On September 4, 1912, the defendant Francisco Sioson and his wife Lorenza de la Cruz, through a notarial instrument, sold to the plaintiff Rosalio Bautista the camarin in question, besides some other property, under the right of repurchase. It was stipulated that if within two years from the date of the contract the vendors or their successors in interest should not repurchase said properties for the sum of P400, the price of the sale, such sale should become absolute and thenceforth the ownership in the properties sold should be consolidated, the execution of another instrument being unnecessary.
On the same date, September 4, 1912, Rosalio Bautista, through a notarial instrument, leased the properties sold to him to the vendors Francisco Sioson and Lorenza de la Cruz, for the price of P100 per annum, for the period of two years counted from the date of the instrument. August 5, 1914, Francisco Sioson executed before a notary a document by which he sold under right of repurchase to the defendant Raymundo de la Cruz, the camarin in question. It was stipulated in this instrument that if within six months, counted from the 1st of August, 1914, the vendor Francisco Sioson should return to the purchase Raymundo de la Cruz the sum of P422, the price of the purchase, then the purchaser Raymundo de la Cruz would be obliged to execute in favor of said vendor Francisco Sioson an instrument of resale, but that if within the period mentioned he should not make the redemption stipulated, said sale should become absolute, the execution of another instrument being unnecessary.
Plaintiff prayed for the court to hold that his ownership in said buildings was consolidated, to order the defendants to deliver him the buildings, and to order Francisco Sioson to pay to the him the price of the lease. Defendants alleged that the camarin described in subparagraph (a) , paragraph 2 of the complaint, was of the exclusive ownership of the defendant Raymundo de la Cruz.
Which of the two purchasers, the plaintiff Bautista and the defendant Cruz, is the lawful owner of the camarin successively sold to the former and to the latter by the other defendant Francisco Sioson, its original owner, in accordance with the provisions contained in article 1473 of the Civil Code which says that:
Should there be no entry; the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of its in good faith . . .
Bautista is the rightful owner of the camarin.
The deed of sale between Bautista and Sioson was not entered in the registry of property. Upon the execution of the second sale of the same camarin by the said Sioson, which sale was made after the death of his wife Lorenza by virtue of an instrument made in favor of Cruz, it may be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the second purchaser Raymundo de la Cruz acted in good faith. However, actual and material possession of the camarin by Cruz does not constitute a sufficient legal reason for holding the he has a better right to the building than the first purchaser Rosalio Bautista, although the latter was not in actual, physical, and material of the camarin that he had purchased. This conclusion is derived from a strict application of the provisions of said article 1473 of the Civil Code.
Digest Credit: Badeth Dc
One thought on “Bautista vs Sioson”