Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Rojales v. Dime

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Kit
    The document discusses a case regarding the consolidation of ownership of a property under a pacto de retro contract. It held that: 1) In an action for consolidation of ownership according to Article 1616, the indispensable parties are the vendor, vendee, and their heirs, as they are the parties to the pacto de retro contract. 2) A third party not privy to the contract cannot maintain an action regarding the contract, even if they would incidentally benefit. 3) The heirs' argument that consolidating ownership in the name of the deceased vendee would unjustly enrich them failed, as their mother was not a party to the original pacto de retro contract between the vendor and vendee

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rojales v. Dime

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Kit
    48 views1 page
    The document discusses a case regarding the consolidation of ownership of a property under a pacto de retro contract. It held that: 1) In an action for consolidation of ownership according to Article 1616, the indispensable parties are the vendor, vendee, and their heirs, as they are the parties to the pacto de retro contract. 2) A third party not privy to the contract cannot maintain an action regarding the contract, even if they would incidentally benefit. 3) The heirs' argument that consolidating ownership in the name of the deceased vendee would unjustly enrich them failed, as their mother was not a party to the original pacto de retro contract between the vendor and vendee

    Original Title

    69. Rojales v. Dime.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case regarding the consolidation of ownership of a property under a pacto de retro contract. It held that: 1) In an action for consolidation of ownership according to Article 1616, the indispensable parties are the vendor, vendee, and their heirs, as they are the parties to the pacto de retro contract. 2) A third party not privy to the contract cannot maintain an action regarding the contract, even if they would incidentally benefit. 3) The heirs' argument that consolidating ownership in the name of the deceased vendee would unjustly enrich them failed, as their mother was not a party to the original pacto de retro contract between the vendor and vendee

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views1 page

    Rojales v. Dime

    Uploaded by

    Adrian Kit
    The document discusses a case regarding the consolidation of ownership of a property under a pacto de retro contract. It held that: 1) In an action for consolidation of ownership according to Article 1616, the indispensable parties are the vendor, vendee, and their heirs, as they are the parties to the pacto de retro contract. 2) A third party not privy to the contract cannot maintain an action regarding the contract, even if they would incidentally benefit. 3) The heirs' argument that consolidating ownership in the name of the deceased vendee would unjustly enrich them failed, as their mother was not a party to the original pacto de retro contract between the vendor and vendee

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SALES comply with the provisions of article 1616

    shall not be recorded in the Registry of


    CONSOLIDATION OF OWNERSHIP Property without a judicial order, after the
    UANA VDA. DE ROJALES v. MARCELINO vendor has been duly heard.
    DIME  Contracts can only bind the parties
    G.R. No. 194548 February 10, 2016 who entered into it, and cannot favor
    or prejudice a third person, even if he
    DOCTRINE: is aware of such contract and has
    acted with knowledge thereof.
    In an action for the consolidation of title
    o Therefore, one who is not a
    and ownership in the name of vendee in
    accordance with Article 1616 of the Civil party to a contract, and for
    Code, the indispensable parties are the whose benefit it was not
    parties to the Pacto de Retro Sale - the expressly made, cannot
    vendor, the vendee, and their assigns and maintain an action on it. One
    heirs. cannot do so, even if the
    contract performed by the
    FACTS: contracting parties would
    incidentally inure to one's
     Petitioner conveyed under a pacto de benefit.
    retro contract Lot 4-A in favor of  As evidenced by the contract of Pacto
    respondent. de Retro sale, petitioner, the vendor,
    o Petitioner reserved the right bound herself to sell the subject
    to repurchase the property for property to respondent, the vendee,
    the same price. and reserved the right to repurchase
     Despite repeated verbal and formal the same property.
    demands to exercise her right,  Therefore, in an action for the
    petitioner refused to exercise her consolidation of title and ownership
    right to repurchase the subject in the name of vendee in accordance
    property. with Article 1616 of the Civil Code,
     Petitioner denied the execution of the the indispensable parties are the
    pacto de retro sale in favor of parties to the Pacto de Retro Sale - the
    respondent and alleged that she had vendor, the vendee, and their assigns
    not sold the subject property. and heirs.
     Respondent passed away before the  Villamin, as the alleged source of the
    trial on the merits of the case ensued; consideration, is not privy to the
    being his compulsory heirs, contract of sale between the
    respondents substituted for him. petitioner and the respondent.
     The heirs of respondent filed a Therefore, she could not maintain an
    Manifestation and Motion to Dismiss action for consolidation of ownership
    the Complaint on the ground that it and title of the subject property in her
    was Villamin, respondent's common name since she was not a party to the
    law wife, who was the source of the said contract.
    fund in purchasing Lot 4-A.
    o They alleged that the
    consolidation of ownership
    and title to respondent would
    be prejudicial to Villamin and
    would unjustly enrich them.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the consolidation of the title,
    despite the manifestation and admission of
    the respondents that continuing so would
    constitute unjust enrichment, can be allowed
    - NO
    RELEVANT RULING:
    Article 1607. In case of real property, the
    consolidation of ownership in the vendee
    by virtue of the failure of the vendor to

    You might also like