Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

REBECCA LEVIN VS. JOAQUIN V.

BASS
(consolidated case)

Facts:
1. 1943 Levin, widow, 65 y/o, illiterate & knew only how to sign her name owner
of a lot with 2 houses (No. 326 & No. 328) located at San Rafael St., Manila
2. At the end of Dec. 1943 respondent Bass called Levin at her house at No. 328
representing himself to be a real estate broker & asked if Levin wanted to sell her
lot & house at No. 326 adjoining her residence w/c was at that time occupied &
rented by Japanese civilians, officers & employees of Pacific Mining & 2 rooms
privately rented by Angelita Martinez --- Levin refused several times to the offer
until she gave in as Bass told her that with the proceeds of the sale, Levin can
purchase another property at Antonio Rivera St. w/c she will be gaining a better
profit for renting it out & w/o the fear that the other house might just be
appropriated by the Japanese & shell be getting nothing in return
3. Levin w/ her houseboy went twice to Antonio Rivera St. to check the property
that Bass told her she will be purchasing from the proceeds of the sale on the
house & lot on No. 326 but they were not able to enter the 2
nd
flr as Bass told
them that the owner is gone to Pampanga
4. Relying on the presentation of Bass, Levin accepted the offer
5. Levin, Dr. Manlapaz & Angelita Martinez were conversing at her house when Bass
came & ask her to sign several documents which accdg to Bass were only
Authority to Sell the property (no copy was left to Levin)
6. Jan. 6, 1944 Bass handed Levin Php 10K saying that it was the partial payment
of the property w/c was sold to a Japanese & asked her to give him the Torrens
Title of the House & Lot --- w/c title was in the possession of Agricultural &
Industrial Bank due to a mortgage in the amount of Php 2k --- 2k was deducted
from 10K & they went to the Bank to pay the debt & get the title --- remaining 8k
was also taken by Bass as purported initial payment for the property at Antonio
Rivera St. (w/ receipt but only 6k was in the receipt Levin did not realized the
difference in the amount)
7. Bass gave Levin the rentals on the building at Antonio Rivera St. in order for
Levin to believe that she already owned that property
8. Due to suspicions, Levin sought the help of Dr. Manlapaz regarding the property
until they found out that the documents Levin signed were:
a. Deed of Absolute sale to one Estaquio Php 30K for No. 326 house & lot ---
w/c was later on sold to Bass for Php 65K
b. Deed of Sale to Bass Php 65K for No. 328
9. The Title of Levin was then cancelled & issued a new one in the name of Bass
10. Bass mortgaged the property to Co Chin Leng to secure payment of PHP 70K
w/c was duly annotated in the title
11. 1944 in consideration of PHP 200K, Bass sold the No. 328 property to Mintu (PHP
90K paid upon execution of the document & PHP 10K will be paid upon the
cancellation or removal of the notice of lis pendens & the balance of PHP 100K
to be paid to his bank after securing the release of the mortgage to Co Chin
Leng
12. Mintu Deed of Sale & owners duplicate COT were presented to the RD for
registration (w/c later on accdg to the RD were lost or burned) together w/ full
payment of the fees



Issue:
W/N the entry in the day book of a deed of sale w/c was presented & filed at the RD &
full payment of the reg fees constitute a complete act of registration w/c operates to
convey & affect the land?

Held: YES!

1. Voluntary Registration (sale,lease,etc)
a. If the owners DC be not surrendered & presented or if no payment of
registration fees be made w/in 15 days, entry in the book of the deed of
sale does not operate to convey & affect the land sold
b. (attachment, levy, execution,lis pendens) --- day book is sufficient notice
to all persons of such adverse claim
2. Mintu innocent purchaser for value having done the required steps in the
registration, the sale in then presumed to be valid in both properties
3. Strict & literal interpretation of the law is required in order to do justice to the
innocent purchaser for value as in this case it was the RD who failed to issue the
new TCT in the name of Mintu which made him not an innocent purchaser for
value & a innocent holder of COT --- w/c should not be imputed against Mintu
4. As bet. Not innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of a
breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must bear
the loss

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen