Addison v. Felix 5.
Marciana answered the complaint that Addison failed to deliver the
parcels of land despite demand. She prays for the rescission of the
GR No. 12342. August 3, 1918. J. Fisher contract of purchase and sale and the refund of the P3000 paid by
Petitioner: A. A. Addison her. Plus interest and indemnity for damages
Respondents: Marciana Felix and Balbino Tioco 6. Addison was not able to designate 2 parcels of the land sold, and the
Summary: other two, more than 2/3 was occupied by the Villafuertes (Juan,
Leon, and Julio) who claim to be the owners of said land
Facts: Addison sold to Marciana 4 parcels of land in a public instrument. 7. Marciana’s application with the Land Court for the 4 parcels of land
Addison filed a claim for the remaining installments not paid. Marciana was dismissed.
countered that parcels of land were not delivered to her because 2 of the 8. The trial court ruled in favor of Marciana on the basis of stipulation in
parcels of land cannot be designated and the other 2 were mostly the agreement that she may rescind the contract as she was not able
occupied by third parties. She asks for the rescission of the contract, as to register the land.
stipulated in the deed of sale.
Issue: WON the sale thru the public instrument is equivalent to the delivery
Ruling: The mere execution of the instrument was not a fulfillment of the of the thing sold. NO
vendor's obligation to deliver the thing sold, and that from such
nonfulfillment arises the purchaser's right to demand, as Marciana has Held:
demanded, the rescission of the sale and the return of the price.
1. Plaintiff did not deliver the thing sold. Addison was not able to show
Doctrine: It is the duty of the vendor to deliver the thing sold. Symbolic the 2 parcels of land to the purchaser, the other two, more than 2/3
delivery by the execution of a public Instrument is equivalent to actual of the area was in possession of a 3rd person
delivery only when the thing sold is subject to the control of the vendor. 2. Art. 1462 of the Civil Code (Art. 1497 of the NCC) imposes upon the
vendor the obligation to deliver the thing sold. The thing is
considered to be delivered when it is placed "in the hands and
possession of the vendee."
Facts: 3. the execution of a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of
1. June 11 1914: A sale of 4 parcels of land was made in a public the thing which is the object of the contract, but, in order that this
instrument to Marciana Felix. symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary
2. She paid the sum of P3,000 at the time of execution of the deed. 1 st that the vendor shall have had such control over the thing sold that,
Installment of P2,000 to be paid on July 15,1914, and 2nd installment at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been
of P5,000 thirty days after the issuance to her of a certificate of title made.
under the Land Registration Act. 4. It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and
3. Also stipulated in the contract: "within one year from the date of the the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed in his control.
certificate of title in favor of Marciana Felix, this latter may rescind 5. But if, notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser
the present contract of purchase and sale” in which case: cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and
Marciana Felix shall be obliged to return to me, A. make use of it himself or through another in his name, because such
A. Addison, the net value of all the products of the four tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by the interposition of another
parcels sold will, then fiction yields to reality — the delivery has not been effected.
and I shall be obliged to return to her, Marciana Felix, all the 6. The mere execution of the instrument was not a fulfillment of the
sums that she may have paid me, together with interest at vendor's obligation to deliver the thing sold, and that from such
the rate of 10 per cent per annum." nonfulfillment arises the purchaser's right to demand, as she has
4. In January 1915, Addison filed a suit in the CFI of Manila to compel demanded, the rescission of the sale and the return of the price.
Marciana Felix to pay the 1st installment of P2000
