Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    Aaa

    Uploaded by

    Jerahmeel Cuevas
    This case involves a dispute over the validity of a deed of sale between Jose Dailisan and Federico Pugao. Dailisan claims he purchased a 1/4 share of Pugao's land, but Pugao refused to execute the deed of sale. Pugao claims he did not consent to the sale and was unaware he was signing a deed of sale. The RTC upheld the validity of the deed, but the CA reversed finding no proof of consent or payment. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was valid, as Pugao's heirs did not act to annul it within the prescription period. As a co-owner, Dailisan's right to demand partition of the property could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Aaa

    Uploaded by

    Jerahmeel Cuevas
    20 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the validity of a deed of sale between Jose Dailisan and Federico Pugao. Dailisan claims he purchased a 1/4 share of Pugao's land, but Pugao refused to execute the deed of sale. Pugao claims he did not consent to the sale and was unaware he was signing a deed of sale. The RTC upheld the validity of the deed, but the CA reversed finding no proof of consent or payment. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was valid, as Pugao's heirs did not act to annul it within the prescription period. As a co-owner, Dailisan's right to demand partition of the property could not

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    aaa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute over the validity of a deed of sale between Jose Dailisan and Federico Pugao. Dailisan claims he purchased a 1/4 share of Pugao's land, but Pugao refused to execute the deed of sale. Pugao claims he did not consent to the sale and was unaware he was signing a deed of sale. The RTC upheld the validity of the deed, but the CA reversed finding no proof of consent or payment. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was valid, as Pugao's heirs did not act to annul it within the prescription period. As a co-owner, Dailisan's right to demand partition of the property could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    20 views2 pages

    Aaa

    Uploaded by

    Jerahmeel Cuevas
    This case involves a dispute over the validity of a deed of sale between Jose Dailisan and Federico Pugao. Dailisan claims he purchased a 1/4 share of Pugao's land, but Pugao refused to execute the deed of sale. Pugao claims he did not consent to the sale and was unaware he was signing a deed of sale. The RTC upheld the validity of the deed, but the CA reversed finding no proof of consent or payment. The Supreme Court ruled the deed of sale was valid, as Pugao's heirs did not act to annul it within the prescription period. As a co-owner, Dailisan's right to demand partition of the property could not

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Jose Dailisan vs. CA and Heirs of Pugao.

    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.

    -RTC upheld the validity of the deed of sale.

    -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

    You might also like