SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 109410. August 28, 1996.]

CLARA M. BALATBAT , petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and

Spouses JOSE REPUYAN and AURORA REPUYAN, respondents.

Facundo T. Bautista for petitioner.

Federico R. Onandia for private respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; SALES; TRANSFER OF

OWNERSHIP; CONSUMMATED UPON ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE DELIVERY
THEREOF. — Devoid of any stipulation that "ownership in the thing shall not
pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price," ownership in the thing
shall pass from the vendor to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery of
the thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been fully paid. The failure
of the buyer to make good the price does not, in law, cause the ownership to
revest to the seller unless the bilateral contract of sale is first rescinded or
resolved pursuant to Article 1191 of the New Civil Code. Non-payment only
creates a right to demand the fulfillment of the obligation or to rescind the
contract.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN THE SALE IS MADE THROUGH A PUBLIC
INSTRUMENT, THE EXECUTION THEREOF SHALL BE EQUIVALENT TO THE
DELIVERY OF THE THING WHICH IS THE OBJECT OF THE CONTRACT. — With
respect to the non-delivery of the possession of the subject property to the
private respondent, suffice it to say that ownership of the thing sold is acquired
only from the time of delivery thereof, either actual or constructive. Article
1498 of the Civil Code provides that — when the sale is made through a public
instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the
thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not
appear or cannot be inferred. The execution of the public instrument, without
actual delivery of the thing, transfers the ownership from the vendor to the
vendee, who may thereafter exercise the rights of an owner over the same. In
the instant case, vendor Roque delivered the owner's certificate of title to
herein private respondent. It is not necessary that vendee be physically present
at every square inch of the land bought by him, possession of the public
instrument of the land is sufficient to accord him the rights of ownership. Thus,
delivery of a parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee in control and
possession of the land (real) or by embodying the sale in a public instrument
(constructive). The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity of a public
document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is not a
requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be
embodied in a public instrument.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 3. ID.; ID.; ID.; PERFECTED BY MERE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES. — A
contract of sale being consensual, it is perfected by the mere consent of the
parties. Delivery of the thing bought or payment of the price is not necessary
for the perfection of the contract; and failure of the vendee to pay the price
after the execution of the contract does not make the sale null and void for lack
of consideration but results at most in default on the part of the vendee, for
which the vendor may exercise his legal remedies.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; RULE IN CASE OF DOUBLE SALE OF AN IMMOVABLE
PROPERTY. — Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale
of an immovable property, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person
acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in
default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3)
in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is
good faith. This is an instance of a double sale of an immovable property
hence, the ownership shall vests in the person acquiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Evidently, private respondents
Repuyan's caused the annotation of an adverse claim on the title of the subject
property denominated as Entry No. 5627/T-135671 on July 21, 1980. The
annotation of the adverse claim on TCT No. 135671 in the Registry of Property
is sufficient compliance as mandated by law and serves notice to the whole
world.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE VENDEE TO ASK FOR THE
DELIVERY OF THE OWNER'S DUPLICATE COPY OF THE TITLE IN ORDER TO
INQUIRE OR DISCOVER A FLAW THEREOF. — It is incumbent upon the vendee of
the property to ask for the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of the title
from the vendor. A purchaser of a valued piece of property cannot just close his
eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard and then claim
that he acted in good faith and under the belief that there were no defect in the
title of the vendor. One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect
or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in
good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and
the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should
have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to
acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. Good faith, or the want
of it is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a
state or condition of mind which can only be judged of by actual or fancied
tokens or signs. In fine, petitioner had nobody to blame but herself in dealing
with the disputed property for failure to inquire or discover a flaw in the title to
the property, thus, it is axiomatic that — culpa lata dolo aequiparatur — gross
negligence is equivalent to intentional wrong.

DECISION

TORRES, JR., J : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Petitioner Clara M. Balatbat instituted this petition for review pursuant to
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to set aside the decision dated
August 12, 1992 of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29994
entitled "Alejandro Balatbat and Clara Balatbat, plaintiffs-appellants versus Jose
Repuyan and Aurora Repuyan, defendants-appellees", the dispositive portion of
which reads: 1
"WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the
modification that the awards of P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and
P5,000.00 as costs of litigation are deleted.
SO ORDERED."

The records show the following factual antecedents:

It appears that on June 15, 1977, Aurelio A. Roque filed a complaint for
partition docketed as Civil Case No. 109032 against Corazon Roque, Alberto de
los Santos, Feliciano Roque, Severa Roque and Osmundo Roque before the
then Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IX. 2 Defendants therein were
declared in default and plaintiff presented evidence ex-parte. On March 29,
1979, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff Aurelio A. Roque,
the pertinent portion of which reads: 3
"From the evidence, it has been clearly established that the lot in
question covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51330 was
acquired by plaintiff Aurelio Roque and Maria Mesina during their
conjugal union and the house constructed thereon was likewise built
during their marital union. Out of their union, plaintiff and Maria Mesina
had four children, who are the defendants in this case. When Maria
Mesina died on August 28, 1966, the only conjugal properties left are
the house and lot above stated of which plaintiff herein, as the legal
spouse, is entitled to one-half share pro-indiviso thereof. With respect
to the one-half share pro-indiviso now forming the estate of Maria
Mesina, plaintiff and the four children, the defendants here, are each
entitled to one-fifth (1/5) share pro-indiviso. The deceased wife left no
debt.
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the partition of
the properties, subject matter of this case consisting of the house and
lot, in the following manner:
1. Of the house and lot forming the conjugal properties,
plaintiff is entitled to one-half share pro-indiviso thereof while the other
half forms the estate of the deceased Maria Mesina;

2. Of the Estate of deceased Maria Mesina, the same is to be

divided into five (5) shares and plaintiff and his four children are
entitled each to one-fifth share thereof pro-indiviso.
Plaintiff claim for moral, exemplary and actual damages and
attorney's fees not having been established to the satisfaction of the
Court, the same is hereby denied.
Without pronouncement as to costs.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 SO ORDERED.”

On June 2, 1979, the decision became final and executory. The

corresponding entry of judgment was made on March 29, 1979. 4

On October 5, 1979, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued a Transfer

Certificate of Title No. 135671 in the name of the following persons in the
following proportions: 5
Aurelio A. Roque 6/10 share

Severina M. Roque 1/10 share

Osmundo M. Roque 1/10 share

Feliciano M. Roque 1/10 share

Corazon M. Roque 1/10 share

On April 1, 1980, Aurelio A. Roque sold his 6/10 share in T.C.T. No.
135671 to spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and Jose Repuyan as evidenced by
a "Deed of Absolute Sale." 6
On July 21, 1980, Aurora Tuazon Repuyan caused the annotation of her
affidavit of adverse claim 7 on the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 135671, 8 to
wit:
"Entry No. 5627/T-135671 — NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM — Filed
by Aurora Tuazon Repuyan, married, claiming among others that she
bought 6/10 portion of the property herein described from Aurelio
Roque for the amount of P50,000.00 with a down payment of P5,000.00
and the balance of P45,000.00 to be paid after the partition and
subdivision of the property herein described, other claims set forth in
Doc. No. 954, page 18, Book 94 of _________________ 64
__________________ PEDRO DE CASTRO, Notary Public of Manila.

Date of instrument — July 21, 1980

Date of inscription -July 21, 1980 at 3:35 p.m.

TERESITA H. NOBLEJAS
Acting Register of Deeds
By:
RAMON D. MACARICAN
Acting Second Deputy"

On August 20, 1980, Aurelio A. Roque filed a complaint for "Rescission of

Contract" docketed as Civil Case No. 134131 against spouses Aurora Tuazon-
Repuyan and Jose Repuyan before Branch IV of the then Court of First Instance
of Manila. The complaint is grounded on spouses Repuyan's failure to pay the
balance of P45,000.00 of the purchase price. 9 On September 5, 1980, spouses
Repuyan filed their answer with counterclaim. 10

In the meantime, the trial court issued an order in Civil Case No. 109032
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (Partition case) dated February 2, 1982, to wit: 11

"In view of all the foregoing and finding that the amount of
P100,000.00 as purchase price for the sale of the parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 51330 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila consisting
of 84 square meters situated in Callejon Sulu, District of Santa Cruz,
Manila, to be reasonable and fair, and considering the opportunities
given defendants to sign the deed of absolute sale voluntarily, the
Court has no alternative but to order, as it hereby orders, the Deputy
Clerk of this Court to sign the deed of absolute sale for and in behalf of
defendants pursuant to Sec. 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in order
to effect the partition of the property involved in this case.

SO ORDERED."

A deed of absolute sale was executed on February 4, 1982 between Aurelio

S. Roque, Corazon Roque, Feliciano Roque, Severa Roque and Osmundo
Roque and Clara Balatbat, married to Alejandro Balatbat. 12 On April 14,
1982, Clara Balatbat filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possession
which was granted by the trial court on September 14, 1982 "subject,
however, to valid rights and interest of third persons over the same portion
thereof, other than vendor or any other person or persons privy to or
claiming any rights or interest under it." The corresponding writ of
possession was issued on September 20, 1982. 13
On May 20, 1982, petitioner Clara Balatbat filed a motion to intervene in
Civil Case No. 134131 14 which was granted as per court's resolution of October
21, 1982. 15 However, Clara Balatbat failed to file her complaint in intervention.
16 On April 15, 1986, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the

complaint, the pertinent portion of which reads: 17

"The rescission of contracts are provided for in the laws and
nowhere in the provision of the Civil Code under the title Rescissible
Contracts does the circumstances in the case at bar appear to have
occurred, hence, the prayer for rescission is outside the ambit for
which rescissible [sic] could be granted.
"The Intervenor — Plaintiff, Clara Balatbat, although allowed to
intervene, did not file her complaint in intervention.
"Consequently, the plaintiff having failed to prove with sufficient
preponderance his action, the relief prayed for had to be denied. The
contract of sale denominated as "Deed of Absolute Sale" (Exh. 7 and
sub-markings) being valid and enforceable, the same pursuant to the
provisions of Art. 1159 of the Civil Code which says:

"Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law

between the contracting parties and should be complied with in
good faith."

has the effect of being the law between the parties and should be
complied with. The obligation of the plaintiff under the contract being
to have the land covered by TCT No. 135671 partitioned and
subdivided, and title issued in the name of the defendant buyer (see
page 2 par. C of Exh. 7-A) plaintiff had to comply thereto to give effect
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 to the contract.

"WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered against the plaintiff, Aurelio

A. Roque, and the plaintiff in intervention, Clara Balatbat, and in favor
of the defendants, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, and
declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1980 as valid and
enforceable and the plaintiff is, as he is hereby ordered, to partition
and subdivide the land covered by T.C.T. No. 135671, and to aggregate
therefrom a portion equivalent to 6/10 thereof, and cause the same to
be titled in the name of the defendants, and after which, the
defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of P45,000.00. Considering
further that the defendants suffered damages since they were forced
to litigate unnecessarily, by way of their counterclaim, plaintiff is
hereby ordered to pay defendants the sum of P15,000.00 as moral
damages, attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00.

Costs against plaintiff.

SO ORDERED."

On March 3, 1987, petitioner Balatbat filed a notice of lis pendens in Civil

Case No. 109032 before the Register of Deeds of Manila. 18
On December 9, 1988, petitioner Clara Balatbat and her husband,
Alejandro Balatbat filed the instant complaint for delivery of the owners
duplicate copy of T.C.T. No. 135671 docketed as Civil Case No. 88-47176 before
Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila against private respondents Jose
Repuyan and Aurora Repuyan. 19

On January 27, 1989, private respondents filed their answer with

affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaim. 20

On November 13, 1989, private respondents filed their memorandum 21

while petitioners filed their memorandum on November 23, 1989. 22
On August 2, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24,
rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, the dispositive portion of which
reads: 23
"Considering all the foregoing, this Court finds that the plaintiffs
have not been able to establish their cause of action against the
defendants and have no right to the reliefs demanded in the complaint
and the complaint of the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby
DISMISSED. On the counterclaim, the plaintiff are ordered to pay
defendants the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos by way of attorney's
fees, Five Thousand Pesos as costs of litigation and further to pay the
costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED."

Dissatisfied, petitioner Balatbat filed an appeal before the respondent

Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed decision on August 12, 1992, to
wit: 24
"WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 modification that the awards of P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and
P5,000.00 as costs of litigation are deleted.
SO ORDERED."

On March 22, 1993, the respondent Court of Appeals denied petitioner's

motion for reconsideration. 25

Hence, this petition for review.

Petitioner raised the following issues for this Court's resolution:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED SALE TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS
WAS MERELY EXECUTORY AND NOT A CONSUMMATED TRANSACTION?
II

WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A DOUBLE SALE AS CONTEMPLATED

UNDER ART. 1544 OF THE CIVIL CODE?
III

WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR

VALUE?

IV
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT
AND CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS WHICH WERE NOT OFFERED?

Petitioner asseverates that the respondent Court of Appeals committed

grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
affirming the appealed judgment considering (1) that the alleged sale in favor
of the private respondents Repuyan was merely executory; (2) that there is no
double sale; (3) that petitioner is a buyer in good faith and for value; and (4)
that private respondents did not offer their evidence during the trial.
Contrary to petitioner's contention that the sale dated April 1, 1980 in
favor of private respondents Repuyan was merely executory for the reason that
there was no delivery of the subject property and that consideration/price was
not fully paid, we find the sale as consummated, hence, valid and enforceable.
In a decision dated April 15, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
IV in Civil Case No. 134131, the Court dismissed vendor's Aurelio Roque
complaint for rescission of the deed of sale and declared that the sale dated
April 1, 1980, as valid and enforceable. No appeal having been made, the
decision became final and executory. It must be noted that herein petitioner
Balatbat filed a motion for intervention in that case but did not file her
complaint in intervention. In that case wherein Aurelio Roque sought to rescind
the April 1, 1980 deed of sale in favor of the private respondents for non-
payment of the P45,000.00 balance, the trial court dismissed the complaint for
rescission. Examining the terms and conditions of the "Deed of Sale" dated
April 1, 1980, the P45,000.00 balance is payable only "after the property
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 covered by T.C.T No. 135671 has been partitioned and subdivided, and title
issued in the name of the BUYER" hence, vendor Roque cannot demand
payment of the balance unless and until the property has been subdivided and
titled in the name of the private respondents. Devoid of any stipulation that
"ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid
the price", 26 ownership in the thing shall pass from the vendor to the vendee
upon actual or constructive delivery of the thing sold even if the purchase price
has not yet been fully paid. The failure of the buyer to make good the price
does not, in law, cause the ownership to revest to the seller unless the bilateral
contract of sale is first rescinded or resolved pursuant to Article 1191 of the
New Civil Code. 27 Non-payment only creates a right to demand the fulfillment
of the obligation or to rescind the contract.
With respect to the non-delivery of the possession of the subject property
to the private respondent, suffice it to say that ownership of the thing sold is
acquired only from the time of delivery thereof, either actual or constructive. 28
Article 1498 of the Civil Code provides that — when the sale is made through a
public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of
the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does
not appear or cannot be inferred. 29 The execution of the public instrument,
without actual delivery of the thing, transfers the ownership from the vendor to
the vendee, who may thereafter exercise the rights of an owner over the same.
30 In the instant case, vendor Roque delivered the owner's certificate of title to

herein private respondent. It is not necessary that vendee be physically present

at every square inch of the land bought by him, possession of the public
instrument of the land is sufficient to accord him the rights of ownership. Thus,
delivery of a parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee in control and
possession of the land (real) or by embodying the sale in a public instrument
(constructive). The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity of a public
document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. It is not a
requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be
embodied in a public instrument. 31
A contract of sale being consensual, it is perfected by the mere consent of
the parties. 32 Delivery of the thing bought or payment of the price is not
necessary for the perfection of the contract; and failure of the vendee to pay
the price after the execution of the contract does not make the sale null and
void for lack of consideration but results at most in default on the part of the
vendee, for which the vendor may exercise his legal remedies. 33
Article 1544 of the New Civil Code provides:
"If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees,
the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first
taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable
property.
"Should it be movable property, the ownership shall belong to
the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 "Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to
the person who in good faith was first in the possession and in the
absence thereof, to the person who present the oldest title, provided
there is good faith."

Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of an
immovable property, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring
it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default
thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in
default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is
good faith. 34

In the case at bar, vendor Aurelio Roque sold 6/10 portion of his share in
TCT No. 135671 to private respondents Repuyan on April 1, 1980.
Subsequently, the same lot was sold again by vendor Aurelio Roque (6/10) and
his children (4/10), represented by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Section 10,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on February 4, 1982. Undoubtedly, this is a case
of double sale contemplated under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.
This is an instance of a double sale of an immovable property hence, the
ownership shall vests in the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded
it in the Registry of Property. Evidently, private respondents Repuyan's caused
the annotation of an adverse claim on the title of the subject property
denominated as Entry No. 5627/T-135671 on July 21, 1980. 35 The annotation
of the adverse claim on TCT No. 135671 in the Registry of Property is sufficient
compliance as mandated by law and serves notice to the whole world.
On the other hand, petitioner filed a notice of lis pendens only on
February 2, 1982. Accordingly, private respondents who first caused the
annotation of the adverse claim in good faith shall have a better right over
herein petitioner. Moreover, the physical possession of herein petitioners by
virtue of a writ of possession issued by the trial court on September 20, 1982 is
"subject to the valid rights and interest of third persons over the same portion
thereof, other than vendor or any other person or persons privy to or claiming
any rights to interest under it." 36 As between two purchasers, the one who has
registered the sale in his favor, has a preferred right over the other who has not
registered his title even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable
property. 37 Further, even in default of the first registrant or first in possession,
private respondents have presented the oldest title. 38 Thus, private
respondents who acquired the subject property in good faith and for valuable
consideration established a superior right as against the petitioner.

Evidently, petitioner cannot be considered as a buyer in good faith. In the

complaint for rescission filed by vendor Aurelio Roque on August 20, 1980,
herein petitioner filed a motion for intervention on May 20, 1982 but did not file
her complaint in intervention, hence, the decision was rendered adversely
against her. If petitioner did investigate before buying the land on February 4,
1982, she should have known that there was a pending case and an annotation
of adverse claim was made in the title of the property before the Register of
Deeds and she could have discovered that the subject property was already
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 sold to the private respondents. It is incumbent upon the vendee of the
property to ask for the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of the title from
the vendor. A purchaser of a valued piece of property cannot just close his eyes
to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard and then claim that
he acted in good faith and under the belief that there were no defect in the title
of the vendor. 39 One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or
lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good
faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the
same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should
have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to
acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. Good faith, or the want
of it is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or touched, but rather a
state or condition of mind which can only be judged of by actual or fancied
tokens or signs. 40
In fine, petitioner had nobody to blame but herself in dealing with the
disputed property for failure to inquire or discover a flaw in the title to the
property, thus, it is axiomatic that — culpa lata dolo aequiparatur — gross
negligence is equivalent to intentional wrong.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, this petition for review is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Regalado, Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Decision, Rollo , pp. 47-58; Penned by Justice Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes,
concurred by Justice Nathanael de Pano, Jr., Consuelo Ynares-Santiago.
2. Complaint, Original Records, pp. 14-18.
3. Decision, Original Records, pp. 19-22.
4. Entry of Judgment, Original Records, p. 23.

5. Transfer Certificate of Title, Original Records, pp. 152-154.

6. Exhibit 1 for the Defendants; Deed of Absolute Sale, Original Records, pp.
156-159.
7. Affidavit of Adverse Claim, Original Records, pp. 155.
8. T.C.T No. 135671, Original Records, pp. 152-154.
9. Complaint, Original Records, pp. 129-132.
10. Answer, Original Records, pp. 133-139.

11. Order, Original Records, pp. 24-27.

12. Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 4, 1982, Original Records, pp. 28-31.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 13. Writ of Possession, Original Records, p. 32.
14. Motion for Intervention, Original Records, p. 160.
15. Order, Original Records, p. 161.
16. Order, Original Records, p. 162.
17. Decision in Civil Case No. 134131, Original Records, pp. 163-166.

18. Notice of Lis Pendens, Original Records, p. 33.

19. Complaint, Original Records, pp. 3-12.
20. Answer, Original Records, pp. 42-47.
21. Memorandum, Original Records, pp. 144-151.
22. Memorandum, Original Records, pp. 169-193.

23. Complaint, Original Records, pp. 208-218.

24. Decision, Rollo , pp. 48-58.
25. Resolution, Rollo , pp. 60-62.
26. Article 1478, New Civil Code.
27. Chua Hai vs. Hon. Kapunan, 104 Phil. 110; No. L-11108, June 30, 1958.

"Art. 1191 the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in

case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of
the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also
seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should
become impossible.

"The Court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause
authorizing the fixing of a period.
"This is understood to be without prejudice to the rights of third persons
who have acquired the thing, in accordance with Articles 1385 and 1388 of
the Mortgage Law.

28. Obaña vs. Court of Appeals, 135 SCRA 557; G.R. No. L-36249, March 29,
1985, Edca Publishing & Distributing Corps. vs. Santos, 184 SCRA 614, G.R.
No. 80298, April 26, 1990.

29. Dy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 92989, July 8, 1991.

30. Puato vs. Mendoza, 64 Phil. 457, No. 44169, July 16, 1937.
31. Dalion vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 78903, February 28, 1990.

32. Aspi vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 94; G.R. No. 83527, September 1,
1994.
33. Sorongon vs. Parreñas, 54 Official Gazette 1860.

34. Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. Palileo, G.R. 83432, May 20, 1991.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 35. Adverse Claim, Original Records, pp. 152-154; Valdez vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 85082, February 25, 1991.

36. Writ of Possession, Original Records, p. 32.

37. Gonzaga vs. Javellana, 23 Phil. 125; No. 6843, September 3, 1912.

38. Deed of Absolute Sale, dated April 1, 1980, Original Records, pp. 156-159.
39. De la Cruz vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. 72981, January 29, 1988.

40. Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 106042, February 28, 1994.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com