This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-08-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized does not alter anything, since the sale between him and Garcia remains valid nonetheless. Notarization, or the requirement of a public document under the Civil Code,[33] is only for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability.[34] And because it remained valid as between Juanito and Garcia, the latter no longer had the right to sell the lot to petitioners, for his ownership thereof had ceased. | |||||
|
2010-10-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA erroneously upheld Matias' claim of possession based on PD Nos. 1517 and 2016. Matias is not a qualified beneficiary of these laws. The tenants/occupants who have a right not to be evicted from urban lands "does not include those whose presence on the land is merely tolerated and without the benefit of contract, those who enter the land by force or deceit, or those whose possession is under litigation." [30] At the time of PD 1517's enactment, there was already a pending ejectment suit between B. E. San Diego and Pedro Matias over the subject property. "Occupants of the land whose presence therein is devoid of any legal authority, or those whose contracts of lease were already terminated or had already expired, or whose possession is under litigation, are not considered `tenants' under the [PD Nos. 1517]."[31] The RTC correctly ruled that Matias cannot be considered a legitimate tenant who can avail the benefits of these laws no matter how long her possession of the subject property was. | |||||
|
2009-11-27 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have explained in Vencilao v. Camarenta[31] and in Sering v. Plazo[32] that the term "action in ejectment" includes a suit for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio).[33] We also noted in Sering that the term "action in ejectment" includes "also, an accion publiciana (recovery of possession) or accion reinvidicatoria[34] (recovery of ownership)." Most recently in Estreller v. Ysmael,[35] we applied Article 487 to an accion publiciana case; in Plasabas v. Court of Appeals[36] we categorically stated that Article 487 applies to reivindicatory actions. | |||||
|
2009-11-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, it is a settled rule that the failure to observe the proper form prescribed by Article 1358 does not render the acts or contracts enumerated therein invalid. It has been uniformly held that the form required under the said Article is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but merely for convenience.[29] The Court agrees with the CA in holding that a sale of real property, though not consigned in a public instrument or formal writing, is, nevertheless, valid and binding among the parties, for the time-honored rule is that even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal effects between the parties.[30] Stated differently, although a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, it does not affect the validity of such conveyance. Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or contract but only to insure its efficacy.[31] Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the CA did not err in ruling that the contract of sale between Pedro and Marcos is valid and binding. | |||||