Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Doromal V CA, 66 SCRA 575

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    One of seven siblings who co-owned land did not consent to the sale of the land to the Doromals. The Doromals were issued title after the sale of 6/7 of the land. The petitioner sought to invalidate the sale, arguing the right of repurchase had lapsed. The court ruled the period of repurchase had not lapsed, as the petitioner was not notified of the actual sale and delivery of deed, which triggers the 30-day period. The respondent could only be made to pay the 30k price stipulated in the deed of sale, not the actual sale price.

    Copyright:

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

    Doromal V CA, 66 SCRA 575

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    59 views1 page
    One of seven siblings who co-owned land did not consent to the sale of the land to the Doromals. The Doromals were issued title after the sale of 6/7 of the land. The petitioner sought to invalidate the sale, arguing the right of repurchase had lapsed. The court ruled the period of repurchase had not lapsed, as the petitioner was not notified of the actual sale and delivery of deed, which triggers the 30-day period. The respondent could only be made to pay the 30k price stipulated in the deed of sale, not the actual sale price.

    Original Description:

    Doromal v CA, 66 SCRA 575

    Original Title

    Doromal v CA, 66 SCRA 575

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    One of seven siblings who co-owned land did not consent to the sale of the land to the Doromals. The Doromals were issued title after the sale of 6/7 of the land. The petitioner sought to invalidate the sale, arguing the right of repurchase had lapsed. The court ruled the period of repurchase had not lapsed, as the petitioner was not notified of the actual sale and delivery of deed, which triggers the 30-day period. The respondent could only be made to pay the 30k price stipulated in the deed of sale, not the actual sale price.

    Copyright:

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

    Doromal V CA, 66 SCRA 575

    Uploaded by

    May RM
    One of seven siblings who co-owned land did not consent to the sale of the land to the Doromals. The Doromals were issued title after the sale of 6/7 of the land. The petitioner sought to invalidate the sale, arguing the right of repurchase had lapsed. The court ruled the period of repurchase had not lapsed, as the petitioner was not notified of the actual sale and delivery of deed, which triggers the 30-day period. The respondent could only be made to pay the 30k price stipulated in the deed of sale, not the actual sale price.

    Copyright:

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

    Doromal v CA, 66 SCRA 575

    FACTS: A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5
    of the siblings gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez, who succeeded her father as a
    co-owner, for the sale of the land to father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner,
    herein petitioner, Filomena Javellana however did not gave her consent to the sale even
    though her siblings executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners went on with the
    sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the Doromals were issued. Respondent
    offered to repurchase the land for 30K as stated in the deed of sale but petitioners
    declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase. Petitioner also contend that
    the 30K price was only placed in the deed of sale to minimize payment of fees and
    taxes and as such, respondent should pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.

    ISSUE/S: Whether or not the period to repurchase of petitioner has already lapsed.

    RULING: Period of repurchase has not yet lapsed because the respondent was not
    notified of the sale. The 30-day period for the right of repurchase starts only after actual
    notice not only of a perfected sale but of actual execution and delivery of the deed of
    sale.The letter sent to the respondent by the other co-owners cannot be considered as
    actual notice because the letter was only to inform her of the intention to sell the
    property but not its actual sale. As such, the 30-day period has not yet commenced and
    the respondent can still exercise his right to repurchase.The respondent should also pay
    only the 30K stipulated in the deed of sale because a redemptioner’s right is to be
    subrogated by the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract.

    You might also like