Professional Documents
Culture Documents
L-5937
was not an indispensable party in said case. The court denied his
motion. Hence this appeal.
ISSUE: Whether Peleja is an indispensible party to the said case.
HELD: YES.
Defendant Peleja sold to Pedro Mendozas parents the two lots with the
following condition that upon the sale of the lots, the seller undertook
to defend the buyers against any adverse claims over the lots sold.
Hence, under the said condition, Peleja made himself liable to Pedros
parents (buyers) and to Pedro as successor-in-interest, in case of
eviction or in the event that the buyer or his heirs would be deprived of
the lots or part thereof by final judgment.
Even if such stipulation were not included in the deed of sale, the seller
would still be responsible in case of eviction of buyers pursuant to NCC
Art. 1548 (old CC Art. 1475) which states that eviction shall take place
whenever by a final judgment based on a right prior to the sale or an
act imputable to the vendor, the vendee is deprived of the whole thing
purchased. The vendor shall answer for the eviction even though
nothing has been said in the contract on the subject.
Had appellant Peleja not been included as defendant to the suit and he
was made to pay indemnity, he could raise the defense that he was
not given fair opportunity to prove his title over the 2 lots at the time
he sold such to Victoriano Mendoza and they had been improperly
recorded.
In the case that Agapito Ferreras heirs sued Pedro Mendoza,
demanding that possession of the parcels of land be transferred to
them and with the corresponding TCT to bolster their claim, Peleja
must be notified of the application of eviction at the instance of
Mendoza in order that he (Peleja) must be bound to indemnify plaintiff
(Mendoza).
DISPOSITIVE: Appealed order is AFFIRMED.