Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 215 views

    Escaler vs. CA, 138 SCRA 1

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    This case discusses the doctrine of vendor being made a party in a suit for eviction. Specifically: - Petitioners bought land from private respondents that was later cancelled, resulting in eviction. - Petitioners sued private respondents for breach of warranty against eviction, but did not formally summon the private respondents in the eviction suit. - The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents, stating that Articles 1558 and 1559 of the Civil Code require the vendor be formally summoned in the eviction suit. - The Supreme Court affirms, holding that for a vendor's liability to be enforced, they must be formally summoned by the vendee in the eviction suit, either as a

    Copyright:

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

    Escaler vs. CA, 138 SCRA 1

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    215 views1 page
    This case discusses the doctrine of vendor being made a party in a suit for eviction. Specifically: - Petitioners bought land from private respondents that was later cancelled, resulting in eviction. - Petitioners sued private respondents for breach of warranty against eviction, but did not formally summon the private respondents in the eviction suit. - The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents, stating that Articles 1558 and 1559 of the Civil Code require the vendor be formally summoned in the eviction suit. - The Supreme Court affirms, holding that for a vendor's liability to be enforced, they must be formally summoned by the vendee in the eviction suit, either as a

    Original Description:

    SALES

    Original Title

    2. Escaler vs. CA, 138 SCRA 1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the doctrine of vendor being made a party in a suit for eviction. Specifically: - Petitioners bought land from private respondents that was later cancelled, resulting in eviction. - Petitioners sued private respondents for breach of warranty against eviction, but did not formally summon the private respondents in the eviction suit. - The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents, stating that Articles 1558 and 1559 of the Civil Code require the vendor be formally summoned in the eviction suit. - The Supreme Court affirms, holding that for a vendor's liability to be enforced, they must be formally summoned by the vendee in the eviction suit, either as a

    Copyright:

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

    Escaler vs. CA, 138 SCRA 1

    Uploaded by

    Juvial Guevarra Boston
    This case discusses the doctrine of vendor being made a party in a suit for eviction. Specifically: - Petitioners bought land from private respondents that was later cancelled, resulting in eviction. - Petitioners sued private respondents for breach of warranty against eviction, but did not formally summon the private respondents in the eviction suit. - The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondents, stating that Articles 1558 and 1559 of the Civil Code require the vendor be formally summoned in the eviction suit. - The Supreme Court affirms, holding that for a vendor's liability to be enforced, they must be formally summoned by the vendee in the eviction suit, either as a

    Copyright:

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

    Escaler vs.

    CA, 138 SCRA 1


    G.R. No. L-42636 August 1, 1985

    DOCTRINE: Vendor to be made party in suit for eviction. — The phrase “unless he is
    summoned in the suit for eviction” means that the vendor should be made a party to the suit
    either by way of asking that the former be made a co-defendant (Art. 1559.) or by the filing of
    a third-party complaint against said vendor.

    FACTS:

    • On March 1958, Spouses Africa and Jose Reynoso sold to petitioners and several others, a
    parcel of land in Antipolo Rizal with an area of 239,479 sqm by TCT No. 57400.
    • On April 1961, the Register of Deeds of Rizal and A. Doronilla Resources Development,
    Inc. filed a case before the court of first instance (RTC) for the cancellation of OCT No.
    1526 under the name of Angelina Reynoso (predecessor-in-interest of private
    respondents-vendors) on the ground that the property on the said title is already
    previously registered under TCT No. 42999 issued in the name of A. Doronilla
    Development Inc.
    • Petitioners as vendees filed their opposition to the said petition.
    • Order on said case was issued; that the OCT no. 1526 was cancelled and all TCT issued
    subsequently, being null and void.
    • On August 1965, petitioners, spouses Maria and Ernesto Escaler and spouses Cecilia and
    Pedro Roxas, file a case against their vendors, private respondents spouses Reynoso, for
    the recovery of the value of the property sold to them plus damages on the ground that
    the latter violated the vendors “warranty against eviction”
    • Judgment rendered by trial court; Cancellation of Original Registration has become final
    and executory, orders the defendants to jointly and severally return to Escaler and Roxas
    the value of the property sold to them and the time of eviction.
    • Private respondents appealed to CA, CA so ruled that petitioners as vendees had not given
    private respondents-vendor, formal notice of eviction case as mandated by Arts. 1558 and
    1559 of the NCC.

    ISSUE: WON the court of appeals erred in applying to the instant case the provisions of Article
    1558 and 1559 of the NCC?

    RULING:

    NO. the petition is devoid of merit. In order that the vendor’s liability for eviction may be
    enforced, the requisites must concur:
    a. there must be a final judgment
    b. the purchaser has been deprived of the whole or part of the thing sold
    c. said deprivation was by virtue of a right prior to the sale made by the vendor
    d. the vendor has been summoned and made co-defendant in the suit for eviction at the
    instance of the vendee.

    The fourth requisite is not present. The breach of warranty against eviction cannot be enforced
    against the seller when the only thing that the buyer did was to furnish the seller, by registered
    mail, with a copy of the opposition the buyer filed in the eviction suit, without going through
    formally summoning the seller to be a party to the case.
    The Court held that — This is not the kind of notice prescribed by the aforequoted Articles 1558
    and 1559 of the New Civil Code ... the respondents as vendor/s should be made parties to the
    suit at the instance of petitioner vendees, either by way of asking that the former be made a
    co-defendant or by the fi ling of a third-party complaint against said vendors.

    You might also like