GONZALES vs. ROJAS - G.R. No. 5449

MARIANO GONZALES ET AL. vs. ALEJANDRO ROJAS

G.R. No. 5449

March 22, 1910

The subject land of fishery belonged to the sisters Juliana Samonte and Atanasia Samonte, during their lifetime, who are said to have inherited it from their grandfather, Jose Samonte. These sisters leased the property to Mamerto Siaoson under a contract for 12 years. The first sale was made by the Juliana Samonte to Alejandro Rojas, on February 2, 1900. Juliana Samonte died on March 10 of the same year. From March 21, 1895, to the same date of 1907, Mamerto Siaoson was entitled to the possession and lease of the fishery. For this reason, Juliana Samonte, on February 24, 1900, said that the lease still had six years to run. Juliana Samonte and Alejandro Rojas expressly stipulated, in the document of contract, Exhibit No. 1, that as soon as the said six years of the lease should have expired "and this land is returned to us — Juliana’s words-immediately and without delay we will deliver the same to this married couple. On November 14, 1907, the delivery of this land had not yet been made to Alejandro Rojas; hence, by means of a notarial proceeding, the latter demanded of two sons of Juliana Samonte, Brigido and Matias Villanueva, the said delivery.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sale made by Juliana Samonte to Alejandro Rojas in 1900 remained in a state of dependency on the completion of the contract and was not consummated.

HELD:

            Yes. Article 1462 of the Civil Code provides that, a thing sold shall be considered as delivered when it is placed in the hands of the vendee. When the sale is made by means of a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if in said instrument the contrary does not appear or may be clearly inferred. No actual delivery was made of the possession of the reality in question. There was no public instrument, the execution of which could have constituted a form of delivery of the thing sold. On the contrary, from the instrument executed, which is only a private one, it clearly appears that the delivery of the fishery was postponed to a fixed date.

            Juliana Samonte’s heirs, having no knowledge of this obligation and making the fishery materially a part of the inheritance left by their mother, conveyed the property that had been held by her and which had been transferred to her successors in interests, without any complaint from a third party. It must be concluded that the sales effected by the heirs of Juliana Samonte to the petitioners were true, valid, and efficacious.