputed lots from Chacon Enterprises, Inc in 1990.
According to the trial court, petitioner should have investigated the nature of
respondents’ possession before it purchased the lots from the original owner.
Having failed to do so, petitioner must be deemed a buyer in bad faith under
the principle of caveat emptor.

Petitioner’s argument:

Laches could not bar its claim over the subject lots since respondents had
no colorable title or any valid claim of ownership to it. Respondents are mere
squatters whose possession of the lots, no matter how long, could not prevail
over petitioner’s certificate of title. At any rate, respondents’ length of
possession does not even meet jurisprudential standards for laches to set in

3. MAHUSAY v. B.S. SAN DIEGO INC (Remedies in Cases of


Immovables)

You might also like