On April 17, 1987, petitioner Adelfa Demafelis bought from the heirs of Hermogenes Rodriguez a parcel of land, part of a larger undivided parcel covered by a Tax Declaration. The land is situated in the Barrio of San Dionisio, Parañaque City. Petitioner said that she had allowed respondent Fernando Condez to stay in the property but later, she asked respondent to vacate the property. However, respondent did not leave. Thus, she filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 78, Parañaque City, a complaint for ejectment against respondent.
Respondent for his part maintains that on March 7, 1988, he bought the property from Antonio F. Bernabe and that he had stayed in the said property as early as 1985, even before he acquired it from Bernabe.
The MeTC ordered respondent’s eviction.
On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision.
The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the document of sale in favor of respondent transferred ownership. The Court held in the affirmative, stating that it would seem that the Kasunduan, showing payment by installment, embodied a contract to sell or a conditional sale, reserving ownership in the vendor Bernabe until the full payment by respondent of the purchase price. However, the fact that the Kasunduan was a contract to sell does not necessarily mean that the Court of Appeals erred when it said “a portion of 75 square meters of which was in turn sold by Bernabe to petitioner Condez, is described as Lot 1, Psu-55940, and covered by TCT No. 272.” Patently, the Court of Appeals implied only that ownership had transferred to the respondent when it said this, a fact which is not inconsistent with the Deed of Sale being conditional at first. That the Court of Appeals concluded that the document of sale or the Kasunduan in favor of respondent transferred ownership cannot be inferred in its assailed Decision or Resolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment