A.A.

Addison v Felix

Facts:

A.A. Addison sold to Marciana Felix and her husband 4 parcels of land. At the time of the execution of the
deed, Felix paid the sum of P3000 on account of the purchase price and bound herself to pay the
remaining in 2 installments of P2000 on July 15, 1914 and P5000 30 days after the issuance of the title.
Further stipulated, that within 10 yrs from the date of the issuance of the said tile, Felix shall pay Addision
the amount of P10 for each coconut tree in bearing and P5 for each tree not bearing with the condition
that the total price shall not exceed P85,000 and that Felix was to deliver to Addison 25% of the value of
the products that she might obtain from the 4 parcels of land from the moment she takes possession of
the parcels of land until the Torrens certificate of title be issued in her favor.

They included in the contract that Addison shall have the right to rescind the sale within 1 year from the
date of the certificate of title was issued to Felix, provided that the latter shall be obliged to return to
Addision the net value of all the products of 4 parcels of land and that he will be obliged to return to Felix
all the sums he paid plus 10% interest per annum.

However, come the due date for the 1 st installment, Felix failed to pay the total sum of P2000. Addison
then filed a suit against her to compell her to make the necessary payment. In their answer, Addison had
absolutely failed to deliver the parcels of lands that were the subject matter of the sale, thereby they
prayed that she be absolved from the complaint, that Addison be ordered to refund the P3000, together
with the interest agreed upon and to pay for the damages incurred.

It showed Addison was only able to designate 2 of the 4 parcels and more than 2/3 of these two were
found to be in possession of Juan Villafuerte who claimed to be the owner. Felix could not even proceed
with the survey because they would need to obtain first with the Land Court a writ of injunction against
the occupants which was later dismissed due to failure to present the required plans within the period of
time allowed for the purpose.

The trial court ruled in favor of the Felix, holding that the contract of sale be rescinded and ordered
Addison to return the sum of P3000 paid on account of the price together with the interest of 10% per
annum.

Addison appealed on the ground that the right to rescind the contract by virtue of the special agreement
in the contract does not accrue until the land is registered.

Issue:

Whether or not Felix can invoke for the recission of the contract of sale?

Ruling:

Yes.

The code imposes upon the vendor the obligation to deliver the thing sold. Under Article 1467 of the Civil
Code, the thing is considered to be delivred when it is placed in the hand of the possession of
the vendee. It is true that the same article declares that the execution of public instruments is equivalent
to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, but, in order that this symbolic delivery
may produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary that the vendor shall have such control over the
thing sold that at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been made. It is not
enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing sold must be
placed in his control. When there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the
tenancy of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a
public instrument is sufficient. But if, notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser
cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and make use of it himself or through
another in his name, because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by the interposition of another
will, then fiction yields to reality the delivery has not been effected.

In the case at bar, the mere execution of the deed of sale was not a fulfillment of Addisons obligation to
deliver the thing sold, and that from such non-fulfillment arises the purchasers right to demand the
rescission of the sale and the return of the price.

But if the Felix was made aware that the parcels of land was in possession of a third person claiming to
have the property rights therein before the perfection of the sale, then contract of sale would be perfectly
valid. However, in this case, Felix was only made aware that there were existing occupants on the parcels
of land upon survey and Addison later admitted that Felix would need to bring a suit to obtain possession
of the land.

Hence, the court ruled that the purchase and sale entered into by and between the Addison and Felix is
rescinded and that Addison is ordered to make restitution of the sum of P3000 received by him on the
account of the price of the sale together with the interest thereon.