Balatbat v CA

 Form for Convenience Balatbat v. C.A. G.R. No. 109410 August 28, 1996

FACTS:

The lot in question covered by Transfer Certificate Certificate of Title No. 51330 was acquired by  plaintiff Aurelio Roque and aria esina durin! their con"u!al union and the house constructed thereon was li#ewise built durin! their $arital union. %ut of their un ion& plaintiff and aria esina had four children. 'hen aria esina died on Au!ust ()& 1*++& the only con"u!al  properties left are the house and lot above stated of which plaintiff herein& herein& as the le!al spouse& is entitled to one,half share pro,indiviso thereof. 'ith respect to the one,half share pro,indiviso now for$in! the estate of aria esina& plaintiff and the four children& the defendants here& are each entitled to one,fifth -15/ share pro,indiviso. Aurelio Roque then entered into a contract of Absolute ale with the spouses Aurora and ose Repuyan. 2owever& on Au!ust (0& 1*)0 & Aurelio filed a co$plaint for Rescission of Contract a!ainst pouses Repuyan for the latters failure to pay the balance of the purchase price. A deed of absolute sale was then e4ecuted on ebruary 6& 1*)( between Aurelio . Roque& Cora7on Roque& eliciano Roque& evera Roque and %s$undo Roque and Clara 8alatbat& $arried to Ale"andro 8alatbat. %n April 16& 1*)(& Clara 8alatbat filed a $otion for the issuance of a writ of possession which was !ranted by the trial court on epte$ber 16& 1*)( 1* )( 9sub"ect& however& to valid ri!hts and interest of third persons over the sa$e portion thereof& other than vendor or any other person or persons privy to or clai$in! any ri!hts or interests under it.9 it.9 The correspondin! writ of possession was issued on epte$ber (0& 1*)(. The lower court then rendered "ud!$ent in favor of the pouses Repuyan and declared the :eed of Absolute ale as valid. %n appeal by petitioner 8alatbat& the Court of Appeals affir$ed the lower courts co urts decision. ISSU:

'hether or not the delivery of the owners certificate of title to spouses Repuyan by Aurelio Roque is for convenience or for validity or enforceability. !"#:

The upre$e Court found that the sale between Aurelio and the pouses Repuyan is not $erely for the reason that there was no delivery of the sub"ect property and that considerationprice was not fully paid but the sale as consu$$ated& hence& valid and enforceable. The non,delivery of the possession of the sub"ect property to the private respondent& suffice it to say that ownership of the thin! sold is acquired only fro$ the ti$e of delivery

thereof& either actual or constructive. Article 16*) of the Civil Code provides that when the sale is $ade throu!h a public instru$ent& the e4ecution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thin! which is the ob"ect of the contract& if fro$ the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot be inferred. The e4ecution of the public instru$ent& without actual delivery of the thin!& transfers the ownership fro$ the vendor to the vendee& who $ay thereafter e4ercise the ri!hts of an owner over the sa$e. ;n the instant case& vendor Roque delivered the owner