Case Digest (G.R. No. L-42636)
Facts:
Petitioners Maria Luisa de Leon Escaler and Ernesto Escaler, and Cecilia J. Roxas and Pedro Roxas, purchased from respondents Jose L. Reynoso and Africa V. Reynoso a parcel of land in Antipolo, Rizal covered by TCT No. 57400, under a deed of sale dated March 7, 1958 containing a warranty against eviction. On April 21, 1961, a land registration proceeding (Civil Case No. 4252) was filed to cancel the title of the vendor’s predecessor because the property was allegedly already previously registered under another title; on June 10, 1964, the court set aside Decree No. 62373 and ordered cancellation of the later titles derived from it, including petitioners’ titles. Petitioners then filed Civil Case No. 9014 on August 31, 1965 against respondents to recover the value of the property and damages for violation of the eviction warranty; the trial court granted their motion for summary judgment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that petitioners failed to summon respondents or make them co-defendants in the eviction suit as required by the Civil Code.
Issues:
- Whether petitioners enforced the vendors’ warranty against eviction despite not making respondents co-defendants or being summoned in Civil Case No. 4252.
- Whether the court should have remanded the case to the trial court for hearing on the merits despite the appellate ruling.
Ruling:
The petition was dismissed and the Court of Appeals decision was affirmed.
The Supreme Court held that the fourth requisite for eviction warranty liability—summons and co-defendant status of the vendor at the vendee’s instance in the suit for eviction—was absent, since petitioners merely furnished respondents copies of their opposition by registered mail. The Court of Appeals’ reversal was therefore sustained.
Ratio:
Liability for eviction under Articles 1548, 1558, and 1559 of the New Civil Code requires concurrence of four requisites, including that the vendor be summoned and made co-defendant in the eviction suit at the instance of the vendee. The Court found that petitioners did not comply with the requirement: they only sent copies of their opposition to respondents by registered mail, which did not constitute the notice and procedural step contemplated by Articles 1558 and 1559. The Court explained that the phrase “unless he is summoned in the suit for eviction at the instance of the vendee” contemplates that the vendor be impleaded as co-defendant or made a third-party defendant in the manner contemplated by Article 1559; no such impleading occurred.
Because the requisite procedural condition was not met, respondents were not liable for the eviction warranty under the invoked provisions, and the Court of Appeals’ disposition was upheld.
Doctrine:
- A vendor’s liability for eviction under Articles 1548, 1558, and 1559 of the New Civil Code requires, among others, that the vendor be summoned and made co-defendant in the suit for eviction at the instance of the vendee.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)