VDA. DE SARMIENTO v.

LESACA
June 30, 1960 | Bautista Angelo, J. | Topic
Digester: Fausto, Jaime Manuel A.
SUMMARY: Sarmiento bought a parcel of land from Lesaca.
However, no delivery of actual possession as made because of one
Martin Delosos claim of ownership over the land. The Court held
that the rescission of the contract of purchase and sale was valid,
for Lesaca failed to deliver on her reciprocal obligation to deliver
the land to the vendee.
DOCTRINE: The execution of a deed of sale in a public document
is equivalent to delivery of possession of lands, provided that there
was no impediment the would prevent the passing of property
from one party to another.
FACTS:
Sarmiento filed a complaint in the CFI of Zambales praying for
the rescission of the contract of sale executed with the
defendant Lesaca for failure of the latter to place the former in
the actual physical possession of the lands she bought.
Sarmiento bought the land for P5,000 and when she tried to
take actual physical possession, she was prevented by one
Martin Deloso who claimed to be the owner.1 Later, she went
after Lesaca and asked for another land of the same kind or the
return of the purchase price with interest, to which Lesaca
refused.
CFI: Declared that the sale was rescinded, ordered the return
of the purchase price, plus the expenses for the registration of
the deed of sale, plus interest.
CA: Certified the case to the SC because it involved questions
of law.
RULING: Petition granted.
Whether the execution of the deed of sale in a public
document is equivalent to delivery of possession of lands
YES.
According to Articles 1461 and 1462 of the Old Civil Code, the
vendor is bound ot deliver to the vendee the thing sold by
placing the latter in the control and possession of the subject
matter in the contract.

1 Lesaca later abandoned the action against Deloso

However, if the sale were executed through a public

instrument, such would be equivalent to delivery unless the
contrary appears or is clearly to be inferred from such
instrument.

Whether there is any stipulation in the sale to infer that the

vender did not to intend deliver possession in spite of the
public document NONE.
The contract provided that the vendee should "take actual
possession thereof * * * with full rights to dispose, enjoy and
make use thereof in such manner and form as would be most
advantageous to herself," referring to actual and not
symbolical possession.
Whether the vendor complied with her express commitment
to deliver possession of the land sold - NO.

Sarmiento was never able to take possession of the land

because of the refusal and interference of Martin Deloso, who
claimed ownership.
Despite the law stating that the execution of a public document
was equivalent to delivery, such would only be possible if there
is no impediment that may prevent the passing of the
property to the vendee, which in this case, is Martin Delosos
claim to ownership.

Whether Sarmiento can rescind the contract of sale - YES.

The Court used Article 1124 of the Old civil Code, referring to
reciprocal obligations. The contract of purchase and sale is a
reciprocal obligation and failure to comply with the obligation
means that the one prejudiced can choose fulfillment or
rescission.
Lesaca failed to deliver the land and as per the law, Sarmiento
had the right to choose the rescission of the contract of sale.
NOTES:
ART. 1461. The vendor is bound to deliver and warrant the
thing which is the subject-matter of the sale.
ART. 1462. The thing- sold shall be deemed delivered when the
vendee is placed in the control and possession thereof. If the
sale should be made by means of a public instrument, the
execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the
thing which is the subject-matter of the contract unless the

contrary appears or is clearly to be inferred from such

instrument.
ART. 1124. The right to resolve reciprocal obligations, in case
one of the obligors should fail to comply with that which is
incumbent upon him, is deemed to be implied. The person

prejudiced may choose between exacting the fulfillment of the

obligation or its resolution with indemnity for losses and
payment of interest in either case. He may also demand the
resolution of the obligation even after having elected its
fulfillment, should the latter be found impossible.