The estate belonging to the deceased Dionysus Quimson was first transferred in favor of his daughter TomasaQuimson through a deed of conveyance, but continued in his possession and enjoyment. He sold it to Francisco Rosete, with a repurchase agreement for the term of five years granting to this effect the writing of sale. Since then Rosete is the one in his possession and enjoyment, in a peaceful and quiet manner, even after the death of DionisioQuimson, which occurred on June 6, 1939 until January of 1943. TomasaQuimsonpetitioned that the property should be given to her as she is the true owner and possessor of the property.
What were the effects of the registration of plaintiff’s document?
Who was prior in possession?
The Court held that the execution of a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the realty sold and its possession by the vendee. Under these conditions the sale is considered consummate and completely transfers to the vendee all of the vendor’s rights of ownership including his real rights over the thing. This means that after the sale of a realty by means of a public instrument, the vendor, who resells it to another, does not transmit anything to the second vendee and if the latter, by virtue of this second sales, take material possession of the thing, he does it as a mere detainer, and it would be unjust to protect this detention against the rights to the thing lawfully acquired by the first vendee. Hence, the Court ruled that TomasaQuimson is the rightful owner of the property.
Digest Credit: Joseph Eric Pocholo Briones
One thought on “QUIMSON vs. ROSETE G.R. No. L-2397, August 9, 1950”