G.R. No.

126444 December 4, 1998

Quijada v. CA
FACTS:
SUMMARY: Heirs of the late Trinidad Quijada, filed a comlaint a!ainst rivate resondents for "uietin! of
title, recover# of ossession and o$nershi of arcels of land
Trinidad $as one of the heirs of the late %edro Corvera and inherited from the latter the t$o&hectare arcel of land
su'ject of the case, situated in the 'arrio of San A!ustin, Talaco!on, A!usan del Sur.
(n Aril ), *+),, Trinidad Quijada to!ether $ith her sisters -eonila Corvera .da. de Se"ue/a and %a0 Corvera
Ca'iltes and 'rother 1aiadito Corvera e2ecuted a conditional deed of donation of the t$o&hectare arcel of land in
favor of the Municialit# of Talaco!on, the condition 'ein! that the arcel of land shall 'e used solel# and e2clusivel#
as art of the camus of the roosed rovincial hi!h school inTalaco!on.
Aarentl#, Trinidad remained in ossession of the arcel of land desite the donation.
(n 3ul# 4+, *+,4, Trinidad sold one 5*6 hectare of the su'ject arcel of land to Re!alado Mondejar.
Trinidad ver'all# sold the remainin! one 5*6 hectare to Re!alado Mondejar $ithout the 'enefit of a $ritten deed of
sale and evidenced solel# '# receits of a#ment.
7n *+89, the heirs of Trinidad, $ho at that time $as alread# dead, filed a comlaint for forci'le entr# a!ainst
Re!alado Mondejar, ho$ever, dismissed for failure to rosecute.
7n *+8:, the roosed rovincial hi!h school havin! failed to materiali0e, the San!!unian! ;a#an of the municialit#
of Talaco!on enacted a resolution revertin! the t$o 546 hectares of land donated 'ac< to the donors.
7n the meantime, Re!alado Mondejar sold ortions of the land to =ernando ;autista, Rodolfo >oloran, 1fren >uden
and 1rnesto >oloran.
(n 3ul# ), *+88, heirs of Trinidad filed a comlant alle!in! the ff!:.
a. that their deceased mother never sold, conve#ed the roert# in "uestion to an# erson or entit#, save the donation
made to the Municialit# of Talaco!on in *+),?
'. that at the time of the alle!ed sale to Re!alado Mondejar '# Trinidad Quijada, the land still 'elon!s to the
Municialit# of Talaco!on, hence, the suosed sale is null and void.
Re!alado Mondejar on the other hand alle!es that:
a. that the land in disute $as sold to Re!alado Mondejar, the one 5*6 hectare on 3ul# 4+,
*+,4, and the remainin! ood faone 5*6 hectare on installment 'asis until full# aid.
'. that heirs of Trinidad@s action is 'arred '# laches or has rescri'ed.
ISSUE:
A(B the sale $as validC
Ruli!: "ES
Court a quo rendered jud!ment in favor of heirs of Trinidad
a. Trinidad Quijada had no le!al title or ri!ht to sell the land to Mondejar in *+,4, *+,,, *+,: and *+,8, the same not
'ein! hers to disose of 'ecause o$nershi 'elon!s to the Municialit# of Talaco!on
'. That the deed of sale e2ecuted '# Trinidad Quijada in favor of Mondejar did not carr# $ith it the conformit# and
ac"uiescence of her children, more so that she $as alread# ,D #ears old at the time, and a $ido$
Court of Aeals reversed ruled that the sale made '# Trinidad Quijada to resondent Mondejar $as valid as the
former retained an inchoate interest on the lots '# virtue of the automatic reversion clause in the deed of donation.
SC affirmed decision of CA.
Althou!h donation is valid '# ma<in! <no$n to the donor the accetance of the Municialit# and that the
(AB1RSH7% AT T7M1 (= %1R=1CT7(B 7S B(T AB 1-1M1BT (= A C(BTRACT.
($nershi '# the seller on the thin! sold at the time of the erfection of the contract of sale is not an element for
its erfection. Ahat the la$ re"uires is that the seller has the ri!ht to transfer o$nershi at the time the thin! sold
is delivered. %erfection per sedoes not transfer o$nershi $hich occurs uon the actual or constructive deliver# of
the thin! sold.
A erfected contract of sale cannot 'e challen!ed on the !round of non&o$nershi on the art of the seller at the
time of its erfection? hence, the sale is still valid.
C(BSUMMAT7(B (= %1R=1CT1E C(BTRACT 7S THR(U>H E1-7.1RY
The consummation occurs uon the constructive or actual deliver# of the su'ject matter to the 'u#er $hen the
seller or her successors& in&interest su'se"uentl# ac"uires o$nershi thereof. Such circumstance haened in this
case $hen etitioners F $ho are Trinidad QuijadaGs heirs and successors&in&interest F 'ecame the o$ners of the
su'ject roert# uon the reversion of the o$nershi of the land to them.
Conse"uentl#, o$nershi is transferred to resondent Mondejar and those $ho claim their ri!ht from him. Article
*HDH of the Be$ Civil Code suorts the rulin! that the sellerGs Ititle asses '# oeration of la$ to the 'u#er.I
PROPERTIES OF MUNICIPALITIES ARE NOT OUTSIDE COMMERCE OF MEN.
There is also no merit in etitionersG contention that since the lots $ere o$ned '# the municialit# at the time of the
sale, the# $ere outside the commerce of men under Article *H9+ 5H6 of the
BCC? thus, the contract involvin! the same is ine2istent and void from the 'e!innin!. Ho$ever, no$here in Article
*H9+ 5H6 is it rovided that the roerties of a municialit#, $hether it 'e those for u'lic use or its atrimonial
roert#

are outside the commerce of men. ;esides, the lots in this case $ere conditionall# o$ned '# the
municialit#. To rule that the donated roerties are outside the commerce of men $ould render nu!ator# the
unchallen!ed reasona'leness and justness of the condition $hich the donor has the ri!ht to imose as o$ner
thereof. Moreover, the o'jects referred to as outsides the commerce of man are those $hich cannot 'e aroriated,
such as the oen seas and the heavenl# 'odies.