Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

G.R. No.

L-5937

January 30, 1954

PEDRO MENDOZA, demandante y apelado, vs.


JUSTINA CAPARROS y OTROS, demandadas.
PAULINO PELEJO, demandado y apelante.
DOCTRINE: Eviction shall take place whenever by a final judgment
based on a right prior to the sale or an act imputable to the vendor,
the vendee is deprived of the whole thing purchased. The vendor shall
answer for the eviction even though nothing has been said in the
contract on the subject.
FACTS:
Agapito sold to Peleja two (2) parcels of land situated in Quezon
Province for P3,650.00.
Then after a decade, Peleja sold the same lots to spouses Mendoza and
Tolentino. The latter spouses died, leaving as heirs Pedro (plaintiffappellee), Leandro and Justiniano all surnamed Mendoza. Upon
conducting an extrajudicial partition as their parents heirs, the 2 lots
aforementioned was allotted to Pedro Mendoza.
However, subsequently, Agapito obtained an OCT over the 2 parcels of
land mentioned above.
Later, Agapitos heirs, herein defendants Caparros, Socorro and
Policornia (his widow and 2 daughters, respectively) obtained a TCT
over the lots in question after conducting an extrajudicial partition.
Pedro Mendoza then instituted an action against defendants Peleja,
Caparros, Socorro and Policornia (heirs of Agapito Ferreras) for
cancellation of the TCT registered under Agapitos heirs and that
another be issued in his name, married to Alfonsa Perez.
The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff Mendoza although no bad faith
was found either on the part of Agapito or his heirs in the registration
of the lots in question even if such were recorded incorrectly.
The defendants, except Peleja, were ordered to pay costs.
The heirs of Agapito Ferreras did not appeal.
Peleja filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking for the award of
attorneys fees amounting to Php500.00, claiming that his inclusion in
the case as defendant was unfounded and of malicious character as he

was not an indispensable party in said case. The court denied his
motion. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether Peleja is an indispensible party to the said case.
HELD: YES.
Defendant Peleja sold to Pedro Mendozas parents the two lots with the
following condition that upon the sale of the lots, the seller undertook
to defend the buyers against any adverse claims over the lots sold.
Hence, under the said condition, Peleja made himself liable to Pedros
parents (buyers) and to Pedro as successor-in-interest, in case of
eviction or in the event that the buyer or his heirs would be deprived of
the lots or part thereof by final judgment.
Even if such stipulation were not included in the deed of sale, the seller
would still be responsible in case of eviction of buyers pursuant to NCC
Art. 1548 (old CC Art. 1475) which states that eviction shall take place
whenever by a final judgment based on a right prior to the sale or an
act imputable to the vendor, the vendee is deprived of the whole thing
purchased. The vendor shall answer for the eviction even though
nothing has been said in the contract on the subject.
Had appellant Peleja not been included as defendant to the suit and he
was made to pay indemnity, he could raise the defense that he was
not given fair opportunity to prove his title over the 2 lots at the time
he sold such to Victoriano Mendoza and they had been improperly
recorded.
In the case that Agapito Ferreras heirs sued Pedro Mendoza,
demanding that possession of the parcels of land be transferred to
them and with the corresponding TCT to bolster their claim, Peleja
must be notified of the application of eviction at the instance of
Mendoza in order that he (Peleja) must be bound to indemnify plaintiff
(Mendoza).
DISPOSITIVE: Appealed order is AFFIRMED.

Похожие интересы