Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

 

Home of Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

www.chanrobles.com

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8313. March 30, 1914. ]

JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

O’Brien & De Witt for Appellants.

Antonio Sanz for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; SALE; REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT ORDERING RESALE. — A judgment setting aside a sale of certain property by a duly appointed administrator and directing the resale of the property, reversed on the following grounds: First, because the property is not intact, so a resale thereof would be wholly impracticable; second, because the plaintiff was not shown to have been damaged by the former sale, nor does it appear that the property was, in fact, worth more than it brought on the former sale; third; because plaintiff seeks to retain his share of the purchase price paid at the former sale, and at the same time to have that sale declared invalid and annulled, and thereafter to participate in the disribution of the proceeds of the resale.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J.:


Plaintiff to this action seeks to have a sale of certain property set aside on the ground of the alleged invalidity of the sale; to have the property resold; and further, to recover damages alleged to have resulted from the former sale.

We are of opinion, however, that the complaint should be dismissed, because, first, it appears that the property is not intact, and that it would be wholly impracticable to make the resale as prayed by the plaintiff in the event that the former sale were annulled; second, because the plaintiff is not shown to have been damaged by the sale, nor does it appear that the property was, in fact, worth more than it brought at the former sale; and third, because plaintiff seeks to retain his share of the purchase price paid at the former sale, and at the same time to have that sale annulled, and to participate in the distribution of any moneys which would be received on a resale.

We conclude therefore that the judgment entered in the lower court, annulling the sale but without allowing damages, should be reversed, and the complaint dismissed without day and without costs in this instance. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Top of Page