Santiago v. Villamor (G.R. No. 168499. November 26, 2012)
CASE DIGEST: SPOUSES EROSTO SANTIAGO and NELSIE SANTIAGO, Petitioners, v. MANCER VILLAMOR, CARLOS VILLAMOR, JOHN VILLAMOR and DOMINGO VILLAMOR, JR., Respondents. Santiago v. Villamor (G.R. No. 168499; November 26, 2012).
FACTS: Spouses Domingo Villamor, Sr. and Trinidad Villamor (spouses Villamor, Sr.) executed a deed of sale covering a parcel of land in favor of petitioners Spouses Erosto and Nelsie Santiago (spouses Santiago). The land in dispute was occupied by spouses Villamor, Sr.s children, herein respondents Mancer Villamor, Carlos Villamor, and Domingo Villamor, Jr. (Villamor children)
Spouses Santiago demanded the Villamor children to vacate the property but the latter refused to do so. Villamor children argued that they are the lawful owners of the land since they acquired the same from San Jacinto Bank. Thus, spouses Santiago filed an action for quieting of title before the RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of spouses Santiago. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTCs decision on the ground that spouses Santiago failed to prove their legal or equitable title to the land.
ISSUE: Should the action to quiet title filed by Spouses Santiago prosper?
HELD: Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt or uncertainty affecting title to real property. The plaintiffs must show not only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the subject real property, but also that they have a valid title to it.
Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the "ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof." Related to this article is Article 1497 which provides that "the thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee."With respect to incorporeal property, Article 1498 of the Civil Code lays down the general rule: the execution of a public instrument "shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred." However, the execution of a public instrument gives rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery, which is negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold. A person who does not have actual possession of the thing sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the execution and delivery of a public instrument.
In this case, no constructive delivery of the land transpired upon the execution of the deed of sale since it was not the spouses Villamor, Sr. but the respondents who had actual possession of the land. The presumption of constructive delivery is inapplicable and must yield to the reality that the petitioners were not placed in possession and control of the land.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. However, where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must be wary and must investigate the rights of the actual possessor; without such inquiry, the buyer cannot be said to be in good faith and cannot have any right over the property.
FACTS: Spouses Domingo Villamor, Sr. and Trinidad Villamor (spouses Villamor, Sr.) executed a deed of sale covering a parcel of land in favor of petitioners Spouses Erosto and Nelsie Santiago (spouses Santiago). The land in dispute was occupied by spouses Villamor, Sr.s children, herein respondents Mancer Villamor, Carlos Villamor, and Domingo Villamor, Jr. (Villamor children)
Spouses Santiago demanded the Villamor children to vacate the property but the latter refused to do so. Villamor children argued that they are the lawful owners of the land since they acquired the same from San Jacinto Bank. Thus, spouses Santiago filed an action for quieting of title before the RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of spouses Santiago. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTCs decision on the ground that spouses Santiago failed to prove their legal or equitable title to the land.
ISSUE: Should the action to quiet title filed by Spouses Santiago prosper?
HELD: Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud, doubt or uncertainty affecting title to real property. The plaintiffs must show not only that there is a cloud or contrary interest over the subject real property, but also that they have a valid title to it.
Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the "ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof." Related to this article is Article 1497 which provides that "the thing sold shall be understood as delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee."With respect to incorporeal property, Article 1498 of the Civil Code lays down the general rule: the execution of a public instrument "shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred." However, the execution of a public instrument gives rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery, which is negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land sold. A person who does not have actual possession of the thing sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the execution and delivery of a public instrument.
In this case, no constructive delivery of the land transpired upon the execution of the deed of sale since it was not the spouses Villamor, Sr. but the respondents who had actual possession of the land. The presumption of constructive delivery is inapplicable and must yield to the reality that the petitioners were not placed in possession and control of the land.
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property. However, where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must be wary and must investigate the rights of the actual possessor; without such inquiry, the buyer cannot be said to be in good faith and cannot have any right over the property.