Pormellosa vs. Land Tenure Administration 1 SCRA 375 by competent evidence.
by competent evidence. He must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the
digested by LLB 1-4 College of Law, Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Facts: The lot in controversy is a part of the Santa Clara Estate on which many
families have settled through the consent of its owner, each paid a rental. In May
1941, the said Estate was acquired by the Government & was entrusted to an office
known as the Rural Progress Admin., which was later abolished & its functions was
transferred to the Bureau of Lands. Recently, such duties was given to the Land
Tenure Administration.
The plaintiff acquired by purchase the right of occupation of the lot in question from
Vicente San Jose, predecessor-in-interest. After the purchase of the Santa Clara
Estate by the Government, the plaintiffs were allowed to make payments on account
of the purchase price of the lot, as fenced, included two hundred (200) sq.m.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs found out that the lot had been subdivided into two (2)
smaller lots, No. 44 and 78. Lot No. 44 had been sold to Hermino Guzman. The
plaintiffs then filed a complaint to compel the Director of Lands to execute a Deed of
Sale in their favor & declare null and void the Deed of Sale of Lot No. 44, executed in
favor of respondent Hemino. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff,
but was reversed by the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petitioner’s complaint.
Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to purchase from the Government
the lot, allegedly includes 200 sq.m.
Held: The judgment under review was affirmed.
The lot on which San Jose’s house stood had not been specified, nor had the
boundaries thereof been mentioned. Significantly, the plaintiff cannot show a
contract whereby the Rural Progress Admin., has sold or promised to sell them a lot
of 200 sq.m. A party claiming a right granted or created by law must prove his claim
weakness of that of his opponent.
Moreover the Deed of Sale allegedly executed by Vicente San Jose in favor of
Pornellosa is a mere private document and does not conclusively establish their right
to the parcel of land. Acts and contracts which have for their subject the creation,
transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property
must appear in a public document.
Chavez vs. Gonzales, 32 SCRA 547
February 19, 2017
cdizonblog
Facts:
July 1963, Rosendo Chavez, plaintiff, brought his typewriter to Fructuoso Gonzales,
defendant, a typewriter repairman for the cleaning and servicing of the said
typewriter. Three months later, the plaintiff paid P6.00 to the defendant for the
purchase of spare parts. Because of the delay of the repair the plaintiff decided to
recover the typewriter from the defendant which was wrapped like a package.
When he opened and examined it, the interior cover and some parts and screws
were missing. October 29, 1963 the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant for the
return of the missing parts, the interior cover and the sum of P6.00. The following
day, the defendant returned to the plaintiff only some of the missing parts, the
interior cover and the P6.00.
August 29, 1964, the plaintiff had his typewriter repaired by Freixas Business
Machines, that cost him a total of P89.85. A year later, the plaintiff filed an action
before the City Court of Manila, demanding from the defendant the payment for
total of P1,190.00 for damages including attorney’s fees. The defendant made no
denials.
The repair invoice shows that the missing parts had a total value of P31.10 only.

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff
the sum of P31.10, and the costs of suit.

Chaves appealed, because it only awarded the value of the missing parts of the
typewriter, instead of the whole cost of labor and materials that went into the repair
of the machine. It is clear that the defendant-appellee contravened the tenor of his
obligation because not only did he not repair the typewriter but returned it “in
shambles”.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, the appealed judgment is hereby modified,

by ordering the defendant-appellee to pay, as he is hereby ordered to pay, the
plaintiff-appellant the sum of P89.85, with interest at the legal rate from the filing of
the complaint. Costs in all instances against appellee Fructuoso Gonzales.

Issue:

Whether or not the defendant is liable for the total cost of repair.

Held:

Yes. For such contravention, he is liable under Article 1167 of the Civil Code. For the
cost of executing the obligation in a proper manner. The cost of the execution of the
obligation in this case should be the cost of the labor or service expended in the
repair of the typewriter.