Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 26 views

    Oblicon Cases 9-14-22

    Uploaded by

    LEVI ACKERMANN
    This case involves a dispute over six lots of land in Quezon City that were allegedly sold through a deed of absolute sale on January 29, 1970 by Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and his wife Aurea Poblete to their daughter Natividad. After the death of Maximino Sr. and Aurea, their son Romeo contested the validity of the deed of sale as administrator of his father's estate. The Supreme Court held that the deed of sale constituted an indivisible contract based on an indivisible obligation to transfer title to the six lots, and therefore could not be annulled by only one party (the estate of Maximino Sr.). As the estate of Aurea was not a party to

    Copyright:

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

    Oblicon Cases 9-14-22

    Uploaded by

    LEVI ACKERMANN
    26 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over six lots of land in Quezon City that were allegedly sold through a deed of absolute sale on January 29, 1970 by Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and his wife Aurea Poblete to their daughter Natividad. After the death of Maximino Sr. and Aurea, their son Romeo contested the validity of the deed of sale as administrator of his father's estate. The Supreme Court held that the deed of sale constituted an indivisible contract based on an indivisible obligation to transfer title to the six lots, and therefore could not be annulled by only one party (the estate of Maximino Sr.). As the estate of Aurea was not a party to

    Original Title

    oblicon cases 9-14-22

    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 involves a dispute over six lots of land in Quezon City that were allegedly sold through a deed of absolute sale on January 29, 1970 by Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and his wife Aurea Poblete to their daughter Natividad. After the death of Maximino Sr. and Aurea, their son Romeo contested the validity of the deed of sale as administrator of his father's estate. The Supreme Court held that the deed of sale constituted an indivisible contract based on an indivisible obligation to transfer title to the six lots, and therefore could not be annulled by only one party (the estate of Maximino Sr.). As the estate of Aurea was not a party to

    Copyright:

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

    Oblicon Cases 9-14-22

    Uploaded by

    LEVI ACKERMANN
    This case involves a dispute over six lots of land in Quezon City that were allegedly sold through a deed of absolute sale on January 29, 1970 by Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and his wife Aurea Poblete to their daughter Natividad. After the death of Maximino Sr. and Aurea, their son Romeo contested the validity of the deed of sale as administrator of his father's estate. The Supreme Court held that the deed of sale constituted an indivisible contract based on an indivisible obligation to transfer title to the six lots, and therefore could not be annulled by only one party (the estate of Maximino Sr.). As the estate of Aurea was not a party to

    Copyright:

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

    • Sps. Lam v. Kodak, Phil. G.R. No.

    167615, January 11, 2016


    SPOUSES ALEXANDER AND JULIE LAM, Doing Business Under the Name and Style
    "COLORKWIK LABORATORIES" AND "COLORKWIK PHOTO SUPPLY", Petitioners,
    vs.
    KODAK PHILIPPINES, LTD., Respondent.
    NAZARENO VS. COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. 131641, February 23, 2000
    FACTS:
    Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and Aurea Poblete were husband and wife. Aurea died on April
    15, 1970, while Maximino, Sr. died on December 18, 1980. After the death of Maximino, Sr.,
    Romeo filed an intestate case in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch XV, where the
    case was docketed as Sp. Proc. No. NC-28. Upon the reorganization of the courts in 1983, the
    case was transferred to the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite. Romeo was appointed
    administrator of his father’s estate. In the course of the intestate proceedings, Romeo
    discovered that his parents had executed several deeds of sale conveying a number of real
    properties in favor of his sister, Natividad. One of the deeds involved six lots in Quezon City
    which were allegedly sold by Maximino, Sr., with the consent of Aurea, to Natividad on January
    29, 1970 for the total amount of P47,800.00.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Deed of Absolute of Sale can be equated as a divisible obligation.

    HELD:
    The Supreme court held that the Deed of Absolute Sale is an indivisible contract
    founded on an indivisible obligation. As such, it being indivisible, it cannot be annulled by only
    one of them. And since this suit was filed only by the estate of Maximino A. Nazareno, Sr.
    without including the estate of Aurea Poblete, the present suit must fail. The estate of Maximino
    A. Nazareno, Sr. cannot cause its annulment while its validity is sustained by the estate of
    Aurea Poblete. An obligation is indivisible when it cannot be validly performed in parts, whatever
    may be the nature of the thing which is the object thereof. The indivisibility refers to the
    prestation and not to the object. The Deed of Sale of January 29, 1970 supposedly conveyed
    the six lots to Natividad. The obligation is clearly indivisible because the performance of the
    contract cannot be done in parts, otherwise the value of what is transferred is diminished.
    Petitioners are mistaken in basing the indivisibility of a contract on the number of obligors. In
    any case, if petitioners’ only point is that the estate of Maximino, Sr. alone cannot contest the
    validity of the Deed of Sale because the estate of Aurea has not yet been settled, the argument
    would nonetheless be without merit. The validity of the contract can be questioned by anyone
    affected by it. A void contract is inexistent from the beginning. Hence, even if the estate of
    Maximino, Sr. alone contests the validity of the sale, the outcome of the suit will bind the estate
    of Aurea as if no sale took place at all.

    You might also like