Title
Supreme Court
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. vs. Heirs of Teves
Case
G.R. No. 128574
Decision Date
Sep 18, 2002
Heirs of Teves sued URSUMCO for land possession; SC upheld Teves' ownership, ruling sale valid despite unregistered transfer, dismissing URSUMCO's claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128574)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework for this case is primarily drawn from the New Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically Articles 448 and 1358, which govern property ownership, sales, and the requirement of registration for third-party effectiveness.

Case Background

Teves permitted UPSUMCO to utilize the lot for pier and guesthouse facilities under certain conditions. However, issues arose when URSUMCO acquired UPSUMCO's assets, including the property allegedly owned by Teves. Upon learning of URSUMCO's possession, Teves filed a legal complaint for the recovery of his property. URSUMCO, arguing it had rightful ownership, contested Teves' claims citing the lack of a formal registration of the sale and questioning the validity of the transaction.

Court of First Instance Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Teves, affirming his ownership of the lot covered by TCT No. H-37 despite the absence of registration of the sale. The RTC highlighted that URSUMCO, having no independent claim to the property, could not challenge the validity of the sale between Teves and Abanto's heirs. The court found that Teves was the equitable owner and entitled to possession, while URSUMCO’s claims regarding being an innocent purchaser lacked merit.

Findings of the Court of Appeals

On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s decision, reinforcing that the sale was a valid contract of sale rather than a mere promise to sell. The appellate court also noted that failure to register the sale did not invalidate the transaction between the parties involved. They emphasized that ownership had been transferred to Teves when he was recognized as the appropriate party in all matters concerning the property.

Arguments by URSUMCO

URSUMCO’s petitions claimed that Teves had not established a sufficient cause of action and insisted that it acquired the property in good faith. URSUMCO argued that the lack of formal registration protected it as an innocent purchaser, suggesting that the sale transaction was uncertain due to ambiguous pricing.

Legal Analysis of the Sale

The courts analyzed the nature of the sale agreement, clarifying that the document clearly indicated a complete transfer of ownership to Teves. The shared consideration price for the two properties validated the sale's ex

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.