Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Home Appliances Inc versus CA, GR No.

206599, September 29, 2014


Facts:
FSAMI consolidated its ownership after 680 Home failed to redeem the property which was
forclosed previously. A new certificate of title (TCT No. 227316) was issued in FSAMIs name.
However,on March 20, 2009, 680 Home commenced an action to annul the mortgage and foreclosure
with

the

RTC

of

Makati

City,

Branch

137

(docketed

as

Civil

Case

No.

09-254).

On October 26, 2010, FSAMI commenced a petition for the ex parte issuance of a writ of
possession filed with the RTC of. Home moved to intervene and filed an opposition to FSAMIs
application, but the RTC denied the motion in its orders. On July 8, 2011, the RTC granted FSAMIs
application for a writ of possession; the writ, as well as the notice to vacate, were issued. As the
current occupant of the property, respondent Aldanco filed a motion to intervene in LRC Case No. M5444, claiming that it possessed the property as lessee of Home. RTC ruling and declared Homes
petition to cancel the writ as prematurely filed. The CA ruled that under Section 8 of Act No. 3135, a
judgment debtor may file a petition for cancellation of the writ of possession within 30
days only after the purchaser has obtained possession of the property. To question the ruling of the
CA, Home filed petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Issue:
Whether or not Home availed the correct remedy by filing petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.
Held:
NO.
Procedurally, we observe that 680 Home availed of the wrong remedy to question the CA decision
before this Court. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is availed of only when there
is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.8 Unfortunately, 680
Homes resort to a certiorari petition could not be justified by the unavailability or insufficiency of other
remedies.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration was made a pre-requisite to the filing of
acertiorari petition. The availability of the remedy of reconsideration generally precludes immediate
recourse to a certiorari petition.10 680 Home, however, never moved for the reconsideration of the CA
decision, and offered no explanation for its failure to comply with the requirement. Instead of instituting
a certiorari petition, 680 Home should have filed an appeal under Rule 45, especially considering that the
issue raised here is primarily legal in nature.

Arambulo versus Nolasco

Facts:
Petitioners herein filed a petition for relief under Article 491 of the Civil Code with the RTC of Manila,
alleging that all of the coowners, except for respondents, have authorized petitioners to sell their
respective shares to the subject properties; that only respondents are withholding their consent to the sale
of their shares; that in case the sale pushes through, their mother and siblings will get their respective 1/9
share of the proceeds of the sale, while respondents will get share each of the 1/9 share of Iraida; that

the sale of subject properties constitutes alteration; and that under Article 491 of the Civil Code, if one or
more coowners shall withhold their consent to the alterations in the thing owned in common, the courts
may

afford

adequate

relief.4

In their Answer, respondents sought the dismissal of the petition for being premature. Respondents
averred that they were not aware of the intention of petitioners to sell the properties they coowned
because they were not called to participate in any negotiations.

ISSUE:
Whether respondents, as coowners, can be compelled by the court to give their consent to the sale of
their shares in the coowned properties.
HELD:
Article 493 of the New Civil Code dictates that each one of the parties herein as coowners with
full ownership of their parts can sell their fully owned part. The sale by the petitioners of their parts shall
not affect the full ownership by the respondents of the part that belongs to them. Their part which
petitioners will sell shall be that which may be apportioned to them in the division upon the termination of
the coownership. With the full ownership of the respondents remaining unaffected by petitioners sale of
their parts, the nature of the property, as coowned, likewise stays. In lieu of the petitioners, their vendees
shall be coowners with the respondents.
From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a coowner is entitled to sell his undivided
share, a sale of the entire property by one coowner without the consent of the other coowners is not
null and void. However, only the rights of the coownerseller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a
coowner of the property.

Roque versus Aguado, April 7, 2014


Facts:
(Sps. Roque) and the original owners of the then unregistered Lot 18089 Rivero, et al executed a Deed
of Conditional Sale of Real Property 6 (1977 Deed of Conditional Sale) over a 1,231-sq. m. portion of Lot
18089. Fructuoso Sabug, Jr. (Sabug, Jr.), former Treasurer of the National Council of Churches in the
Philippines (NCCP), applied for a free patent over the entire Lot 18089 and was eventually issued Original
Certificate of Title. Later, Sabug sold the lot to Aguad who mortgaged the lot to secure his loan from LBP.
Sps. Roque filed a complaint15 for reconveyance, annulment of sale, deed of real estate mortgage,
foreclosure, and certificate of sale, and damages before the RTC. , Aguado raised the defense of an
innocent purchaser for value as she allegedly derived her title (through the 1999 Deed of Absolute Sale)
from Sabug, On the other hand, Land Bank averred that it had no knowledge of Sps. Roques claim
relative to the subject portion, considering that at the time the loan was taken out, Lot 18089 in its entirety
was registered in Aguados name and no lien and/or encumbrance was annotated on her certificate of
title.
CA did not order its reconveyance or segregation in the latters favor because of Sps. Roques
failure to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in not ordering the reconveyance of the subject portion in Sps. Roques favor.

HELD:
NO.
The essence of an action for reconveyance is to seek the transfer of the property which was
wrongfully or erroneously registered in another persons name to its rightful owner or to one with a better
right.49 Thus, it is incumbent upon the aggrieved party to show that he has a legal claim on the property
superior to that of the registered owner and that the property has not yet passed to the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value.
Here, it is undisputed that Sps. Roque have not paid the final installment of the purchase
price. As such, the condition which would have triggered the parties obligation to enter into and thereby
57

perfect a contract of sale in order to effectively transfer the ownership of the subject portion from the
sellers (i.e., Rivero et al.) to the buyers (Sps. Roque) cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled.
Consequently, the latter cannot validly claim ownership over the subject portion even if they had made an
initial payment and even took possession of the same

Вам также может понравиться