Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

JOVELLANOS v.

COURT OF APPEALS  Private respondent Annette Jovellanos (2nd marriage)


G.R. No. 100728 claimed in the lower court that the property was acquired by
June 18, 1992 Daniel while their marriage was still subsisting
o She claims that this form part of the conjugal partnership
Petitioners: Wilhelma Jovellanos, Mercy Jovellanos-Martinez, and of the second marriage (Deed of Absolute Sale 1975)
Jose Hermilo Jovellanos (Children of 1st Marriage)  Petitioners contend that the property, the lot and the
bungalow erected were acquired by Daniel and Leonor (1st
Respondents: The Court of Appeals and Annette H. Jovellanos marriage) during the existence of the first marriage. (Lease and
representing Ana Maria and Ma. Jenette Jovellanos (Children of 2nd Conditional Sale Agreement 1955)
Marriage)  December 28, 1989: Lower court rendered judgment in favor of
respondent Annette. She will own half of the property and her
J. REGALADO: children (2nd marriage) will own 1/6th pro indivsio shares on the
other half. Children of first marriage will be exclusive owners of
In the case of a contract to sell, ownership is not transferred upon the bungalow.
delivery of the property, but upon full payment of the purchase price.  CA affirmed decision of lower court, but modified it so that
private respondents also reimburse to petitioners their
While deceased husband had possessed a lot through a lease and proportionate shares in the proven hospitalization and burial
conditional sale agreement during his first marriage, he did not acquire expenses of Daniel.
full ownership over it until he had completed his payment which only o CA applied FC 118:
occurred during his second marriage.
Property bought on installment paid partly from exclusive funds of
FACTS: either or both spouses and partly from conjugal funds belongs to the
buyer or buyers if full ownership was vested before the marriage and
 September 2, 1955: Daniel Jovellanos and Philamlife entered to the conjugal partnership if such ownership was vested during the
into a contract which was a lease and conditional sale marriage. In either case, any amount advanced by the partnership
agreement over Lot 8 Block 3 of Philamlife’s QC Community or by either or both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or
owners upon liquidation of the partnership.
Development Project
o At this time, Daniel was married to Leonor Dizon (1st
 Petitioners contends that lower court erred in holding that:
marriage) with whom he had three children (petitioners)
o The lot and bungalow covered by the lease is conjugal
 January 2, 1959: Leonor Dizon passed away.
property of the 2md marriage
 May 30, 1967: Daniel married Annette H. Jovellanos (2nd o The provision of FC are applicable in resolving the rights
marriage) ang begot two children (respondents) ooohhh of the parties herein (But SC later ruled under Art 256
children battle that it FC has retroactive effect)
 December 18, 1971: Petitioners, at the behest of Daniel, built a
house at the back portion of the lot. ISSUE:
 January 8, 1975: The lease amounts having paid, Philamlife
executed to Daniel a deed of absolute sale. W/N the property should belong to the conjugal partnership of the
 January 9, 1975: Daniel donated all his rights, title and interests second marriage. YES
over the lot and bungalow to the children of his 1st marriage
(petitioners)
 September 8, 1985: Daniel Jovellanos passed away
HELD:  Daniel’s right to property under his contract with Philamlife was
merely an inchoate and expectant right that would ripen into a
YES. We need to look at the nature of the contract entered into by vested right only upon full payment.
the contracting parties: o Vested Right: right that is fixed, unalterable and
 It was a “Lease and Conditional Sale Agreement” with 20 years absolute; perfect in itself and not dependent upon
lease period and monthy rental. contingency.
 As a lessee-vendee, Daniel only had right of POSSESSIOn over  In this case, NO CERTIFICATE OF SALE was delivered and full
property. payment of rentals was a condition before ownership could be
 Philamlife transferred only the TEMPORARY USE of the land transferred to Daniel.
leased.
 The conditional sale agreement is in the nature of a
contract to sell  The deed of absolute sale (executed when it was already fully
o Ownership is NOT transferred upon delivery of the paid) was executed 1975; during his 2nd marriage.
property but upon FULL PAYMENT of the purchase o THIS PROPERTY NECESSARILY BELONGED TO
price. HIS CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP WITH HIS SAID
o The ownership may still be with the seller until full SECOND WIFE.
payment is made, if there is stipulation to this effect.  Lower courts ordered reimbursements should be made in line
o Pactum reservati dominii, or contractual reservation of with FC 118 :
title.
“Any amount advanced by the partnership or by either or
CONTRACT OF SALE v. CONTRACT TO SELL both spouses shall be reimbursed by the owner or owners upon
liquidation of the partnership”
 Contract of sale: The title passes to the buyer upon delivery of
the thing sold; non-payment of the price is a negative resolutory RULING:
condition
o Vendor loses and cannot recover ownership of the thing Judgment of CA AFFIRMED,
sold unless the contract of sale is rescinded or set aside.

 Contract to sell: The ownership is reserved in the seller and is


not to pass until full payment of the purchase price. Full payment
is a positive suspensive condition.
o Title remains in the vendor if the vendee does not
comply with the full payment as specified in the contract.

 In the case, the contract was a contract to sell, where Daniel


faithfully complied with all the stipulations of the contract
o Made monthly amortization payments and rentals.
o Fully paid Jan 8, 1975 (even though he was already in
possession since 1955)
 Therefore, Daniel did not enjoy full attributes of ownership until
the execution of deed of sale in his favor (when he fully paid)