Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Carbonel vs CA

89 SCRA 99

FACTS: Petitioner Carbonell lives in an adjoining lot owned by
Respondent Poncio, latters lot is mortgaged in favor of Republic
Savings Bank. Petitioner and another Respondent (Infante)
offered to buy the land owned by Poncio. Which Poncio, in his
failure to pay the mortgaged agreed for the petitioner to buy the
land including his house on the condition that from the purchase
price would come the money to be paid to the bank. Both parties
settled the arrears of the mortgaged. However, Petitioner only
have P200.00 as per respondents information that he only owes
the same to the bank. Respondent then withdrew the deficit
amount and was reimbursed by Carbonell the following day. The
parties executed a document stipulating that, Poncio may still
occupy the land sold by him to the petitioner and if after a year,
he still cant find a place to move, that he shall pay rent in favor
of the petitioner. Subsequently, Poncio had told Carbonell that the
former can no longer pursue with the sale for he had given the
land to Infante, to which he cannot withdraw even if he goes to
jail. The lot was fenced by Infante. Atty. Jose Garcia advised her
to present an adverse claim over the land in question with the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. Poncio, admittedly sold
the land to Infante when she improved her offer. With the
information that the land was not yet registered, Atty. Garcia in
favor of the petitioner prepared an adverse claim over the
property. Whereby upon registration of the same by Infante, the
said adverse claim was noted in the Transfer Certificate of Title.
Petitioner filed a second complaint, alleging that the sale between
Poncio and Infante be declared null and void. Respondents
allegation was that, Petitioners claim was unenforceable for lack
of written document. Trial Court ruled that the second sale was
null and void. However, after re-trial, Trial Court reversed its
decision ruling that the claim of the respondents were greater than
that of the petitioner. CA ruled in favor of petitioner, alleging that
it has a superior right over the respondent. After a motion for
reconsideration CA reversed its decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner has the superior right over the
property.

RULING: Yes, petitioner has the superior right over the property.
Article 1544, New Civil Code, which is decisive of this case,
recites: If the same thing should have been sold to different
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who
may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it
should movable property. Should it be immovable property, the
ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good
faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be
no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in
good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof,
to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good
faith. When Carbonell bought the lot from Poncio, she was the
only buyer thereof and the title of Poncio was still in his name
solely encumbered by bank mortgage duly annotated thereon.
Carbonell was not aware and she could not have been aware of
any sale of Infante as there was no such sale to Infante then.
Hence, Carbonell's prior purchase of the land was made in good
faith. Her good faith subsisted and continued to exist when she
recorded her adverse claim prior to the registration of Infantes's
deed of sale. Carbonell's good faith did not cease after Poncio told
her of his second sale of the same lot to Infante.
FACTS:

Petitioner Carbonell lives in an adjoining lot owned by
Respondent Poncio, latters lot is mortgaged in favor of Republic
Savings Bank for P1,500.

Petitioner and another Respondent (Infante) offered to buy the
land owned by Poncio. Which Poncio, in his failure to pay the
mortgaged agreed for the petitioner to buy the land including his
house for P9.50 per square meter on the condition that from the
purchase price would come the money to be paid to the bank.

Both parties settled the arrears of the mortgaged amounting
P247.26. However, Petitioner only have P200.00 as per
respondents information that he only owes the same to the bank.
Respondent then withdrew the deficit amount and was reimbursed
by Carbonell the following day.

The parties executed a document stipulating that, Poncio may still
occupy the land sold by him to the petitioner and if after a year,
he still cant find a place to move, that he shall pay rent in favor
of the petitioner. Subsequently, Poncio had told Carbonell that the
former can no longer pursue with the sale for he had given the
land to Infante, to which he cannot withdraw even if he goes to
jail. The said lot was fenced by Infante.

Atty. Jose Garcia advised her to present an adverse claim over the
land in question with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
Poncio, admittedly sold the land to Infante when she improved
her offer.

With the information that the land was not yet registered, Atty.
Garcia in favor of the petitioner prepared an adverse claim over
the property. Whereby upon registration of the same by Infante,
the said adverse claim was noted in the Transfer Certificate of
Title.

Petitioner filed a second complaint, alleging that the sale between
Poncio and Infante be declared null and void. Respondents
allegation was that, Petitioners claim was unenforceable for lack
of written document.

Trial Court ruled that the second sale was null and void.
However, after re-trial, Trial Court reversed its decision ruling
that the claim of the respondents were greater than that of the
petitioner.

CA ruled in favor of petitioner, alleging that it has a superior right
over the respondent. After a motion for reconsideration CA
reversed its decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Petitioner have the superior right over the
property.

HELD:YES. Article 1544, New Civil Code, which is decisive of
this case, recites:
If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first
taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should movable
property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to
the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the
Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith (emphasis supplied).

When Carbonell bought the lot from Poncio on January 27, 1955,
she was the only buyer thereof and the title of Poncio was still in
his name solely encumbered by bank mortgage duly annotated
thereon. Carbonell was not aware and she could not have been
aware of any sale of Infante as there was no such sale to
Infante then. Hence, Carbonell's prior purchase of the land was
made in good faith. Her good faith subsisted and continued to
exist when she recorded her adverse claim four (4) days prior to
the registration of Infantes's deed of sale. Carbonell's good faith
did not cease after Poncio told her on January 31, 1955 of his
second sale of the same lot to Infante. Because of that
information, Carbonell wanted an audience with Infante, which
desire underscores Carbonell's good faith. With an aristocratic
disdain unworthy of the good breeding of a good Christian and
good neighbor, Infante snubbed Carbonell like a leper and refused
to see her. So Carbonell did the next best thing to protect her right
she registered her adversed claim on February 8, 1955. Under
the circumstances, this recording of her adverse claim should be
deemed to have been done in good faith and should emphasize
Infante's bad faith when she registered her deed of sale four (4)
days later on February 12, 1955.

DAGUPAN TRADING VS. MACAM
14 SCRA 179, G.R. No. L-18497
FACTS:
In the year 1955, Sammy Maron and his seven brothers and sisters were pro-indiviso owners of a parcel of unregistered land located in Barrio
Parayao, Municipality of Binmaley, Pangasinan. While their application for registration of said land under Act No. 496 was pending, they
executed on June 19 and September 21, 1955, two deeds of sale conveying the property to appellee who thereafter took possession thereof
and proceeded to introduce substantial improvements therein. One month later, that is, on October 14, 1955, Original Certificate of Title No.
6942 covering the land was issued in the name of the Marons, free from all liens and encumbrances. On August 4, 1956, by virtue of a final
judgment rendered by the Municipal Court of Manila against Sammy Maron in favor of the Manila Trading and Supply Company, levy was
made upon whatever interest he had in the aforementioned property, and thereafter said interest was sold at public auction to the judgment
creditor. The corresponding notice of levy, certificate of sale and the Sheriffs certificate of final sale in favor of the Manila Trading and
Supply Co. because nobody exercised the right of redemption were duly registered. On March 1, 1958, latter sold all its rights and title to
the property to appellant.
Appellant, filed an action against appellee Rustico Macam, praying that he be declared owner of the one-eighth portion of the land.
Answering the complaint, appellee alleged, in the main, that Sammy Marons share in the property described in the complaint, as well as that
of all his coheirs, had been acquired by purchase by appellee since June 19 and September 21, 1955, before the issuance of the original
certificate of title in their name; that at the time the levy in execution was made on Sammy Marons share therein, the latter had no longer any
right or interest in said property; that appellant and its predecessor in interest were cognizant of the facts already mentioned; that since the
sales made in his favor, he had enjoyed uninterrupted possession of the property and introduced considerable improvements thereon.
Appellee likewise sought to recover damages by way of counterclaim. After trial upon the issue thus joined, the court rendered judgment
dismissing the complaint, which, on appeal, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant Dagupan Trading Company is the owner of the one-eight portion of the land.
HELD:
No. The sale in favor of appellee was executed before the land subject matter thereof was registered, while the conflicting of appellant was
executed after the same property had been registered. What should determine the issue are the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 35,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the effect that upon execution and delivery of the final certificate of sale in favor of the purchaser of land
sold in an execution sale, such purchase shall be substituted to and acquire all the right, title, interest and claim of the judgment debtor to the
property as of the time of the levy.
We ask: What was the interest and claim of Sammy Maron on the one-eighth portion of the property inherited by him and his co-heirs, at the
time of the levy? The answer must necessarily be that he had none because for a considerable time prior to levy, his interest had already been
conveyed to the appellee fully and retrievably.