Title
Ocampo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 97442
Decision Date
Jun 30, 1994
The Supreme Court ordered the reconveyance of a disputed parcel of land to the petitioner, affirming their superior claim over the property.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 97442)

Facts:

  • Pilar T. Ocampo is the petitioner, while the respondents are the Court of Appeals and Magdalena S. Villaruz.
  • The case involves an 18,260-square meter lot in Tigbauan, Iloilo, originally owned by Severino Tolosa, registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-7743.
  • On August 20, 1974, Tolosa mortgaged the property to the Philippine Veterans Bank, which was noted on his title.
  • On March 17, 1975, Tolosa entered into a contract with Ocampo, represented by Teresa T. Borres, to sell the property for P22,000, with an initial payment of P1,000.
  • An Agreement to Sell Real Property was executed on April 21, 1975, for P25,000, with a down payment of P12,500 and the balance due within six months.
  • Ocampo paid a total of P16,700 before the deadline and later made late payments totaling P3,900.
  • Ocampo filed an adverse claim on June 6, 1976, upon discovering the mortgage lien.
  • Tolosa attempted to cancel the adverse claim, offering Ocampo a refund or a share of proceeds from a potential sale.
  • On June 3, 1977, Tolosa entered into a Contract to Sell with Villaruz for P94,300, with a down payment of P15,000, contingent on the cancellation of all liens.
  • The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Ocampo on January 7, 1988, declaring the contract with Villaruz null and void.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed this decision on October 11, 1990, declaring Villaruz the absolute owner of the property.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the Agreement to Sell between Tolosa and Ocampo was a valid contract of sale.
  • The Court held that Tolosa did not have the right to sell the property to Villaruz, as Ocampo had a better title.
  • The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals'...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court determined that the Agreement to Sell constituted a perfected contract of sale, indicating an intent to transfer ownership upon payment.
  • The absence of a deed of absolute sale did not negate ownership transfer, as the contract's terms did not reserve ownership for Tolosa until full payment.
  • The Court emphasized that a contract is considered absolute unless explicitly stated otherwise, and failure to pay the full price within the stipulated time does not automatically void the contract.
  • Ocampo&#...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.