G.R. No. 174118 – THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, represented by the Archbishop of Caceres, petitioner, vs. REGINO PANTE, respondent.
BRION, J.
Rule Synopsis
Where actual occupancy of the property subject of sale is not a qualification required by the seller in the sale of said property, mistake on the same would not vitiate the contract. Knowledge of actual use of a property by another constitutes notice that negates a claim of good faith.
Facts
Roman Catholic Church executed two contracts of sale which covers overlapping property, i.e. a thin strip of land. The first sale was with one Regino Pante, who was allegedly the actual occupant thereof. The second sale was with Sps. Rubi, this covers a larger area inclusive of the lot sold to Pante. The Sps then erected a concrete fence over the subject lot blocking Pante and his family’s access to their family home and the municipal road.
Pante thus instituted with the RTC an action to annul the second sale, insofar as it included the lot previously sold to him. The Church filed a counterclaim praying for the rescission of the sale with Pante, alleging that its consent thereon had been vitiated when the when Pante misrepresented that it was the actual occupant of the subject property.
The RTC rescinded the first sale ruling in favor of the Church, and upholding the title of Sps Rubi. The CA reversed, applying Art. 1544, it held that Pante had better right being the first possessor. The SC affirmed.
Issues
- Did Pante committed a misrepresentation vitiating the seller’s consent and invalidating the contract?
- Who was the first possessor the of the subject property for the purpose of applying the rule on double sales?
Ruling and Discussion
- No. Pante did not commit a misrepresentation vitiating the seller’s consent and invalidating the contract.
The actual occupancy or residency of a buyer over the land does not appear to be a necessary qualification that the Church requires before it could sell its land. Thus, it is not a mistake as to the qualification of one of the parties that would vitiate consent in the contract. Given that nature of the lot in question, i.e. a thin strip not suitable for residence and could serve no other purpose but mere passageway, neither buyer qualified re: the Church’s alleged rule that it sells property only to actual occupants thereof. Furthermore, the surrounding circumstance show that the Church was aware that Pante was using the same as passageway, as evidenced by the sketch plan from the Archbishop’s Palace. That Pante was not an actual occupant of the lot he purchased was a fact that the Church either ignored or waived as a requirement.
Also, the second sale by the Church, without annulling the first sale with Pante, may be said to be of bad faith. Assuming it is voidable, the same was binding and not yet annulled at the time of the second sale.
Lastly, Pante’s alleged delay in the payment of the purchase price did not invalidate the sale, there being no stipulation in the contract that full payment is necessary for the transfer of ownership. - Pante was the first possessor the of the subject property for the purpose of applying the rule on double sales.
Pante’s use of the lot as a passageway after the 1992 sale in his favor was a clear assertion of his right of ownership that preceded the spouses Rubi’s claim of ownership. Furthermore, Pante already placed electric connections and water pipes on the lot, even before his purchase. Thus, the Rubi sps in erecting a fence on the lot with existing works would be considered in bad faith.
Moreover, contract between the Church and Pante was notarized; the sale was made in a public instruments. As such, there was valid constructive delivery of the subject lot under Art. 1498.
Dispositive
Petition denied. Decision affirmed.