Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    Script-Positive Law

    Uploaded by

    Belle Frances Timosa
    - Severina San Miguel originally owned a parcel of land that was later divided into three lots by Dominador without her knowledge. Severina's heirs were eventually issued a certificate of title for the land. - Severina's heirs later entered into an agreement to sell the lots to Dominador, conditioned on him purchasing another untitled parcel of land. However, Dominador did not complete the purchase. - The Court ruled in favor of Dominador, finding that under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the agreement was not valid as Severina's heirs could not prove ownership of the untitled parcel as required by the agreement. The Court said enforcing payment from Dominador would unjustly enrich Sever

    Copyright:

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

    Script-Positive Law

    Uploaded by

    Belle Frances Timosa
    47 views2 pages
    - Severina San Miguel originally owned a parcel of land that was later divided into three lots by Dominador without her knowledge. Severina's heirs were eventually issued a certificate of title for the land. - Severina's heirs later entered into an agreement to sell the lots to Dominador, conditioned on him purchasing another untitled parcel of land. However, Dominador did not complete the purchase. - The Court ruled in favor of Dominador, finding that under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the agreement was not valid as Severina's heirs could not prove ownership of the untitled parcel as required by the agreement. The Court said enforcing payment from Dominador would unjustly enrich Sever

    Original Title

    Script-positive law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Severina San Miguel originally owned a parcel of land that was later divided into three lots by Dominador without her knowledge. Severina's heirs were eventually issued a certificate of title for the land. - Severina's heirs later entered into an agreement to sell the lots to Dominador, conditioned on him purchasing another untitled parcel of land. However, Dominador did not complete the purchase. - The Court ruled in favor of Dominador, finding that under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the agreement was not valid as Severina's heirs could not prove ownership of the untitled parcel as required by the agreement. The Court said enforcing payment from Dominador would unjustly enrich Sever

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views2 pages

    Script-Positive Law

    Uploaded by

    Belle Frances Timosa
    - Severina San Miguel originally owned a parcel of land that was later divided into three lots by Dominador without her knowledge. Severina's heirs were eventually issued a certificate of title for the land. - Severina's heirs later entered into an agreement to sell the lots to Dominador, conditioned on him purchasing another untitled parcel of land. However, Dominador did not complete the purchase. - The Court ruled in favor of Dominador, finding that under Article 1306 of the Civil Code, the agreement was not valid as Severina's heirs could not prove ownership of the untitled parcel as required by the agreement. The Court said enforcing payment from Dominador would unjustly enrich Sever

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Legal positivism is a philosophy of law that emphasizes the conventional nature of law—that it is socially

    constructed.

    Heirs of San Miguel v. CA

    Facts:

    A parcel of land originally claimed by Severina San Miguel was divided into three (3) lots by Dominador
    without Severina’s knowledge. With the claim that it was fraudulently concealed by Dominador, the
    Register of Deeds of Cavite issued a Transfer Certificate of Title in the names of Severina and her heirs.

    There as an order for a writ of possession for the heirs.

    However, the writ was returned unsatisfied for they decided not to pursue the writs of possession and
    demolition and entered into a compromise with Dominador.

    According to the compromise, Severina’s heirs were to sell the subject lots to Dominador with the
    delivery of Transfer Certificate of Title conditioned upon the purchase of another lot which was not yet
    titled.

    Dominador, et al. filed a motion praying that Severinas heir’s deliver the owner’s copy of the certificate
    of title to them but Severinas heirs opposed the motion stressing that under the kasunduan, the
    certificate of title would only be surrendered upon Dominador's payment of the amount of which was
    not complied with. Dominador, admitted non-payment for the reason that Severinas heirs have not
    presented any proof of ownership over the untitled parcel of land.

    Ruling:

    The Court finds the petition no merit.

    Severinas heirs anchor their claim on the kasunduan, stressing on their freedom to stipulate and the
    binding effect of contracts. This argument is misplaced. The Civil Code provides :

    Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as
    they may deem convenient provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
    public policy (underscoring ours).

    It is basic that the law is deemed written into every contract. Although a contract is the law between
    the parties, the provisions of positive law which regulate contracts are deemed written therein and shall
    limit and govern the relations between the parties.

    Severina’s heirs are not in a position to transfer title. Without passing on the question of who actually
    owned the land, there is no proof of ownership in favor of Severinas heirs.

    Therefore, to insist that Dominador, et al. pay the price under such circumstances would result in
    Severinas heir’s unjust enrichment.

    My insights for this case it was said that provisions of positive law which regulates the contract is
    deemed written, the Court rules in accordance to the guideposts and standards which are the
    Constitution and its principles, the statutes, applicable rules and regulations, and jurisprudence from
    this Court which forms part of the law of the land.
    The first recourse of courts in adjudication is to look up to applicable laws, rules and jurisprudence and
    to apply these to thedispute. Which in this case is Article 1306 of the Civil Code.

    You might also like