Title
Bautista vs. De la Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 13125
Decision Date
Feb 11, 1919
Dispute over camarin ownership between first purchaser Bautista and second purchaser de la Cruz; Supreme Court upheld Bautista's ownership, invalidating second sale.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 13125)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiff and Appellee: Rosalio Bautista.
    • Defendants: Francisco Sioson, Lorenza de la Cruz (deceased), Francisco Santos Paulino, and Raymundo de la Cruz (Appellant).
  2. Property in Dispute:

    • A camarin (warehouse) made of strong materials with an iron roof, located in Malabon, Rizal.
    • A house of mixed materials with a nipa roof, also located in Malabon, Rizal.
  3. Initial Sale and Lease:

    • On September 4, 1912, Francisco Sioson and Lorenza de la Cruz sold the camarin and house to Rosalio Bautista for P400, with a right of repurchase within two years.
    • On the same day, Bautista leased the properties back to Sioson and Lorenza de la Cruz for P100 annually for two years.
  4. Death of Lorenza de la Cruz:

    • Lorenza de la Cruz died on June 12, 1913.
  5. Second Sale:

    • On August 5, 1914, Francisco Sioson sold the camarin to Raymundo de la Cruz for P422, with a right of repurchase within six months.
  6. Failure to Repurchase:

    • Neither Sioson nor his successors repurchased the properties within the stipulated periods.
  7. Legal Action:

    • On June 30, 1916, Bautista filed a complaint seeking ownership consolidation and delivery of the properties, as well as payment of unpaid rent.
  8. Court Proceedings:

    • Francisco Sioson and Francisco Santos Paulino were declared in default.
    • Raymundo de la Cruz admitted some allegations but claimed exclusive ownership of the camarin.
  9. Trial Court Decision:

    • The court ruled in favor of Bautista, ordering:
      • Delivery of the camarin to Bautista.
      • Payment of P200 in rent by Sioson.
      • Absolution of Francisco Santos Paulino.
      • Payment of half the costs by Sioson and Raymundo de la Cruz.
  10. Appeal:

    • Raymundo de la Cruz appealed the decision.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. First Purchaser’s Rights:

    • The first purchaser, Rosalio Bautista, acquired ownership of the camarin through symbolic delivery (constitutum possessorium) when the sale was executed. The lease agreement further confirmed Bautista’s ownership.
  2. Symbolic Delivery:

    • Under Article 1462 of the Civil Code, the execution of a public instrument of sale constitutes symbolic delivery, transferring ownership to the purchaser.
  3. Good Faith of Second Purchaser:

    • While Raymundo de la Cruz may have acted in good faith, his possession was unlawful because it was derived from a lessee (Sioson) who had no ownership rights to convey.
  4. Precarious Possession:

    • Sioson’s possession of the camarin was precarious and as a lessee, he could not transfer ownership to Raymundo de la Cruz.
  5. Article 1473 of the Civil Code:

    • The Court applied Article 1473, which states that in cases of double sale, ownership belongs to the first purchaser who took possession in good faith. Since Bautista was the first to take possession, he had superior rights over the camarin.
  6. Invalidity of Second Sale:

    • The second sale was invalid because Sioson, as a lessee, had no legal capacity to sell the camarin to Raymundo de la Cruz.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming Rosalio Bautista’s ownership of the camarin and ordering Raymundo de la Cruz to deliver the property to Bautista. The Court emphasized the importance of symbolic delivery and the rights of the first purchaser under Article 1473 of the Civil Code. The second sale was deemed invalid due to the seller’s lack of ownership rights at the time of the transaction.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.