Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aaa
Aaa
F:
-Dailisan filed a complaint for partition alleging that he purchased 1/4 undivided
portion of the land of Pugao but the latter refused to effect such.
-Dailisan's side:
-That he bought 1/4 of the land of Pugao. Dailisan demanded the execution of the
deed of sale. Instead, Pugao proposed to mortgage the land to him to secure a loan,
and upon payment of the loan, the deed of sale would be executed.
-Said loan was paid, but still, Pugao refused to effect the deed of sale and even
sent a notice of eviction against Dailisan(as Dailisan was currently occupying said
land)
-Pugao's side:
-Pugao denied having voluntarily executed the deed of sale and alleged that
Dailisan made him sign papers of what the latter told him to be parts of the real
estate mortgage he executed in favor of Dailisan.
-Federico passed away while this case was pending before the trial court. And so he
was substituted by his heirs, herein respondents.
-CA reversed mentioning that Dailisan should have filed an action for specific
performance to compel Federico to honor the deed of absolute sale; yet the right to
file such action, had already prescribed.
-Further, CA ruled against the validity of the sale as there was consent on Pugao's
part and there was no proof of payment. It concluded that the deed of sale is
fictitious and invalid, and hence could not serve as basis of any claim of
ownership.
I:
WoN deed of sale is valid
WoN action has prescribed
H:
1st issue
-No. A notarized deed of sale, such as in this case, enjoys the presumption of
regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence.
-In this case, the only evidence respondents presented is that Pugao only finished
grade 2 and was unfamiliar with english hence his consent was vitiated.
-However, one of the respondent heirs, admitted knowing of the transaction way
back. They did not take any action to annul the deed within the 4-year prescription
period.
-Deed of sale valid
2nd issue
-Since the deed of sale is valid, Dailisan is now considered a co-owner with Pugao.
As a co-owner of the property, therefore, Dailisan has the right to demand
partition, a right which does not prescribe. (art. 494)
-Ownership of the thing sold is acquired only from the time of delivery thereof,
either actual or constructive.
-Article 1498 of the Civil Code provides that when the sale is made through a
public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the
thing which is the object of the contract
-In view of the delivery in law, coupled with petitioner’s actual occupation of the
portion where his house stands, all that is needed is its segregation from the rest
of the property.
-Partition was granted