University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic Constructive Delivery (Symbolic) – a. Execution of a public instrument

Case No. 39 Phil 134 / 1918
Case Name Masallo v Cesar
Ponente Fisher, j.

 8 Mar 1915. While Maria Cesar was in possession of a certain parcel of land, a Matea Crispino executed
a deed to Eulogio Masallo, whereby she (Crispino) undertook to sell and transfer to him the land in
Cesar’s possession.
 Masallo went to the land with his laborers and commenced plowing it. Cesar, with her daughter,
appeared, insisting that the land was hers and ordering Masallo and his men away. Masallo alleged that
Cesar, who was an 80-yr old woman, brandished a bolo and cut off the rope tied to his cow
 June 1915. Masallo brought an action of desahucio (eviction) before the court of the justice of the peace
in the municipality of Lezo against Cesar to recover possession of the land in question
o Masallo alleged that Cesar by force and intimidation deprived him of possession of the land and
since that time withheld it from him
o Cesar argued that the land is her property and has been in her possession for more than 20yrs
without interruption
o Crispino admitted at the trial that she has not been in possession of the land, since the cessation
of the Spanish sovereignty in these Islands. She stated, however, that the land had been
mortgaged by her to one Eugenia Perez.
 The trial court ruled in favor of Masallo, and an appeal was taken to the CFI of Capiz.

Issue
W/N Masallo is entitled to
possession of the land
Ratio
NO. Possession of the land remains with Cesar.
1. The mere execution of and delivery of the deed didn’t constitute a
delivery of possession. Crispino admitted she didn’t have possession
of the land when she delivered the deed to Masallo. As she wasn’t
the owner of the property during the execution of the deed, there
was no delivery of possession.
2. Where a dispute over possession arises between two persons, the
person first having actual possession is the one entitled to maintain
the action. In this case, Cesar is shown to have had the prior peaceful
possession of the disputed land for an indefinite period of time.
3. When Cesar, who had never been in possession of the property,
entered the premises with his laborers and began plowing the land, it
was actually he who was guilty of the wrongful seizure of the
property.

The decision of the trial court is reversed, and the action dismissed, plaintiff to pay the costs of both instances.
So ordered.