CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST
MINA VS. PASCUAL
25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

TOPIC/DOCTRINE

Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.

ADDITIONAL NOTE

A sale of land belonging to another, on which a building of the vendors is located, is null and void, for the vendor cannot sell or transfer property that does not belong to him. Mina vs. Pascual., as prescribed by article 361, the owner of the land on which a building has been erected by another in good faith has the option either to appropriate and pay for the building, under articles 453 and 454, or to oblige the builder to purchase the land.

FACTS

Andres Fontanilla, with the consent of his brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a part of the lot belonging to Francisco, embracing 14 meters of its frontage by 11 meters of its depth. Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period of the time during which Andres Fontanilla could have the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect a stone warehouse of considerable value, and so it is that for the past thirty years, the lot has been used by both Andres and his successors in interest.

The court ordered the sale of the building and lot occupied by the building by the defendants, heirs of Andres, to Cu Joco for P2,890. Plaintiff, heirs of Francisco opposed.

ISSUE

Whether the sale of the house and lot is null and void and of no effect.

RULING

The court ruled in the affirmative.

The court held that Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. It is an essential feature of the Commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to another shall be for a certain period. Otherwise, state, the owner may exercise his right to Precarium.

Here, since Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period of time during which Andres Fontanilla could have the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect a stone warehouse of considerable value, and so it is that for the past thirty years the lot has been used by both Andres and his successors in interest, It appears more likely that Francisco intended to allow his brother Andres a surface right, but this right supposes the payment of annual rent, and Andres had only the gratuitous use of the lot. Hence, the sale of the lot in question is held to be null and void and of no force or effect.

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147