J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0058: THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VS. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON (G.R. NO. 199180, 27 JULY 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHAT IS CONTRACT TO SELL; DOUBLE SALE; CONJUGAL PROPERTY) (BRIEF TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS. SIOSON)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 26, 2011 and Resolution dated October 21, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94867 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

NERI AND THELMA EXECUTED TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER A PARCEL OF LAND FOR AN AGREED PRICE. BUT THELMA  ONLY PAID PARTIAL. THEN NERI SOLD THE LAND TO SIOSON. WAS THERE DOUBLE SALE?

NO. BECAUSE THE CONTRACT EXECUTED BY NERI AND THELMA WAS MERELY A CONTRACT TO SELL.

BUT THE CONTRACT WAS TERMED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE. IS THIS NOT EVIDENCE OF SALE?

NO.

THE REAL CHARACTER OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT THE TITLE GIVEN, BUT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.

WHAT IS A CONTRACT TO SELL?

IT IS A “BILATERAL CONTRACT WHEREBY THE PROSPECTIVE SELLER, WHILE EXPRESSLY RESERVING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY DESPITE DELIVERY THEREOF TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, BINDS HIMSELF TO SELL THE PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER UPON FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION AGREED UPON, I.E., THE FULL PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.”

SUPPOSE THERE WERE TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER SAME PROPERTY WHAT IS THE RULE?

IF THE PROPERTY IS MOVABLE PROPERTY THE  THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE FIRST TAKEN POSSESSION THEREOF IN GOOD FAITH.

IF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BELONG TO THE PERSON ACQUIRING IT WHO IN GOOD FAITH FIRST RECORDED IT IN THE REGISTRY OF PROPERTY.

SHOULD THERE BE NO INSCRIPTION, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL PERTAIN TO THE PERSON WHO IN GOOD FAITH WAS FIRST IN THE POSSESSION; AND, IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, TO THE PERSON WHO PRESENTS THE OLDEST TITLE, PROVIDED THERE IS GOOD FAITH.

THE DEED OF SALE WAS NOT SIGNED BY VIOLETA, SPOUSE OF NERI. CA SAID THE DEED OF SALE TO THELMA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALID. IS CA CORRENT?

NO.

THIS IS DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

FIRST, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOT 398-A, IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF “NERI DELOS REYES, MARRIED TO VIOLETA LACUATA,” AND SO WAS ITS MOTHER LOT, LOT 398.

IN METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY V. TAN,47 IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH FORM OF REGISTRATION IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE PROPERTY’S NATURE AS PARAPHEMAL. THAT THE ONLY IMPORT OF THE TITLE IS THAT NERI IS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT BEING REGISTERED IN HIS NAME ALONE, AND THAT HE IS MARRIED TO VIOLETA;

AND SECOND, THE RECORD IS BEREFT OF PROOF THAT SAID PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED DURING NERI AND VIOLETA’S MARRIAGE -SUCH THAT, THE PRESUMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 116 OF THE FAMILY CODE THAT PROPERTIES ACQUIRED DURING THE MARRIAGE ARE PRESUMED TO BE CONJUGAL CANNOT APPLY.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 scd-2016-0058-thelma-rodriguez

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0055: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGR-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS INC. VS. GREENPEACE SOUTHEAST ASIA (PHILIPPINES) ET AL. (G.R. NO. 209271, 26 JULY 2016, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (NOTE: THERE ARE OTHER COMPANION CASES) (SUBJECT/S: SC RESOLVES ONLY ACTUAL CONTROVERSIES; EXCEPTIONS –  RESOLUTION OF CASES RENDERED MOOT) (BRIEF TITLE: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE VS. GREENPEACE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration are GRANTED. The Decision dated December 8, 2015 of the Court, which affirmed with modification the Decision dated May 17, 2013 and the Resolution dat.ed September 20, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 00013, is hereby SET ASIDE for the reasons above-explained. A new one is ENTERED DISJ\r1ISSIN G the Petition for Writ of Continuing Mandamus and Writ of Kalikasan with Prayer for the Issuance of a. Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) filed by respondents Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Philippines), JUagsasaka at Siyentipiko sa Pagpapaunlad’ng Agrikultura, and others on the ground of mootness.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT DOES THIS CASE INVOLVE?

IT INVOLVES NINE (9) MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION1 ASSAILING THE DECISION DATED DECEMBER 8, 2015 OF THE COURT (DECEMBER 8, 2015 DECISION), WHICH UPHELD WITH MODIFICATION THE DECISION3 DATED MAY 17, 2013 AND THE RESOLUTION4 DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) IN CA-G.R. SP NO. 00013.

HOW DID THE SC RESOLVE THESE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION?

SC GRANTED THESE MOTIONS.

ON WHAT MAIN GROUND?

ON THE GROUND OF MOOTNESS.

THESE CASES STEMMED FROM RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN. THE WRIT BEING SOUGHT WAS MOOTED BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE BIOSAFETY PERMITS ISSUED BY BUREAU OF PLANT INDISTRY  AND THE COMPLETION OF THE BT TALONG FIELD TRIALS. THERE IS NO MORE FIELD TEST TO ENJOIN.

ALSO, THERE IS NO PERCEPTIBLE BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE GAINED BY RESOLVING RESPONDENTS’ PETITION FOR WRIT OF KALIKASAN.

WHAT CONTROVERSIES CAN THE COURT ADJUDICATE?

AS A GENERAL RULE ONLY ACTUAL, ONGOING CONTROVERSIES. THIS RULE IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE COURT IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DECIDE MOOT QUESTIONS OR ABSTRACT PROPOSITIONS.

WHEN A CASE IS MOOT, IT BECOMES NON-JUSTICIABLE.

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS GENERAL RULE?

YES.

FIRST, WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION;

SECOND, WHEN THE EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER OF THE SITUATION AND THE PARAMOUNT PUBLIC INTEREST ARE INVOLVED;

THIRD, WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE RAISED REQUIRES FORMULATION OF CONTROLLING PRINCIPLES TO GUIDE THE BENCH, THE BAR, AND THE PUBLIC;

AND FOURTH, WHEN THE CASE IS CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0055-INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.