When Corazon. the proprietor of the tonss in difference. was in Thailand. her stepmother Purificacion executed an affidavit of loss avering that the TCT could no longer be found so that the new TCTs were issued under her name. * The stepmother sold it to Catalina who subsequently mortgaged the tonss for 200. 000 pesos. * When Corazon learned of the foregoing. she filed a ailment for reconveyance and amendss but she subsequently on agreed on outside tribunal Compromise Agreement. Their concluding understanding was: * The rubric to the tonss shall be transferred direct to its interested purchaser with Catalina presuming and paying from the returns of the sale her mortgage duty and all disbursals for segregation study.
re-titling. capital additions revenue enhancements and those connected with the release of the said mortgage should be shouldered by Catalina. * The understanding was approved by Judge Dayaw.
* Corazon. the proprietor. sold the capable lot5 to Laurelia by virtuousness of a title entitle “Sale of Unsegregated Portion of Land” * Controversy erupted when Catalina sold same part of land to petitioner Mariquita Macapagal claiming to be authorized under the Compromise Agreement.
* RTC QC favored Mariquita in invalidating the sale executed by Corazon in favour of Laurelia. * CA reversed the determination of the test tribunal. Hence. this request of reappraisal. Issue: WHICH OF THE TWO SALES WAS VALID- THE SALE MADE BY CORAZON OR BY CATALINA? HELD: THE SALE BETWEEN CORAZON AND LAURELIA WAS VALID
* Corazon was the registered proprietor of the disputed batch at the clip the two gross revenues were executed. * The proprietor has the right to bask and to dispose the belongings and to except any individual from such enjoyment and disposal. * The Compromise Agreement is non a release of Corazon’s authorization to sell because the understanding simply provided that Catalina pay off her mortgage duty and incidental disbursals from the returns of the sale. * It was non expressly stated that Catalina herself be the one to straight sell the belongings. * Authority to sell must be couched in clear and unmistakable linguistic communication. * Even presuming that the parties intended to confabulate upon Catalina the authorization to sell. Catalina admitted that she does non hold a papers in her favour necessary to implement the understanding.
* Article 1878 ( 5 ) of the CC provinces that a particular power of lawyer is necessary for an agent to come in into any contract by which the ownership of an immoveable belongings is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for valid consideration. * In dual gross revenues of existent belongings. ownership passes to the buyer who. in good religion. foremost recorded it in the Registry of Property. * Petitioner Macapagal can non be considered a purchaser in good religion because she did non purchase the disputed batch from its registered proprietor. * One who buys from a individual who is non the registered proprietor is non a purchaser in good religion.
Cite this Macapagal Vs Remorin Sample
Macapagal Vs Remorin Sample. (2017, Jul 26). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/macapagal-vs-remorin-essay-sample-essay/