G.R. No. 104482 January 22, 1996 ISSUES: 1. Is the sale of a future inheritance valid?

BELINDA TAREDO, for herself and in representation
of her brothers and sisters, and TEOFILA CORPUZ
TANEDO, representing her minor daughter VERNA
TANEDO, petitioners vs. THE COURT OF
APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO M. TAREDO AND
TERESITA BARERA TAREDO, respondents
FACTS:
October 20, 1962: Lazardo Taedo executed a
notarized deed of absolute sale in favor of his eldest
brother, Ricardo Taedo, and the latters wife, Teresita
Barera (private respondents) whereby he conveyed for
P1,500 one hectare of his future inheritance from his
parents.
February 28, 1980: Upon the death of his father
Matias, Lazaro made another a davit to rea rm the
1962 sale.
January 13, 1981: Lazaro acknowledged therein his
receipt of P 10,000.00 as consideration for the sale.
February 1981: Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the
same property to his children (petitioners) through a
deed of sale dated December 29, 1980
On June 7, 1982, Ricardo recorded the Deed of Sale in
their favor in the Registry of Deeds
NO 2. Was Ricardos registration of the deed of valid?
YES
HELD: SC rules in favor of Ricardo.
Pursuant to Art 1347, the contract made in 1962 (sale
of future inheritance) is not valid and cannot be the
source of any right nor the creator of any obligation
between the parties. (No contract may be entered
into upon a future inheritance except in cases
expressly authorized by law.)
However, Article 1544 governs the preferential rights
of vendees in cases of multiple sales. The property in
question is land, an immovable, and ownership shall
belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it rst
in the registry of property. Thus, although the deed of
sale in favor of Ricardo was later than the one in favor
of Lazaros children, ownership would vest with
Ricardo because of the undisputed fact of registration.
On the other hand, petitioners have not registered the
sale to them at all.
Lazaros children contend that they were in possession
of the property and that Ricardo never took possession
thereof. As between two purchasers, the one who
registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right
over the other who has not registered his title, even if
the latter is in actual possession of the immovable
property.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Petitioners led a complaint for rescission (plus

damages) of the deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in
favor of Ricardo. They contend that Lolo Matias
desired that whatever inheritance Lazaro would
receive from him should be given to his (Lazaros)
children.

Ricardo (private respondents) however presented in

evidence a Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale
wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in favor of his children
for the reason that it was simulated or ctitious -
without any consideration whatsoever.

LAZAROS VERSION: He executed a sworn statement

in favor of his children. BUT he also testi ed that he
sold the property to Ricardo, and that it was a lawyer
who induced him to execute a deed of sale in favor of
his children after giving him ve pesos (P5.00) to buy a
drink. LABO

Trial court ruled in favor of Lazaros children. Ca a

rmed TCs decision.