GR L 15385; (June, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15385; June 30, 1960
ALEJANDRA BUGARIN VDA. DE SARMIENTO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSEFA R. LESACA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
On January 18, 1949, plaintiff-appellee Alejandra Bugarin Vda. de Sarmiento bought two parcels of land from defendant-appellant Josefa R. Lesaca for P5,000. After the sale, the plaintiff tried to take actual physical possession of the lands but was prevented by one Martin Deloso, who claimed ownership. On February 1, 1949, the plaintiff instituted an action before the Tenancy Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice to oust Martin Deloso but later abandoned it. On December 12, 1949, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant asking either to exchange the lands sold for another of the same kind and class or to return the purchase price plus expenses and interest. The defendant refused this proposition by letter dated December 21, 1949. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a complaint on December 31, 1949, praying for the rescission of the contract of sale due to the defendant’s failure to place her in actual physical possession of the lands.
ISSUE
Whether the execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to the delivery of possession of the lands sold, thereby relieving the vendor of the obligation to place the vendee in actual possession.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, declaring the deed of sale rescinded and ordering the defendant to return the purchase price of P5,000 plus P50.25 for expenses, with legal interest from January 18, 1949. The Court ruled that while Article 1462 of the old Civil Code provides that the execution of a public instrument is equivalent to delivery, this legal fiction only applies when there is no impediment preventing the passing of the property from the vendor to the vendee. In this case, the vendee was never placed in control and possession of the lands due to the refusal of a third party (Martin Deloso) claiming ownership. The contract itself indicated an intention for immediate actual possession, which the vendor failed to fulfill. This failure constituted a non-fulfillment of a reciprocal obligation under the contract of sale. Pursuant to Article 1124 of the old Civil Code, the plaintiff, as the prejudiced party, had the right to choose rescission of the contract due to the defendant’s failure to comply with her obligation.