Scribd
Upload
151 views2 pages

4.wong V Carpio

1. Manuel Mercado purchased land from William Giger in 1972 through a deed of sale with right to repurchase. In 1976, Ignacio Wong also purchased the same land from Giger, not knowing of Mercado's prior purchase. Wong took physical possession by placing laborers and building structures, while Mercado only periodically harvested coconuts. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 531 of the Civil Code, Mercado gained possession of the land through the 1972 deed of sale. Wong's subsequent purchase and possession therefore failed to legally transfer possession. 3. The Court also held that Wong's entry onto the land occupied by Mercado constituted forcible entry, and that Wong's possession in good faith

Uploaded by

MJ Decolongon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
151 views2 pages

4.wong V Carpio

1. Manuel Mercado purchased land from William Giger in 1972 through a deed of sale with right to repurchase. In 1976, Ignacio Wong also purchased the same land from Giger, not knowing of Mercado's prior purchase. Wong took physical possession by placing laborers and building structures, while Mercado only periodically harvested coconuts. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that under Article 531 of the Civil Code, Mercado gained possession of the land through the 1972 deed of sale. Wong's subsequent purchase and possession therefore failed to legally transfer possession. 3. The Court also held that Wong's entry onto the land occupied by Mercado constituted forcible entry, and that Wong's possession in good faith

Uploaded by

MJ Decolongon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

14. Wong vs.

Carpio
Doctrine: The execution of a sale thru a public instrument shall be equivalent to
the delivery of the thing, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Facts:
1972 - William Giger sold his land by virtue of a deed of sale with right to
repurchase to Manuel Mercado.
Nov 5, 1973 Mercado began harvesting only the coconut fruits and he paid the
taxes on the land. He went periodically to the land to take copra but never placed
any person on the land. Neither did he reside on the land.
July 1976 Ignacio Wong bought the same land also from Giger and his wife Cecil
Valenzuela, hence the title was delivered to him. He tried to register the pacto de
recto sale with the Register of deeds but could not be registered due to some
technicalities. Wong places laborers in the land, and built a small farm house after
making some clearings and fenced the boundaries.
Aug 1976 Mercado knew that Wongs laborers were in the land and that they have
a hut there but Mercado did not do anything.
Nov 29, 1976 Wong received a copy of the complaint for forcible entry.
MTC Wong had prior, actual and continuous physical possession of the dispute
property and dismissed the case.
CFI-Ruled in favor of Mercado, stating that Mercado has taken possession of the
property earlier in point of time and defendant was an intruder.
Issue:

1. Who is the first to have taken possession of the subject property.


Side Issues:
2. Whether or not entry by Wong may be considered under forcible entry.
3. Whether or not possession in good faith by Wong has ceased.

Held:
1. The SC held that under article 531 of the New Civil Code, the execution of a sale
thru a public instrument shall be equivalent to delivery of the thing, unless there is
stipulation to the contrary. Possession passed from Giger to Mercado by virtue of the
first sale and accordingly, the second sale in favor of Wong failed to pass the
possession of the property because of an impediment, i.e., it has already been
passed to Mercado.
Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor
shall be preferred; if there are two possessions, the one longer in possession, if the
date of possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if these

conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending
determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings. (Art. 538,
CC)
2. The SC held that, the act of entering the property and excluding the lawful
possessor therefrom necessarily implies the exertion of force over property.
The words by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth includes every
situation or condition under which one person can wrongfully enter upon real
property and exclude another who has had prior possession therefrom.
3. Possession in good faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are made
known to the possessors, by extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the
property by the true owner.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy