Jovellano v. Lualhati
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dionisia, Lucio, and Macario Solmirano sold a parcel of land to Enrique Jovellano on November 6, 1911, for P150. The deed of sale included a covenant against eviction, wherein the vendors agreed to answer in case of eviction and warrant the property. Procedural History: On March 4, 1913, Maxima Dorado filed a suit against Jovellano for the recovery of possession of the land. Maxima Dorado won the case. Jovellano then filed a new complaint against Maxima Dorado to determine ownership, but he was again defeated. This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jovellano vs. Dorado, G.R. No. 11881. The Petition: Enrique Jovellano and his wife Isabel Joyosa initiated the present action against Lucio Solmirano, Macario Solmirano, and Antonia Lualhati (daughter of Dionisia Solmirano) to recover the price paid for the land, expenses for improvements, and costs incurred in the suits. A key defense raised was that the defendants had not been notified of the eviction suits as provided by law. The lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering defendant Lucio Solmirano to pay P462.73 plus legal interest. The Solmiranos were not cited to appear in the previous cases, though Dionisia Solmirano testified and Lucio Solmirano may have been present.
Issue(s)
Whether the vendor is liable for warranty against eviction without formal notice of the suit for eviction being given to the vendor. Whether the trial court erred in holding the defendant Lucio Solmirano liable despite the lack of formal notice of the eviction suit.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the complaint is dismissed without special pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of vendor's liability for warranty against eviction without formal notice: The Court held that under Articles 1481 and 1482 of the Civil Code, the vendor is bound to make good the warranty only when it is proven that the vendor was given notice, at the instance of the vendee, of the suit for eviction. In the absence of such notice, the vendor shall not be bound to the warranty. The Court emphasized that the Spanish law on this subject is rigorous, requiring the buyer who fails to cite his vendor in warranty to lose all recourse against him. This requirement is not merely procedural but a substantive condition for enforcing the warranty. The commentator Manresa supports this interpretation, stating that the only condition to be complied with by the vendee is to give notice of the complaint, and once proven, the right to warranty is perfect. The Court further noted that Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides a mechanism for joining the vendor as a codefendant, which the purchaser should utilize to preserve their right of warranty. On whether the trial court erred in holding the defendant Lucio Solmirano liable: The Court found that the trial court erred in holding Lucio Solmirano liable because the Solmiranos were not formally notified of the suits for eviction. Despite the covenant against eviction in the deed of sale, the legal requirement for notice, as stipulated in Articles 1481 and 1482 of the Civil Code, was not met. The fact that Dionisia Solmirano was a witness and Lucio Solmirano might have been present in court was deemed insufficient to constitute the formal notice required by law. The Court reiterated that the absence of such notice absolves the vendor from the warranty obligation, regardless of whether they had potential defenses. Therefore, the vendor's liability for eviction could not be enforced in this instance.
Main Doctrine
A vendor is not liable for warranty against eviction unless the vendee provides formal notice of the suit for eviction to the vendor, as required by Articles 1481 and 1482 of the Civil Code.