7/17/2019 Mendoza vs Caparros

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mendoza-vs-caparros 1/2

G.R. No. L-5937 January 30, 1954

PEDRO MENDOZA, demandante y apelado, vs. JUS!NA "APARROS y OROS, demandadas.PAUL!NO PELEJO, demandado y apelante.

DO"R!NE: Eviction shall take place whenever by a fnal judgmentbased on a right prior to the sale or an act imputable to the vendor,the vendee is deprived o the whole thing purchased. The vendor shallanswer or the eviction even though nothing has been said in thecontract on the subject.” 

#A"S$

Agapito sold to Peleja two (2) parcels of land situated in QuezonProvince for P,!"#.##.

 $%en after a decade, Peleja sold t%e same lots to spouses &endoza and $olentino. $%e latter spouses died, leaving as %eirs Pedro (plainti'appellee), eandro and *ustiniano all surnamed &endoza. +ponconducting an etrajudicial partition as t%eir parents- %eirs, t%e 2 lotsaforementioned was allotted to Pedro &endoza.

owever, su/se0uently, Agapito o/tained an 1$ over t%e 2 parcels ofland mentioned a/ove.

ater, Agapito-s %eirs, %erein defendants aparros, 3ocorro and

Policornia (%is widow and 2 daug%ters, respectively) o/tained a $$over t%e lots in 0uestion after conducting an etrajudicial partition.

Pedro &endoza t%en instituted an action against defendants Peleja,aparros, 3ocorro and Policornia (%eirs of Agapito 4erreras) forcancellation of t%e $$ registered under Agapito-s %eirs and t%atanot%er /e issued in %is name, married to Alfonsa Perez.

 $%e trial court ruled in favor of plainti' &endoza alt%oug% no /ad fait%was found eit%er on t%e part of Agapito or %is %eirs in t%e registrationof t%e lots in 0uestion even if suc% were recorded incorrectly.

 $%e defendants, ecept Peleja, were ordered to pay costs.

 $%e %eirs of Agapito 4erreras did not appeal.

Peleja 5led a motion for reconsideration, see6ing for t%e award ofattorney-s fees amounting to P%p"##.##, claiming t%at %is inclusion int%e case as defendant was unfounded and of malicious c%aracter as %e

7/17/2019 Mendoza vs Caparros

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mendoza-vs-caparros 2/2

was not an indispensa/le party in said case. $%e court denied %ismotion. ence t%is appeal.

!SSUE: 7%et%er Peleja is an indispensi/le party to t%e said case.

%ELD: 893.

efendant Peleja sold to Pedro &endoza-s parents t%e two lots wit% t%efollowing condition ;t%at upon t%e sale of t%e lots, t%e seller undertoo6to defend t%e /uyers against any adverse claims over t%e lots sold.<

ence, under t%e said condition, Peleja made %imself lia/le to Pedro-sparents (/uyers) and to Pedro as successorininterest, in case ofeviction or in t%e event t%at t%e /uyer or %is %eirs would /e deprived of t%e lots or part t%ereof /y 5nal judgment.

9ven if suc% stipulation were not included in t%e deed of sale, t%e sellerwould still /e responsi/le in case of eviction of /uyers pursuant to =Art. >"?@ (old Art. >?") w%ic% states t%at ;eviction s%all ta6e placew%enever /y a 5nal judgment /ased on a rig%t prior to t%e sale or anact imputa/le to t%e vendor, t%e vendee is deprived of t%e w%ole t%ingpurc%ased. $%e vendor s%all answer for t%e eviction even t%oug%not%ing %as /een said in t%e contract on t%e su/ject.<

ad appellant Peleja not /een included as defendant to t%e suit and %ewas made to pay indemnity, %e could raise t%e defense t%at %e wasnot given fair opportunity to prove %is title over t%e 2 lots at t%e time

%e sold suc% to Bictoriano &endoza and t%ey %ad /een improperlyrecorded.

Cn t%e case t%at Agapito 4erreras- %eirs sued Pedro &endoza,demanding t%at possession of t%e parcels of land /e transferred tot%em and wit% t%e corresponding $$ to /olster t%eir claim, Pelejamust /e noti5ed of t%e application of eviction at t%e instance of&endoza in order t%at %e (Peleja) must /e /ound to indemnify plainti'(&endoza).

C3P13C$CB9: Appealed order is A44CD&9.