Andaya et. al vs.

Manasala

Intentional waiver of warranty against eviction by the buyer/vendee

FACTS:

Isidro Fenis sold the land in question to Eustaquia Llanes, with right of repurchase within a period of
five years. After the expiry of said period, and without repurchasing the said property, Isidro Fenis sold
it again to Maria Viloria. Maria Viloria sold by way of sale with right to repurchase within a period of
one year, the said property together with another parcel of land to the herein defendant Melencio
Manansala. Upon the expiry of the said period, Manansala registered with the Register of Deeds an
affidavit consolidating his title on the property. Thereafter, Maria Viloria sold by way of absolute sale
the same property to Ciriaco Casio, Fidela Valdez, and the plaintiff spouses Ariston Andaya and
Micaela Cabrito.

Because of subsequent sales, Eustaquia Llanes instituted a civil case to quiet title and to recover
possession of said parcel from Ciriaco Casio. Defendant Melencio Manansala sold by way of
absolute sale, the property in question to the spouses Ciriaco Casio and Fidela Valdez, and the
plaintiffs for P1,500.00. The deed contained the stipulation, that from and after this date, the vendee
herein named are the lawful owners of the land herein sold which I warrant to be free from all kinds of
liens and encumbrances whatever and in case of eviction, I promise, agree and covenant to answer
to and for the vendee in the form and manner provided by law.

In the meantime, Eustaquia Llanes included as co-defendants Melencio Manansala. Fidela Valdez
and the spouses Andaya and Micaela Cabrito. The civil case filed by Llanes ruled in favor of her. The
judgment became final and a writ of execution was issued against Casino, Valdez, Andaya and
Cabrito.

Aggrieved, spouses Andaya and Cabrito filed a case against Manansala to recover damages suffered
by reason of the latters breach of warranty of title or against eviction embodied in his sale of the land
in question to plaintiffs.

Defendant Manansala denied liability for the damages claimed, and alleged that it was plaintiffs and
their co-purchasers who pleaded with him to sell said land to them at a low price after they had been
sued by Eustaquia Llanes, considering that Manansala had registered the land in his name with the
office of the Register of Deeds.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not there was an intentional waiver of warranty of eviction made by spouses
Andaya and Cibrato (buyers/ vendees).

2. Whether or not Manasala (vendor) is liable for payment of the price of the land at the time of
eviction.

RULING:

1. On the issue of waiver of warranty of eviction

SC ruled that spouses Andaya and Cabrito had waived the warranty against eviction. At the time that
they purchased the land in question, they knew of the danger of eviction.
The vendor's liability for warranty against eviction in a contract of sale is waivable and may be
renounced by the vendee (last par., Art. 1475, Old Code; last par., Art. 1548, New). The contract of
sale between Manansala and spouses Andaya and Cabrito included a stipulation as to the warranty.
The lower court found that the parties understood that such stipulation was merely pro forma and that
the Manasala was not to be bound thereby, in view of the fact that the same land had been previously
bought by petitioners from Maria Viloria and that their only purpose in buying the same again from
Manansala was to enable them to register their prior deed of sale; and the further fact that when the
sale between the parties, the property was already the subject of a pending litigation between
petitioners and one Eustaquia Llanes, who claimed its title and possession by virtue of an earlier sale
from the original owner. It was by final judgment in this litigation that petitioners were evicted from the
land. Not having appealed from the decision of the court below, petitioners are bound by these
findings, the implication of which is that they not only renounced or waived the warranty against
eviction, but that they knew of the danger of eviction and assumed its consequences.

2. On vendors liability for payment of the price of the land at the time of eviction.

As already stated, petitioners knew of the danger of eviction at the time they purchased the land in
question from defendant, and assumed its consequences. Therefore, Manansala is not even obliged
to restore to them the price of the land at the time of eviction, but is completely exempt from liability
whatsoever