ADDISON V. FELIX (August 03, 1918)

FACTS:

Petitioner Addison sold four parcels of land to Defendant spouses Felix and Tioco located in Lucena City. Respondents paid 3K for the purchase price and promised to pay the remaining by installment. The contract provides that the purchasers may rescind the contract within one year after the issuance of title on their name.

The petitioner went to Lucena for the survey designaton and delivery of the land but only 2 parcels were designated and 2/3 of it was in possession of a Juan Villafuerte.

The other parcels were not surveyed and designated by Addison.

Addison demanded from petitioner the payment of the first installment but the latter contends that there was no delivery and as such, they are entitled to get back the 3K purchase price they gave upon the execution of the contract.

ISSUE:

WON there was a valid delivery.

HELD:

The record shows that the plaintiff did not deliver the thing sold. With respect to two of the parcels of land, he was not even able to show them to the purchaser; and as regards the other two, more than two-thirds of their area was in the hostile and adverse possession of a third person.

It is true that the same article declares that the execution of a public instruments is equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, but, in order that this symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition, it is necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over the thing sold that, at the moment of the sale, its material delivery could have been made. It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership and the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed in his control. When there is no impediment whatever to prevent the thing sold passing into the tenancy of the purchaser by the sole will of the vendor, symbolic delivery through the execution of a public instrument is sufficient. But if there is an impediment, delivery cannot be deemed effected.