Del Prado vs.

Caballero
In a judgment rendered on February 1, 1985 in a cadastral case, Judge Reyes of the
RTC of Cebu adjudicated in favor of the spouses Caballero several parcels of land in
Cebu, including Cadastral Lot No. 11909. Antonio Caballero moved for the final
decree of registration for the lots. The same court, through Judge Ducadao, ordered
the National Land, Title, and Deeds Registration Administration to issue the decree
of registration and the corresponding titles of the lots in favor of the spouses.
On June 11, 1990, the spouses sold to Carmen Del Prado Lot No. 11909 on the basis
of tax declaration covering the property. The Original Certificate of Title covering lot
no. 11909 was issued only on November 15, 1990 and entered in the registration
book of the city of Cebu on December 19, 1990. Therein, the technical description
of lot no. 11909 is about 14,457 sq.m.
On March 20, 1991, Del Prado filed in the same cadastral proceedings a Petition for
Registration of Document under PD 1529 in order that the certificate of title be
issued in her name. In the petition, Del Prado alleged that the sale was of a lump
sum, in which case, the vendor was bound to deliver all that was included within
said boundaries even when it exceeded the area specified in the contract.
Respondents opposed, saying only 4,000 sq.m. was sold.
The Regional Trial Court ruled that Del Prado established a clear and positive right
over the lot, the sale was for a lump sum, and the subject matter of the sale was
the parcel of land and not only a portion thereof. The court of appeals reversed and
set aside the ruling of RTC, the petition for registration of document is not one of the
remedies provided for under PD 1529 after the original registration has been
effected.
Issue:
WON the sale of the land is for a lump sum
Ruling:
Not really a lump sum. The deed of sale is not one of a unit price contract because
the parties agreed for the price. Petitioner is not entitled to have the certificate of
transfer covering the whole lot no. 11909, which was originally issued in the name
of respondents, transferred to her name. Respondents only intended to sell 4,000
sq.m. Del Prados petition is improper. Since the certificate if transfer was issued in
favor of the spouses, and their names appear therein, they have the title to the land
in question, serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title, and
since the one year period already prescribed, the title became incontrovertible it
can no longer be contested.

Tanglao vs Parungao
The spouses Parungao purchased from Spring Homes subdivision 7 lots for a total
price of 708K. They made improvements on the lots consisting of a concrete
perimeter fence with cyclone wires, a steel gate, two fish breeding building and
elevated the ground. Under the terms of the Contracts to Sell signed by
respondents, the balance was to be paid within one year from execution and should
they apply for a loan, they would continue to pay the monthly installment until their
obligation was fully paid. Respondents failed to pay the installments and failed to
secure a loan because Spring Homes refused t the deliver the TCTs covering the lots
required for the application of the said loan. They requested for the TCTs but what
Spring Homes gave them was only the Contract to Sell which they gave back for
corrections of the lot numbers and the names of the buyers. After this, Spring
Homes sold some of the lots of the Parungaos to the Taglaos. The Taglaos forcibly
opened the steel gate as well as the doors of the buildings and entered the
premises. HLURB ruled in favor of the Parungaos saying, there were structures and a
fence showing that there were adverse claimants to the property. CA affirmed
HLURB.
Issue:
Who owns the land in this double sale?
Held:
Parungaos
Discussion:
The Court highlighted the provision of Article 1544 on preferential rights when there
is a double sale:
(1)In good faith, first recorded in registry of property (2)In default thereof, in good
faith of who was in possession (3)In default thereof, in good faith, person who
presents the oldest title.
Good faith being essential, in this case, the Court found that the Taglaos were not in
good faith as it was clear that there were already occupants and improvements on
the two lots in question. The Taglaos should have seen these. They cannot be
regarded as in good faith and cannot have any right over the property.

Smith, Bell & Co. v Sotelo Matti (1992)

Facts
Plaintiff Smith, Bell & Co. and the defendant Mr. Vicente Sotelo entered into a
contract. Plaintiff has to deliver (1) two steel tanks shipped from New York to Manila
within three or four months, (2) two expellers shipped from San Francisco in the
month of September 1918 or as soon as possible, and (3) two electric motors with
approximate delivery within ninety days. This is not guaranteed.
The tanks arrived at Manila on 27 April 1919; the expellers on 26 October 1918; and
the motors on 27 February 1919. Upon notification from plaintiff, defendant refused
to receive any of the goods or to pay for their price. Plaintiff alleged that the
expellers and motors were in good condition.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant. The defendant, Mr. Sotelo and the
intervenor, Manila Oil Refining and By-Products Co., Inc., denied the plaintiffs
allegations. They allege that due to plaintiffs delay in the delivery of goods, the
intervenor suffered damages.
The lower court absolved the defendants form the complaint insofar as the tanks
and electric motors were concerned but rendered judgment against them ordering
to receive expellers and pay the sum of P50,000.00, with legal interest and cost.
ISSUE
What period was fixed for the delivery of the gods? Did the plaintiff incur delay in
the delivery of goods?
Ruling:
The SC determined that (a) No definite date was fixed for the delivery of the
goods; and (b) The contract was executed during the World War II when there was a
rigid restriction on the export from the US for the machineries in question. This fact
was known to the parties hence clauses were inserted regarding government
regulations, etc.
The delivery of the goods is regarded as conditional since the term which the
parties attempted to fix is so uncertain that no can tell just whether tjose articles
could be brought toa. Msani