Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36359)
Facts:
FELIX BUCTON AND NICANORA GABAR BUCTON, PETITIONERS, VS. ZOSIMO GABAR, JOSEFINA LLAMOSO GABAR AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS. Petitioners allege that in January 1946 petitioner Nicanora paid respondent Josefina P1,000 (Exh. A), paid P400 on May 2, 1948 (Exh. B), and that petitioners later advanced amounts reaching P1,500 as one-half of the purchase price of a 728-sq.m. parcel covered by TCT No. II (from OCT No. 6337) in Misamis Oriental, took possession, made improvements, and sought separate title. The trial court on February 14, 1970 ordered defendants to execute a deed of conveyance and to pay attorney’s fees, but the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint on prescription grounds under Article 1144; petitioners appealed.The Supreme Court found that petitioners paid the purchase price and were in possession; it reviewed whether the sale vested title by operation of law and whether the action was barred by prescription. The Court reversed the C
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-36359)
Facts:
- Parties and relationships
- Felix Bucton and Nicanora Gabar Bucton, plaintiffs and petitioners; Nicanora is sister of defendant Zosimo.
- Zosimo Gabar and Josefina Llamoso Gabar, defendants and respondents; Zosimo is husband of Josefina.
- Subject property and title
- Parcel of land of 728 sq. m., covered by TCT No. II (from OCT No. 6337) of the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental; identified as Lot No. 337 in Exhibit I.
- Josefina allegedly bought the lot from the spouses Villarin on installment basis with initial down payment P500 and balance payable in installments.
- Alleged agreement and payments
- Verbal agreement between Josefina and petitioner Nicanora Gabar Bucton that Nicanora would pay one-half of the price (P3,000) and would own one-half of the lot.
- Nicanora paid P1,000 on January 19, 1946; Josefina signed receipt marked Exhibit A evidencing "part payment" language.
- Nicanora paid P400 on May 2, 1948; receipt marked Exhibit B.
- Plaintiffs gave P1,000 on July 30, 1951 "in concept of loan"; defendant Zosimo Gabar signed receipt marked Exhibit E; plaintiffs asserted P100 of this applied to purchase.
- Trial court found these payments, plus application of part of the loan, amounted to full payment of P1,500, the one-half purchase price.
- Possession and improvements
- Plaintiffs entered into possession after initial payment, built a nipa house, later additional rental house, then a substantial house with three lower apartments, occupying the upper portion until July 1969 and later leasing it as a dormitory.
- In 1953, with defendants' consent, plaintiffs had the land surveyed and subdivided; concrete monuments were planted; defendants erected a fence along the dividing line between plaintiffs' portion (Exhibit I-2) and defendants' portion (Exhibit I-1).
- Recorded title, mortgage, and defendants' refusal
- The spouses Villarin executed deed of sale in favor of Josefina and TCT No. II was issued on June 20, 1947, cancelling OCT No. 6337 (Exhibit D and Exhibit I).
- The entire lot was mortgaged with the Philippine National Bank as security for defendants' loan of P3,500 contracted on June 16, 1947 (Exhibit D-1); defendants repeatedly declined to execute a separate title for plaintiffs citing the mortgage.
- Trial court decision and relief sought
- Plaintiffs filed an action for specific performance seeking deed of sale of western half (Lot 337-B), cancellation of TCT No. II, issuance of separate Transfer Certificates of Title, surrender of TCT No. II, attorney's fees P1,500 and costs.
- Trial court rendered judgment on February 14, 1970 ordering defendants to execute conveyance within thirty days or the Provincial Sheriff to execute it; Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. II and issue separate titles; defendants to surrender TCT No. II; defendants to pay attorney's fees P1,500 and costs.
- Proceedings in the Court of Appeals ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Main issue presented
- Whether petitioners' action to compel defendants to execute a deed of conveyance and to quiet title to one-half of the registered lot had prescribed under Art. 1144.
- Subsidiary legal questions
- Whether the receipts (Exhibits A, B, E) and verbal agreement constituted a written contract triggering the ten-year prescription under Art. 1144.
- Whether delivery of possession and subsequent events effected transfer of title under Art. 1434 so that the action is one t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)