Scribd
Upload
233 views2 pages

Manzano vs. Perez

Emilia Manzano filed a case against Miguel Perez Sr. and other heirs claiming she owned a residential property that was used as collateral by her sister Nieves Manzano for a loan. While Emilia executed deeds of sale to Nieves, she claimed it was an agreement of commodatum (bailment). The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ruled against Emilia, finding insufficient evidence that it was a bailment rather than a sale, as the deeds indicated. The oral testimony of Emilia did not overcome the written agreements, and she did not prove continued ownership through clear and convincing evidence. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

Pao Millan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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
233 views2 pages

Manzano vs. Perez

Emilia Manzano filed a case against Miguel Perez Sr. and other heirs claiming she owned a residential property that was used as collateral by her sister Nieves Manzano for a loan. While Emilia executed deeds of sale to Nieves, she claimed it was an agreement of commodatum (bailment). The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court ruled against Emilia, finding insufficient evidence that it was a bailment rather than a sale, as the deeds indicated. The oral testimony of Emilia did not overcome the written agreements, and she did not prove continued ownership through clear and convincing evidence. The petition was denied.

Uploaded by

Pao Millan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
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

EMILIA MANZANO vs.MIGUEL PEREZ SR.

, LEONCIO PEREZ, MACARIO PEREZ, FLORENCIO PEREZ, NESTOR PEREZ, MIGUEL PEREZ JR. and GLORIA PEREZ Commodatum (The Bailor) Facts: Petitioner Emilia Manzano alleged that she is the owner of a residential house and lot situated at General Luna St. Laguna. In 1979, Nieves Manzano, sister of the petitioner borrowed the aforementioned property as collateral for a projected loan. Pursuant to their understanding, the petitioner executed two deeds of conveyance for the sale of the residential lot and the house erected, both for a consideration of P1.00 plus other valuables allegedly received by her from Nieves Manzano. Nieves Manzano, together with her husband, respondent Miguel Perez, Sr. obtained a loan from the Rural Bank of Infanta, Inc. in the sum of P30,000.00.To secure payment of their indebtedness, they executed a Real Estate Mortgage over the subject property in favor of the bank. Nieves Manzano died on 18 December 1979 leaving her husband and children as heirs. These heirs refused to return the subject property to the petitioner even after the payment of their loan with the Rural Bank. The petitioner sought the annulment of the deeds of sale and execution of a deed of transfer or reconveyance of the subject property in her favor, and award of damages. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was not convinced by petitioner's claim that there was a supposed oral agreement of commodatum over the disputed house and lot. Hence, this petition. Contention of petitioner: The petitioner alleged that properties in question after they have been transferred to Nieves Manzano, were mortgaged in favor of the Rural Bank of Infante, Inc to secure payment of the loan. The documents covering said properties which were given to the bank as collateral of said loan, upon payment and release to the private respondents, were returned to petitioner by Florencio Perez. These are a clear recognition by respondents that petitioner is the owner of the properties in question Contention of respondents: the respondents countered that they are the owners of the property in question being the legal heirs of Nieves Manzano who purchased the same from the petitioner for value and in good faith, as shown by the deeds of sale which contain the true agreements between the parties therein that except for the petitioner's bare allegations, she failed to show any proof that the transaction she entered into with her sister was a loan and not a sale. Resolution: The court ruled that petitioner has presented no convincing proof of her continued ownership of the subject property. In addition to her own oral testimony, she submitted proof of payment of real property taxes, but such payment was made only after her Complaint had already been lodged before the trial court. Neither can the court give weight to her allegation that respondent's possession of the subject property was merely by virtue of her tolerance.Oral

testimony cannot, as a rule, prevail over a written agreement of the parties. In order to contradict the facts contained in a notarial document, such as the two "Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan" there must be clear and convincing evidence that is more than merely preponderant. Petitioner has failed to come up with even a preponderance of evidence to prove her claim. Jurisprudence on the subject matter, when applied thereto, points to the existence of a sale, not a commodatum over the subject house and lot. WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.

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