Case Digest (G.R. No. 16318)
Facts:
Pang Lim and Benito Galvez v. Lo Seng, G.R. No. 16318, October 21, 1921, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court.For several years before June 1, 1916, Lo Seng and Pang Lim, Chinese residents of Manila, were partners operating a distillery called "El Progreso" in Paombong, Bulacan, under the firm name Lo Seng & Co. The distillery premises and improvements were the property of Lo Yao of Hongkong. In September 1911 Lo Yao leased the distillery to Lo Seng & Co. for three years; upon that lease’s expiration a written extension for fifteen years was executed by Lo Shui as Lo Yao’s attorney in fact, under which the lessees agreed to make costly improvements required by the Bureau of Internal Revenue. The fifteen‑year lease (and the earlier lease) was not recorded because the estate itself was never entered in the property registry.
On June 1, 1916, Pang Lim sold his partnership interest to Lo Seng, leaving Lo Seng as the sole proprietor of the business. On June 28, 1918, Lo Shui, again acting for Lo Yao, executed an unrecorded deed purporting to convey the entire distillery plant, including the land, to Pang Lim and Benito Galvez. Pang Lim and Galvez demanded possession from Lo Seng, who refused; they then filed an action of unlawful detainer in the justice of the peace of Paombong.
The justice of the peace decided for the plaintiffs; on appeal the Court of First Instance affirmed that decision. The defendant, Lo Seng, appealed to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs grounded their claim chiefly on Article 1571 of the Civil Code (the purchaser's power to terminate a lease), wh...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether a purchaser of an estate who was a party to an existing (unrecorded) lease can, under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, terminate that lease as purchaser.
- Whether the plaintiffs’ unrecorded deed of sale may be used against the defendant under the Mortgage Law (Article 389) so as to establish their title.
- Whether one cotenant (or one person who claims as purchaser) may maintain an action of unlawful detainer ag...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)