Cadungog vs. Yap, 469 SCRA 561

FACTS: VirgilioCadungog executed a deed of sale with the right to repurchase on August 17, 1979. Through thedocument, Cadungog sold to his cousin Franklin Ong six parcels of land. Based on the deed of sale, Cadungoghad the right to repurchase within 10 years from the mentioned date. Virgilio, however, failed to redeem the

subject property. Subsequently, he executed a deed of absolute sale in favour of Jocelyn Yap, Franklin’s sister.

Such sale covered three parcels of land for P5,000. Thereafter, Virgilio filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the deed of absolute sale against Yap. Virgilio asseverated that the deed was fictitious because it hadbeen merely executed to afford Yap claim for the reduction of her tax liabilities in Canada. Furthermore, hepointed out that after the supposed sale, Yap made no move in order to consolidate her ownership over theproperty. The trial court held that Cadungog was able to repurchase the six parcels of land on May 25-26, 1997which was after the lapse of 18 years, upon payment to Ong of the amount of P50k. Moreover, the court heldthat the 10-year redemption period was to be regarded as extended because of the failure of Ong to consolidatehis title over the property.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was impairment of the title over the property of the vendee a retro because of hisfailure to consolidate the sale.

HELD: The Supreme Court answered in the negative. The court ruled that the failure of the vendee a retro toconsolidate the title under Article 1607 of the Civil Code did not impair such title and ownership because themethods and procedure prescribed was merely for the purpose of registering and consolidating the titles to theproperty. It declared that it was Franklin Ong and not petitioner should be regarded as the lawful owner of thesix parcels of land. Cadungod had therefore no right to mortgage or sell the land to Yap on September 10, underthe deed of absolute sale. The decision of the appellate court that Yap had acquired ownership over the threeparcels of land was declared erroneous. Cadungod, not being the owner of the land, could not have been thensold lawfully the parcels to responded Jocelyn Yap

Digest Credit:  Irvin Henson S. Ilog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: