oflodoR-Rodolfo

Avelino Baluran v. Hon. Ricardo Navarro

G.R. No. L-44428, September 30, 1977

Facts:

Spouses Domingo Paraiso and Fidela Q. Paraiso were the owners of a residential lot of around 480 square meters. On or about February 2, 1964, the Paraisos executed an agreement entitled “BARTER” whereby as party of the first part they agreed to “barter and exchange” with spouses Avelino and Benilda Baluran their residential lot with the latter’s unirrigated riceland, of approximately 223 square meters without any permanent improvements. On May 6, 1975 Antonio Obendencio filed a complaint to recover the above-mentioned residential lot from Avelino Baluran claiming that he is the rightful owner of said residential lot having acquired the same from his mother, Natividad Paraiso Obedencio, and that he needed the property for purposes of constructing his house thereon inasmuch as he had taken residence in his native town, Sarrat. Obedencio accordingly prayed that he be declared owner of the residential lot and that defendant Baluran be ordered to vacate the same forfeiting his (Obedencio) favor the improvements defendant Baluran had built in bad faith. At the pre-trial, the parties agreed to submit the case for decision on the basis of their stipulation of facts. It was likewise admitted that the aforementioned residential lot was donated on October 4, 1974 by Natividad Obedencio to her son Antonio Obedencio, and that since the execution of the agreement of February 2, 1964 Avelino Baluran was in possession of the residential lot, paid the taxes of the property, and constructed a house thereon with an value of P250.00. On November 8, 1975, the trial Judge Ricardo Y. Navarro rendered a decision.

Issue:

Whther or not the happening of the resolutory condition provided for in the agreement, the right of usufruct of the parties is extinguished and each is entitled to a return of his property.

Held:

The use of the term “barter” in describing the agreement of February 2, 1964, is not controlling. The stipulations in said document are clear enough to indicate that there was no intention at all on the part of the signatories thereto to convey the ownership of their respective properties; all that was intended, and it was so provided in the agreement, was to transfer the material possession thereof. With the material ion being the only one transferred, all that the parties acquired was the right of usufruct which in essence is the right to enjoy the property of another. A resolutory condition is one which extinguishes rights and obligations already existing. The right of “material possession” granted in the agreement of February 2, 1964, ends if and when any of the children of Natividad Paraiso, Obedencio would reside in the municipality and build his house on the property. Inasmuch as the condition opposed is not dependent solely on the will of one of the parties to the contract the spouses Paraiso but is part dependent on the will of third persons, Natividad Obedencio and any of her children, the same is valid. the plaintiff or respondent Obedencio could not demand for the recovery of possession of the residential lot in question, not until he acquired that right from his mother, Natividad Obedencio, and which he did acquire when his mother donated to him the residential lot on October 4, 1974. In view of the ruling that the “barter agreement” of February 2, 1964, did not transfer the ownership of the respective properties mentioned therein, it follows that petitioner Baluran remains the owner of the unirrigated riceland and is now entitled to its Possession. With the happening of the resolutory condition provided for in the agreement, the right of usufruct of the parties is extinguished and each is entitled to a return of his property.

Twitter This

Usuario: Password:

Related posts:

1. Property Case Digest | Baluran v. Navarro
2. Property Case Digest | Cenona Olego v. Hon. Alfreedo Rebueno and Atty. Pedro Servano
3. Property Case Digest | Anulina Bogacki v. Hon. Sancho Inserto
4. Property Case Digest | Engreso v. De la Cruz
5. Property Case Digest | Ramirez v. Ramirez
6. Property Case Digest | Jose De Luna v. Court of Appeals, Hon.Santiago Maliwanag, Juan Dimaano, Jr.,
7. Property Case Digest | Vda. De Aviles v. Court of Appeals
8. Property Case Digest | Roque v. Intermediate Appellate Court
9. Property Case Digest | Edgardo De Jesus, et al v. Court of Appeals and Primitiva Felipe De Jesus
10. Property Case Digest | Fabie v. Lichauco