Title
Aitken vs. Julian La O
Case
G.R. No. 11198
Decision Date
Mar 20, 1917
Aitken claimed ownership of a building sold to him via unregistered deeds, but the court ruled in favor of Apolonia Remigio's estate, affirming her prior possession and good faith purchase at a sheriff's sale.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5922)

Factual Background

The factual background of this case reveals that To Jan Co, a Chinese national, constructed a building on the land of Apolonia Remigio, who was to receive half of the rents from the property. Due to non-payment of rents, Remigio initiated legal proceedings on September 21, 1908, against To Jan Co, resulting in a judgment in her favor for P3,425. Following this, Remigio acquired the building at a sheriff's sale on February 11, 1910, and subsequently took possession.

Unregistered Transactions and Legal Claims

To Jan Co, shortly after the lawsuit initiated by Remigio, executed an unregistered deed of sale to another Chinese national, To Cun, with a right to repurchase within 90 days. This right was never exercised, and To Cun did not take possession of the building. Subsequently, To Cun sold the building to Aitken in 1912, who then sought legal redress in 1915 to recover possession of the building and rental payments he alleged were due.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court's findings indicated that the building was a "camarin," not a conventional house. It elaborated on the failure of To Jan Co and To Cun to assert their ownership rights during the ejectment proceedings initiated by Remigio, and the absence of any effective notice or claim by either party regarding the unregistered transactions.

Legal Reasoning and Conclusion of the Trial Court

The trial court held that the sale to To Cun could not confer any legal ownership because To Jan Co had already lost the right to dispose of the property before executing the sale. Consequently, Aitken, having received no legitimate title from To Cun, could not claim ownership or entitlements to the rentals.

Affirmation of the Judgment

The appellate decision confirmed the trial court's ruling based on the express provisions of Article 1473 of the Civil Code, which stipulates rules regarding ownership transfers when the same property is sold to multiple parties. Since the property in question was not recorded and the earlier buyer, Remigio, took possession in good faith, she maintained legal ownership over the estate.

Legal Precedent and Implications

The court referenced that while alluded principles of property law generally protect the rights of purchasers, they also emphasize the necessity of prope

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.