Scribd
Upload
382 views1 page

Doromal v. Ca

This case involved a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land co-owned by siblings. Five of the siblings sold their shares to a buyer without the consent of the sixth co-owner. The Supreme Court ruled that the period for the sixth co-owner's right to repurchase had not yet lapsed because she was not properly notified of the actual sale. The Court also ruled that the buyer only needed to pay the price stated in the deed of sale, not the actual price paid, to exercise the right of repurchase.

Uploaded by

Mharey
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
382 views1 page

Doromal v. Ca

This case involved a dispute over the sale of a parcel of land co-owned by siblings. Five of the siblings sold their shares to a buyer without the consent of the sixth co-owner. The Supreme Court ruled that the period for the sixth co-owner's right to repurchase had not yet lapsed because she was not properly notified of the actual sale. The Court also ruled that the buyer only needed to pay the price stated in the deed of sale, not the actual price paid, to exercise the right of repurchase.

Uploaded by

Mharey
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
  • Issue: Presents the central legal issue regarding the consent and validity of the contract in question.
  • Facts: Explains the factual background of the legal case involving seven siblings and issues concerning contract rescission.
  • Ruling: Concludes with the ruling on contract validity based on evidence of consent or lack thereof.

DOROMAL V.

CA (September 5, 1975)

FACTS:
A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5 of the siblings gave a SPA to their niece Mary Jimenez, who
succeeded her father as a co-owner, for the sale of the land to father and son Doromal. One of the co-owner, herein petitioner, Filomena
Javellana however did not gave her consent to the sale even though her siblings executed a SPA for her signature. The co-owners went on with
the sale of 6/7 part of the land and a new title for the Doromals were issued. Respondent offered to repurchase the land for 30K as stated in
the deed of sale but petitioners declined invoking lapse in time for the right of repurchase. Petitioner also contend that the 30K price was only
placed in the deed of sale to minimize payment of fees and taxes and as such, respondent should pay the real price paid which was P115, 250.

ISSUE: Whether the period to repurchase of petitioner has already lapsed.

RULING: NO. Period of repurchase has not yet lapsed because the respondent was not notified of the sale. The 30-day period for the right of
repurchase starts only after actual notice not only of a perfected sale but of actual execution and delivery of the deed of sale.

The letter sent to the respondent by the other co-owners cannot be considered as actual notice because the letter was only to inform her of the
intention to sell the property but not its actual sale. As such, the 30-day period has not yet commenced and the respondent can still exercise his
right to repurchase. The respondent should also pay only the 30K stipulated in the deed of sale because a redemptioner’s right is to be
subrogated by the same terms and conditions stipulated in the contract.

DOROMAL V. CA (September 5, 1975) FACTS: A parcel of land in Iloilo were co-owned by 7 siblings all surnamed Horilleno. 5 of

You might also like