VDA. DE SARMIENTO V.

LESACA

TOPIC: Doctrine of Constructive Possession

FACTS:
Sarmiento bought 2 parcels of land from Lesaca. After the sale, Sarmiento tried to take possession of the
land but was prevented by a third party in the name of Deloso, the latter alleging that he owns the land. 

Because of this, Sarmiento wrote Lesaca asking for either the changing of the land in question to another
of the same kind and class, or the return of the purchase price plus interest, for the prior sale between
them. 

Lesaca did not agree to any of the two. As a result, Sarmiento instituted this case for rescission of the
contract of sale against him. 

ISSUE/S: (Note: the first issue is the most important although all 4 are related)

(1) Whether the execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to delivery of
possession of lands – YES.
(2) Whether there is any stipulation in the sale to infer that the vender did not intend deliver possession in
spite of the public document – NONE.
(3) Whether the vendor complied with her express commitment to deliver possession of the land sold -
NO.
(4) Whether Sarmiento can rescind the contract of sale - YES.

RULING: 

(1) According to Articles 1461 and 1462 of the Old Civil Code, the vendor is bound to deliver to the
vendee the thing sold by placing the latter in the control and possession of the subject matter in the
contract. However, if the sale were executed through a public instrument, such would be
equivalent to delivery unless the contrary appears or is clearly to be inferred from such
instrument. 

(2) There is no stipulation in the contract of sale by which one can infer that the vendor did not
intend to deliver outright the possession of the lands to the vendee. The contract provided that the
vendee should "take actual possession thereof * * * with full rights to dispose, enjoy and make use thereof
in such manner and form as would be most advantageous to herself," referring to actual and not
symbolical possession.

(3) Sarmiento was never able to take possession of the land because of the refusal and interference of
Martin Deloso, who claimed ownership. Despite the law stating that the execution of a public document
was equivalent to delivery, such would only be possible if there is no impediment that may prevent the
passing of the property to the vendee, which in this case, is Martin Deloso’s claim to ownership.

(4) The Court used Article 1124 of the Old civil Code, referring to reciprocal obligations. The contract of
purchase and sale is a reciprocal obligation and failure to comply with the obligation means that the one
prejudiced can choose fulfillment or rescission. Lesaca failed to deliver the land and as per the law,
Sarmiento had the right to choose the rescission of the contract of sale.