Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 151 views

    De Santos vs. City of Manila, 45 SCRA 409 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ayc
    This case involved a land exchange agreement between the City of Manila and Arellano University. Antonio De Santos filed a case claiming one of the parcels exchanged (Lot 1) should be subject to his right of redemption. The lower courts ruled against De Santos. The Supreme Court also found that De Santos had no right to redeem Lot 1 under the law as he did not prove the lot was small, unable to be used, or bought for speculation. The Court also ruled De Santos could not annul the exchange agreement as he was not a party to the contract and was not prejudiced by the exchange.

    Copyright:

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

    De Santos vs. City of Manila, 45 SCRA 409 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ayc
    151 views1 page
    This case involved a land exchange agreement between the City of Manila and Arellano University. Antonio De Santos filed a case claiming one of the parcels exchanged (Lot 1) should be subject to his right of redemption. The lower courts ruled against De Santos. The Supreme Court also found that De Santos had no right to redeem Lot 1 under the law as he did not prove the lot was small, unable to be used, or bought for speculation. The Court also ruled De Santos could not annul the exchange agreement as he was not a party to the contract and was not prejudiced by the exchange.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a land exchange agreement between the City of Manila and Arellano University. Antonio De Santos filed a case claiming one of the parcels exchanged (Lot 1) should be subject to his right of redemption. The lower courts ruled against De Santos. The Supreme Court also found that De Santos had no right to redeem Lot 1 under the law as he did not prove the lot was small, unable to be used, or bought for speculation. The Court also ruled De Santos could not annul the exchange agreement as he was not a party to the contract and was not prejudiced by the exchange.

    Copyright:

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

    De Santos vs. City of Manila, 45 SCRA 409 (Case Digest)

    Uploaded by

    Ayc
    This case involved a land exchange agreement between the City of Manila and Arellano University. Antonio De Santos filed a case claiming one of the parcels exchanged (Lot 1) should be subject to his right of redemption. The lower courts ruled against De Santos. The Supreme Court also found that De Santos had no right to redeem Lot 1 under the law as he did not prove the lot was small, unable to be used, or bought for speculation. The Court also ruled De Santos could not annul the exchange agreement as he was not a party to the contract and was not prejudiced by the exchange.

    Copyright:

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

    De Santos vs.

    City of Manila (45 SCRA 409, June 29, 1972)

    FACTS:
    Respondent City of Manila exchanged five parcels of land for three parcels of land owned by co-
    respondent Arellano University, Inc. for the construction of the Azcarraga (now Claro M. Recto)
    Extension. Based on the said exchange, petitioner Antonio G. De Santos filed a case against the
    respondents, praying to have the said contract of exchange be declared null and void insofar as one of
    the parcels of land (Lot 1) is concerned. Petitioner also prayed for the declaration of Lot 1 to be subject to
    the plaintiff's right of redemption within 30 days. Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Enrique C. Lopez,
    was advised that his property would be affected by the said widening. Lopez proposed an exchange with
    defendant City but said action was recommended to be held in abeyance since the Azcarraga Extension
    passes through the property of respondent University and expropriation proceedings are already pending
    in court. CFI and CA ruled in favor of the respondents and held that petitioner has no right to exercise any
    right of pre-emption or redemption over the lot in question. Hence, this petition for review by certiorari.

    ISSUES:
    1. Whether or not petitioner has any right of pre-emption or redemption over the lot in question?
    2. As an alternative cause of action, whether or not petitioner has the right to seek the annulment of
    the deed of exchange executed by and between respondents?

    RULING:
    1. No. Petitioner has no right to pre-empt or redeem the lot in question as adjoining owner under the
    pertinent provision of law on the matter, Article 1622 of the New Civil Code. In the instant case,
    petitioner had neither alleged in his complaint nor proved, either that Lot No. 1 “is so small and so
    situated that a major portion thereof cannot be used for any practical purpose;” or that it has
    “been bought merely for speculation;” or that it “is about to be re-sold.” It has not been alleged nor
    shown, either, that respondent City had the intention to sell the said property.
    2. No. A person, not a party obliged principally or subsidiarily under a contract, may exercise an
    action for nullity of the contract if he is prejudiced in his rights with respect to one of the
    contracting parties, and can show detriment which would positively result to him from the contract
    in which he had no intervention. The said contract of exchange is not detrimental to the right or
    interest of the petitioner because he has neither the right of pre-emption nor redemption over the
    disputed lot. Petitioner therefore, cannot legally seek the annulment of said deed of exchange.

    You might also like