San Lorenzo v CA

Facts:
On 20 August 1986, the Spouses Lu purportedly sold the two parcels of land to
respondent Pablo Babasanta. The latter made a downpayment of fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) as evidenced by a memorandum receipt issued by Pacita Lu of the same
date. Several other payments totaling two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) were
made by Babasanta. He demanded the execution of a Final Deed of Sale in his favor so
he may effect full payment of the purchase price; however, the spouses declined to
push through with the sale.  They claimed that when he requested for a discount and
they refused, he rescinded the agreement. Thus, Babasanta filed a case for Specific
Performance.
On the other hand, San Lorenzo Development Corporation (SLDC) alleged that
on 3 May 1989, the two parcels of land involved, namely Lot 1764-A and 1764-B, had
been sold to it in a Deed of Absolute Sale with Mortgage. It alleged that it was a buyer
in good faith and for value and therefore it had a better right over the property in
litigation.

Issue: WON there is delivery in this case.

Ruling:
No there is no delivery in this case.The law provides that the ownership of the thing
sold is acquired by the vendee from the moment it is delivered to him in any of the
ways specified in Article 1497 to 1501. The word „delivered‰ should not be taken
restrictively to mean transfer of actual physical possession of the property. The law
recognizes two principal modes of delivery, to wit: (1) actual delivery; and (2) legal or
constructive delivery.

Actual delivery consists in placing the thing sold in the control and possession of the
vendee.

Legal or constructive delivery, on the other hand, may be had through any of the
following ways:

- the execution of a public instrument evidencing the sale;

- symbolical tradition such as the delivery of the keys of the place where the
movable sold is being kept;

- traditio longa manu or by mere consent or agreement if the movable sold

cannot yet be transferred to the possession of the buyer at the time of the sale;

- traditio brevi manu if the buyer already had possession of he object even before
the sale;
 - possessorium, where the seller remains in possession of the property in a
different capacity.

In this case, Responent Babasanta did not acquire the ownership by the mrere
execution of the receipt by Lu acknowledging receipt of partial payment. The other
reasons are:

- The agreement is not in public instrument (No constructive delivery)

- Babasanta had not taken the possession at the time of perfection of the sale in
his favor.

To simply put there was no delivery to Babasanta and even if there is a perfected
contract of sale, absence of delivery there is no transfer of ownership. The contract of
sale only creates an obligation to transfer and not a mode of acquiring ownership.

Ten Forty Realty v Cruz

Facts:

- Petitioner filed an ejectment complaint against Marina Cruz(respondent) before

the MTC. Petitioner alleges that the land indispute was purchased from Barbara
Galino on December 1996, andthat said land was again sold to respondent on
April 1998;
- On the other hand, respondent answer with counterclaim that never was there
an occasion when petitioner occupied a portion of the premises. In addition,
respondent alleges that said land was a public land (respondent filed a
miscellaneous sales application with the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office) and the action for ejectment cannot succeed where it appears
that respondent had been in possession of the property prior to the petitioner;
- On October 2000, MTC ordered respondent to vacate the land and surrender to
petitioner possession thereof. On appeal, the RTC reversed the decision. CA
sustained the trial court’s decision.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner should be declared the rightful owner of the property.

No, Prohibitted by consti. (No corpos should own a public land)

In a contract of sale, the buyer acquires the thing sold only upon its delivery, in any of
the ways specified in Articles 1497 to 1501, or in any other manner signifying an
agreement that the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. with
respect to incorporeal property, Article 1498 lays down the general rule:

- Incorporeal property, Article 1498 lays down the general rule: the execution of a
public instrument shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing that is the
object of the contract if, from the deed, the contrary does not appear or cannot
be clearly inferred.

- However, ownership is transferred not by contract but by tradition or delivery.

Nowhere in the Civil Code is it provided that the execution of a Deed of Sale is a
conclusive presumption of delivery of possession of a piece of real estate.

- The execution of a public instrument gives rise only to a prima facie presumption
of delivery. Such presumption is destroyed when the delivery is not affected
because of a legal impediment.

In this case, It must be noted that the petitioner did not occupy the property from the
time it was allegedly sold it. Galino’s continued to stay in the presmises from the time of
the purported sale up to the time respondent’s occupation. Petitioner did not gain
control and possession of the property, because Galino had continued to exercise
ownership rights over the realty. It was also unbelievable that the petitioner being the
owner would tolerate the possession of Galino. Petitioner should have likewise been put
on guard by respondentÊs declaration of the property for tax purposes