You are on page 1of 2

Manotok Realty v.

Respondent (Short title)


GR # L-45038 | XXX SCRA YYY | April 30, 1987
Petitioner: Manotok Realty
Respondent: CA and Felipe Madlangawa
(Article XXXX of the Civil Code, Contracts)

DOCTRINE

FACTS
1. Respondent Felipe claims that he has been occupying the parcel of land in Clara de Tambunting
de Legarda subdivision since 1949 upon permission of Ladores, the overseer of the subd., with the
understanding that respondent would eventually buy the lot.
2. The owner of the lot, Clara Tambunting, died and her entire estate, including her paraphernal
properties which covered the lot occupied by respondent were placed under custodia legis.
3. Respondent made a deposit for the land in the sum of 1,500 which was received by Vicente
Legarda, the husband of Clara. The lot’s value was pegged at 7,200, thus, there was an unpaid
balance of 5,700.
4. Respondent was unable to pay the balance because the heirs of clara could not settle their
differences, no further payments were made thereafter.
5. Vicente Legarda was appointed as a special administrator of the estate.
6. Petitioner Manotok Realty was the successful bidder and vendee of the subdivision consisting of
44 parcels of land, including the lot of respondent, pursuant to the deed of sale executed by Phil.
Trust Company, as administrator of the Testate Estate of Clara.
7. Manotok tried to eject the respondent but the latter refused to do so. Manotok filed an action to
recover the said lot.
8. TC dismissed, CA only 115 sqm is involved in the case, respondent only needs to pay 2,551.
Manotok can only enforce collection of the balance because it stepped into the shoes of its
predecessor.
9. Petitioner Manotok contends that Vicente Legarda had no authority to sell the property to
respondent on May 1950 since Legarda was appointed as administrator only on August 1950.
Vicente neither acted as administrator nor owner of the land.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether the sale was void - YES

PROVISIONS

Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:
(7) Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law

RULING & RATIO

1. The sale was void for being contrary to law.


2. It is undisputed that the lot in dispute is the paraphernal property of Clara Tambunting.
3. The civil code provides for the following:
a. Art. 136. The wife retains the ownership of the paraphernal property.
b. Art. 137. The wife shall have the administration of the paraphernal property, unless she
delivers the same to the husband by means of a public instrument empowering him to
administer it.
4. Nothing in the records show that Vicente Legarda was the administrator of the paraphernal property
of Clara during the lifetime of the latter.
5. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sale which was entered into by Vicente had its inception before
the death of clara along with the latter’s authority.
6. Vicente could not have validly disposed of the lot in dispute as an administrator of the paraphernal
properties of Clara.
7. Also, it is undisputed that Vicente was appointed as an administrator more than three months after
the questioned sale had taken place.
8. Sale is void ab initio, Vicente being neither an owner nor administrator of the subject property.
DISPOSITION
Petition Granted
NOTES
1. Paraphernal means own property of the wife, walang ownership husband over it!

You might also like