Pajunar v.
CA - Mauro is not a possessor in GF, for failure to acquaint himself of any
Branded Carabao (naks sa branded!); One who has unlawfully
deprived of a movable property, may recover it from the person in
possession of the same.
Petitioner: Arthur Pajunar
Respondent: Mauro Eluna, Teofila Eluna
FACTS:
- In 1969, respondent Mauro Eluna bartered his 3 years old cow for 1
year old female carabao (subject personal property) then in possession
of Aurelio Enopia.
- The female carabao is branded (this means that such must be
registered under the name of the owner). However, Mauro did not
register it.
- Petitioner Pajunar claims ownership over the carabao.
- Pajunar contends that Mauro Eluna failed to establish ownership
because he failed to register it in his name. Since the female carabao
bears the brand “ART” on the fore and hind legs of the animal as
branded by petitioners before it got lost, failure of Mauro to register in
his name the carabao constitute a flaw in his ownership as required by
law.
- Private respondent Eluna eventually claims that despite failure to
register, he already acquired ownership through prescription (10
years). He acquired it in 1969. It was only in 1980 when Pajunar
showed up to claim ownership. Hence, the period of prescription.
- Trial and appellate courts ruled in favour of Mauro. Reason:
ownership through prescription.
ISSUE:
- W/N the carabao is validly owned by private respondent Mauro.
HELD:
- No. Mauro did not comply with the requirement of registration to
effect valid transfer.
“…but the large cattle under 2 years old may be randed gratis for the
purpose of effecting a valid transfer, if the registration and transfer are
made at the same time.”
defect in the title of vendor. Mauro should have checked of the
certificate of registration of the carabao.
- Ownership through prescription is not applicable. The owner, having
been illegally deprived of his property, may recover the same without
need to reimburse the possessor.
Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or
has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person
in possession of the same.
Ong v. Ong
Quitclaim; Inadequacy of price in voluntary sales
Petitioner: Imelda Ong, et al
Respondent: Alfredo Ong, et al
FACTS:
- Imelda Ong executed in favour of private respondent Sandra Maruzzo
(minor) a Quitclaim deed for the consideration of P1 and other
valuable considerations. The Quitclaim transferred and forever quit-
claimed to Sandra all right to one half undivided portion of a parcel of
land.
- Imelda revoked the Deed of Quitclaim and donated the entire property
to son Rex Ong-Jimenez.
- Sandra, through her guardian ad litem, respondent Alfredo Ong, filed
for recovery of ownership and to null the Deed of Donation over the
portion belonging to her.
- Petitioner Imelda pleads that the Quitclaim Deed is null and void,
arguing that it is equivalent to a Deed on Donation where acceptance
by the donee is necessary to give it validity. They argued the minority
of Sandra.
- Trial court ruled in favour of Sandra. It held that the Quitclaim is a
Deed of Sale. Hence, there was valid conveyance. IAC affirmed. It held
that the 1 peso is the consideration.
- Sandra replaced her guardian since she reached the age of majority.
ISSUE:
- W/N there was consideration to constitute a Deed of Sale.
HELD:
- YES. The conveyance of ½ undivided portion was in consideration of
1 peso and other valuable considerations paid by Sandra through
Alfredo Ong. Inadequacy of consideration does not render a
conveyance inexistent.
- One of the disputable presumptions is that there is a sufficient cause
of the contract even if such cause is not stated (Art. 1354). This
presumption cannot be overcome by simple assertion of lack of
consideration especially when the contract itself states that
consideration was given, and the same is in a public document with all
due formalities and solemnities.
- Even though the Deed of Quitclaim is a Deed of Donation, as argued
by Imelda, the acceptance by a legal guardian is not necessary in a
simple or pure donation (as in this case). Such acceptance is only
necessary in donations that are onerous and conditional.
PNB v. Manuel Gonzalez, Saturnino Lopez
FACTS:
Vda. De Gordon v. CA
Tax sale of real property; Inadequacy of price in involuntary sales
Petitioner: Restituta V. Vda. De Gordon
Respondent: Rosario Duazo
FACTS:
- There are two parcels of land subject of this case which are owned
by Petitioner Restituta Vda. De Gordon.
- For ten years, she failed to pay the real estate taxes which
prompted the City Treasurer of Quezon City to sell the same at a
public auction.
- The lands were assessed at P16,800 but it was sold (together with
the residential house thereon) at the public auction sale at
P10,500. Bought by private respondent Rosario Duazo.
- Petitioner failed to redeem the same within 1 year, period of
redemption. Treasurer then executed a Final Deed of Sale in
favour of Duazo.
- Trial court decided in favour of Vda. De Gordon.
- CA reversed.
ISSUE:
- Whether the price is so grossly inadequate as to set aside the
public sale.
- Whether Vda. De Gordon is entitled to redeem the lands.
HELD:
- No. When there is right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not
be material, because the judgement debtor may acquire the
property or also sell his right to redeem and thus recover the loss
he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained at the
auction sale.
- No. She is not entitled anymore because the period of redemption
has already lapsed.
Heirs of Ureta v. Heirs of Ureta
Petitioner: Heirs of Policronio Ureta
Respondent: Heirs of Liberato Ureta (Heirs of Alfonso)
FACTS:
- Alfonso Ureta was rich. He owned fishpens, a fishpond, sari-sari store,
passenger jeep, and more. He begot 14 children.
- One of his children, Francisco, proposed that Alfonse sell some of his
lands to his children in order to reduce the inheritance taxes.
- Alfonso executed 4 Deeds of Sale in favour of Policronio, Liberato,
Prudencia, and his common law wife, Valeriana. Such sales was
without consideration.
- The Deed of Sale in favour of Policronio, the eldest, covered 6 parcels
of land, which are the properties in dispute in this case.
- Alfonso died. His heirs executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition
that included the lands subject of the 4 Deeds of Sale.
- Conrado, eldest son of Policronio, signed the Deed of Extra-Judicial
Partition, representing all other heirs of Policronio.
- Policronio died. It was only then that his heirs did know about the
Deed of Sale in favour of their father. They saw tax declarations in the
name of Policronio covering the 6 parcels of land.
- Heirs of Policronio instituted a case to settle the matter with Heirs of
Alfonso.
ISSUE/S:
- W/N the Dees of Sale was valid.
- W/N the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition was valid.
HELD:
- RTC: Held that the Deed of Sale was null and void for there was no
money involved. The Extra-Judicial Partition was valid.
- CA: Dees of Sale was void for being absolutely simulated. The Extra-
Judicial Partition was annulled.
- SC:
- On validity of the sale
Two legal presumptions on the validity of the sale:
(a) that it was a result of a fair and regular private transaction; and (b)
that there was sufficient consideration for the contract.
Absolute Simulation
- The DOS was absolutely simulated
- Art.1345. Simulation of contract may be absolute or relative. The
former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all…
- Art. 1346. An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void…
- The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract
is the intention of the parties.
- Alfonso simulated a transfer to Policronio purely for taxation
purposes, without intending to transfer ownership.
- Policronio and his heirs never took possession of the lands
(except lot 5) from the time they were sold to him even after
Alfonso, the father, died.
- Policronio did not ever pay realty taxes.
- Policronio’s failure to take exclusive possession of the
properties is contrary to the principle of ownership and is a
clear badge of simulation that renders the whole transaction
void.
Absence and Inadequacy of Consideration
- Although the contract states that the purchase price of Php2000
was paid by Policronio, it has been proven that such was in fact,
never been paid. It was void for lack of consideration.
Lim v. CA
Petitioner: Rosa Lim
Respondent: CA, Victoria Suarez
FACTS:
- Petitioner Rosa Lim came from Cebu to Mania. She received 2
pieces of jewelry to be sold on commission basis (1 diamond ring
worth P169,000 AND 1 bracelet worth P170,000). Lim would be
paid the amount in excess of the prices stipulated. But upon failure
to sell, Lim is bound to return the jewelry.
- Lim failed to sell the jewelry. Suarez wrote a demand letter for the
return of the jewelry. Lim alleged, through a letter sent to Suarez’
counsel, that she had already returned both the ring and bracelet
through Aurelia Nadera, the person that introduced the two
parties to each other.
- Suarez filed a complaint for estafa against Lim.
- Lim contended that the transaction between them was not a
contract of agency to cell on commission basis but rather a
contract of sale on credit. She maintained that she cannot be liable
for estafa since she never received the jewelries in trust or on
commission basis from Suarez.
- To prove her claim that Lim did not approve of the contract, she
contended that she did not sign on the blank space provided for
the signature of the person receiving the jewelry but at the upper
portion thereof.
ISSUE:
(1) What was the real transaction between Rosa and Suarez? – A
contract of agency to sell on commission basiss
(2) Was the subject diamond ring returned to Suarez through
Aurelia Nadera? – No.
HELD:
(1) The fact that Lim’s signature appears on the upper corner of
the contract does not have the effect of altering the terms of
the transaction from a contract of agency to sell on
commission basis to a contract of sale. The moment she
affixed her signature, Lim became bound by all the terms of
the contract.
(2) By delivering the rind to Aurelia Nadera without the express
authority and consent of the complaining witness, Lim
assumed the right to dispose of the jewelry as if it were hers,
thereby committing conversion, punishable under Art. 315 of
RPC.
All elements of estafa are present:
1. Received the pieces of jewelry in trust from
Suarez to be sold on commission basis.
2. Lim misappropriated or converted the jewelry to
her own use.
3. The misappropriation caused damage to Suarez.