159 Baustista v Lasam FACTS:

Facts:
Gabriel Lasam and brothers Felix and Melquiades Bautista entered into a deed of
sale where the former will sell to the latter brothers 2, 130 hectares of land.

Felix Bautista drafted the contract, and Mequiades who enforced it. (Bros were
practicing lawyers)

The document, Gabriel Lasam was not required to deliver any document since the
mention made of the property title, issued in favor of the
seller�s cause named Jacinto Lasam,
is as follows:

That Gabriel has acquired the land from the late Jacinto Lasam

That in the event of the registration of the title of the late Jacinto on the land
is not sufficient for the the registration of this deed, the contracting parties
agree to register it in the Land Registry.

The land was registered was only up to the extent of 1445 hectares or a difference
of 671 hectares from the original.

Despite that, the possession of the 671 hectares remained to the bros.

Later on, Gabriel Lasam demanded from brothers Felix and Melquiades Baustista to
pay the former the amount of 8k as the unpaid balance of the stipulated price of
the property.

The bros insisted that the land was only 1445 hectares and not 2130; that the
amount of the 671 hectares should be discounted from the original amount.

The trial court ruled in favor of Lasam.

The bros appealed asserting that they sent letters to Lasam about the non-
registration of the remaining 671; that the reason for the non-registration was due
to the claim of the Land and Forestry Offices.

Bros further asserted that Lasam had the obligation to warranty the eviction of the
claim of the Land and Forestry Offices; thus the bros cannot be held in default of
the payment of the purchase price.

CA affirmed decision of the trial court.

ISSUE/S:
Whether Lasam should respond to the eviction asserted by the bros

HELD:
No. It is clear that to force a seller to respond to the eviction, the ff must
concur: (1) there is final judgment, (2) the buyer has been deprived in all or in
part of the thing sold, (3) that this deprivation was by virtue of a right prior to
the sale made by the seller, and (4) that the seller has been previously notified
of the demand for eviction at the request of the buyer. In this case, the 2
nd
and 4
th
requirements were not present. The bros was not deprived of any part of the land
since they took possession of the land and continue to own it, despite not having
managed to register in the Registry. Also, it has been proven that the letters sent
to Lasam were not letters notifying Lasam about the eviction, but rather the bros�
request for an extension of time for the payment of their remaining obli.

MENDOZA V CAPARROS
94 PHIL 317PABLO; January 30, 1954

FACTS-
On June 11, 1921, Agapito Ferrera sold to Paulino Pelejo 2 parcels of land located
in Camagon, Quezon for P3, 650. On Feb. 15, 1932, Pelejo sold the same land to
spouses Victorian Mendoza and Bernabela Tolentino. The spouses passed away and
their heirs Pedro, Leandro, and Justiniano (all Mendozas) did an extra-judicial
partition. - In 1935, Ferreras obtained th original certificate title. When he
died, his heirs trasferred the title and had an extra-judicial partition.

ISSUE
WON Mendozas are the real owners of the land and not Ferreras�s wodiw Caparros and
their daughters

HELD
YESThe court sustained the decision of the lower court to cancel the certificate of
transfer and register it under the Mendozas. It was said that neither suits for
annulment of sale, or title, or document affecting property operate to abate
ejectment actions respecting the same property.Disposition Judgment affirmed