This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-01 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Rent is a civil fruit[31] that belongs to the owner of the property[32] producing it by right of accession[33].[34] The rightful recipient of the disputed rent in this case should thus be the owner of the subject lot at the time the rent accrued. It is beyond question that Spouses Marañon never lost ownership over the subject lot. This is the precise consequence of the final and executory judgment in Civil Case No. 7213 rendered by the RTC on June 3, 2006 whereby the title to the subject lot was reconveyed to them and the cloud thereon consisting of Emilie's fraudulently obtained title was removed. Ideally, the present dispute can be simply resolved on the basis of such pronouncement. However, the application of related legal principles ought to be clarified in order to settle the intervening right of PNB as a mortgagee in good faith. | |||||
|
2009-05-21 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. v. Mayfair Theater, Inc.,[26] the concept of "delivery" was explained as follows:Delivery has been described as a composite act, a thing in which both parties must join and the minds of both parties concur. It is an act by which one party parts with the title to and the possession of the property, and the other acquires the right to and the possession of the same. In its natural sense, delivery means something in addition to the delivery of property or title; it means transfer of possession. In the Law on Sales, delivery may be either actual or constructive, but both forms of delivery contemplate "the absolute giving up of the control and custody of the property on the part of the vendor, and the assumption of the same by the vendee." (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| When the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous about the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. The real nature of a contract may be determined from the express terms of the agreement, as well as from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties thereto.[23] An examination of the "Pinagtibay na Pagpapatibay" in the case at bar shows that the document is indeed an absolute sale and not a contract to sell. In a contract to sell, ownership is by agreement, reserved in the vendor and is not to pass to the vendee until full payment of the purchase price. However, such is not the case here. Although the purchase price is to be paid in installments, the "Pinagtibay na Pagpapatibay" contains no stipulation conditioning the transfer of ownership upon the full payment of the purchase price. In fact, after paying a down payment of P10,000.00 on March 15, 1977, petitioner immediately took possession of the lots and introduced improvements thereon. The terms of the sale having been reduced to writing is considered as containing all the stipulations agreed upon by petitioner and Teresita Vda. De Castro, and the Court cannot add therein a proviso subjecting petitioner's ownership to the full payment of the purchase price.[24] Hence, the Municipal Trial Court correctly found that petitioner's actual occupation of the controverted lots vested in him ownership thereof. Verily, ownership was transferred not by the contract alone, but by tradition or delivery, i.e., by placing the property in the control and possession of the vendee.[25] | |||||