Addison vs Felix

L- 64159, September 10, 1985

Facts:
Addison sold to Marciana Felix four parcels of land. Felix paid at the execution of the
deed 3000 pesos of the purchase price and the rest in installments. The terms are as
follows:
2000 on June 15
5000 30 das after issuance of her certificate transfer of title
within ten ears from date of title! 10 pesos for each coconut tree "earin# fruit and 5 pesos
for each coconut tree #rowin# fruit which o$erall should not exceed %5000 pesos
25& of the products recei$ed from the moment of possession until Torrens title is made.
'ithin 1 ear from date of certificate she ma rescind the contract in which felix must
return all products of the land and Addison will refund all the mone with 10 percent
interest. Addison then filed a case compellin# felix to pa the first installment of 2000.
Felix answered statin# she(d li)e to rescind the contract plus the refund of her mone for
the reason that the propert was not deli$ered to her. *t is noteworth to include that after
executin# a deed of sale! petitioner with Felix(s representati$e in order to deli$er the land
sold! he was onl a"le to desi#nate two lands! and of the two lands two thirds were
alread occupied " one +illafuerte. The sur$eor ,antamaria was onl a"le to sur$e
two lands as the other two were not desi#nated to him. *n order to ma)e the sur$e! he
said he needed a write of in-unction from the court to remo$e the occupants. This
defendant tried to appl for "ut was dismissed.
ss!e:
'here or not there was deli$er of the land in .uestion.
"eld:
#o. 'ith respect to the other two lands! Addison was not e$en a"le to show them to the
purchaser. As re#ards to the other two! there was an ad$erse possessor named $ilafuerte.
*t is true that the execution of a pu"lic documents is e.ui$alent to deli$er of the thin#
"ut in order that this sm"olic deli$er ma produce the effect of tradition! it is necessar
that the $endor shall had ha$e such control o$er the thin# sold that! at the moment of sale!
its material deli$er could ha$e "een made. *t is not enou#h to confer upon the purchaser
ownership and ri#ht of possession. The thin#s must "e placed in his control. *t is e$ident
that mere execution was not fulfillment of $endor(s o"li#ation to deli$er the thin# sold!
and that from non fulfillment arises the purchaser(s ri#ht to demand the rescission of sale
and return the price.
*f the sale had "een made under the express a#reement of imposin# upon the purchaser
the o"li#ation to ta)e necessar steps to o"tain material possession of it! and she )new
that it was in the possession of a third person! such would "e $alid. /ut this is not the
case here.