Tio v Abayata

Facts:
CeledonioAbayatas successors filed for annulment of mortgage, mortgage sale and subsequent
sale and certificate of title in court. They claim to be absolute owners of property that defendant
Benjamin Lasola, through machinations, was able to register said property in his name and was
mortgaged in turn for a loan. Upon banks foreclosure, the property was sold to David and Robert Tio
herein petitioners. Petitioners maintain they are buyers in good faith. RTC decided in favor of
respondents. Petition dismissed upon appeal.
Issue:
WON petitioners are purchasers for value and good faith?
Held:
Yes. Petitioners are buyers in good faith. Petitioners had no knowledge of the adverse claim and
mortgagee bank presented proper documentation of both mortgage claim and foreclosure proceedings
and the buyers were informed that persons in adverse possession were squatters whose occupation was
tolerated by the bank. The court held that the mistake upon doubtful or difficult question of law may be
proper basis of good faith. Petition granted. RTC and CA decision reversed.

Pilapil v CA
Facts:
The 3 surviving children of the Otadora spouses inherited a parcel of land which they
extrajudicially partitioned amongst themselves along with their nephew, Antonio, giving each share.
Subsequently, Vitallana and Agaton sold to Petitioners Pilapil and Penaranda a portion of the inherited
land. Partition was superseded by another TCT under Agaton, Vitaliana, Maxima and Antonio. The sale
to petitioners was inscribed at the back of the new TCT. Despite the sale to petitioners, the Otadora
siblings with Antonio executed various sales and titles of the already sold land to each of their relatives
and other 3rd persons with each corresponding registrations. Petitioners filed protest with the registry of
deeds but was ignored. RTC dismissed petitioners complaint. On appeal, CA held that the land was not
subdivided into specific portions to be owned by each co-owner and was not specified in the deed of
sale. CA and RTC upheld that Serafica and Sons Corp, appellee corporation was buyer in good faith and
spouses Pilapil have a cause of action against other defendant appellees but not with appellee
corporation.
Issue:
WON Carmen and Maxima (who later sold to Serafica Corporation their portion) are buyers in
good faith?
Held:
No. Carmen and Maxima, being successors in interest to Agaton and Vitaliana are not
considered buyers in good faith. Their subsequent sale to Serafica Corporation is invalid. The sale to
ones son or daughter, will give rise to conclusion that the buyers, who not really 3rd parties, knew of the
previous sales and cannot be considered good faith. The buyers in this case have a constructive
knowledge of the previous sales due to their relationship with sellers. CA decision reversed. Petitioners
are lawful owners of the lot in question.

R. R. Paredes v Caliling
Facts:
Petitioners are sued as officials of Caltex Philippines Inc (CPI). Calilung alleged that the officials
made false representations of the parcels of land that he bought from Caltex, some of which were sold
to Caltex to DAR by VOS (voluntary offer to sell) which the CA decided as consummated sale. The land
was originally owned by Calilungs mother in law, Vda. De Medina who executed a deed of assignment
(with SPA) for consideration of her debts to CPI. All her rights and interest were assigned in the said
deed from the proceeds of land compensation obtained from CARP. She claimed that in same deed, the
VOS was for indorsement to Landbank. Caltex was appointed as her attorney in fact to follow up
processing of VOS papers with DAR and Landbank. Respondent alleges fraud on the part of CPI in
assuming such position for de Medina.
Issue:
WON Respondent was aware of the status of the properties in question?
Held:
Yes. Respondent was aware of CPIs interest in the properties. There is a clear paper trail by
which respondent could have traced and uncovered the true status of the subject real properties. CPI
itself provided respondent with some of these documents, while the others are part of public records to
which respondent had access. Respondent is after all lawyer. The law protects to a greater degree a
purchaser who buys from the registered owner himself. Corollarily, it requires a higher degree of
prudence from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object
of the transaction is registered. While one who buys from the registered owner does not need to look
behind the certificate of title, one who buys from one who is not the registered owner is expected to
examine not only the certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary for him to determine if
there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his capacity to transfer the land. Petition
granted. CA decision set aside.

Chua v Soriano
Facts:
Msgr. Virgilio Soriano owned a lot measuring 1,600 sqm. Emmanuel Celestino, his grandson
asked to borrow the TCT for said land as loan security for his business to which Soriano accedes. An SPA
(special power of attorney) was executed in favor of Celestino and one Carlito Castrro. Soriano later
found out that the land was sold to Spouses Chua, herein petitioners. Soriano filed a complaint against
Celestino and Sps. Chua. Soriano argues that he is the only authorized seller of the property while the
Chuas' on the other hand contend that they are buyers in good faith since they bought the property
from Celestino with proper inspection and annotation. Msgr. Soriano was later substituted by his sister,
Florencia. RTC in favor of Florencia where it nullified the SPA earlier executed and voided Chua's TCT on
ground of alleged forged signature of Msgr. Soriano on the SPA. CA affirmed RTC. Chua's maintain
themselves as buyers in good faith.
Issue:
WON petitioners are buyers in good faith?
Held:
Yes. Sps. Chua were buyers in good faith. When a person who deals with registered land through
someone who is not the registered owner, he is expected to look behind the certificate of title and
examine all the factual circumstances, in order to determine if the vendor has the capacity to transfer
any interest in the land. He has the duty to ascertain the identity of the person with whom he is dealing
and the latters legal authority to convey. In the case at bar, Sps. Chuas' reliance on notarized SPA is
sufficient proof of good faith. It was duly notarized and is presumed validly executed. It was also
accepted by the Registry of deeds. Petitioners validly acquired title. Petition granted and RTC and CA
decision reversed.

Vda. de Alcantara v CA
Facts:
The 2 lots in question were owned by by Leona Vda. de Alfonso. A registered pacto de retro
sales was executed by Leona with plaintiffs for consideration of P 100,000 while a Deed of Extra judicial
partition of estates was executed in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs Alcantara allege that defendants
failed to reclaim land under the pacto de retro sale within a 3 month period which prompted Leona to
sell the land to plaintiffs instead. Plaintiffs even offered to re sell land to defendants but the latter
refused claiming that land was extra judicially partitioned to them. Defendant backed out of proposed
partition. Defendants on the other hand acknowledges the existence of pacto de retro sale but its
contents are invalid. The sale was in reality, a mortgage. Defendants still in possession of the land. RTC
upheld Alfonso's sale with respondents as a real pacto de retro sale and said sales was entered into with
good faith. CA upheld RTC stating that the pacto de retro sale was clear and unambigous and is not an
equitable mortgage.
Issue:
WON pacto de retro sale prevails over the extrajudicial partition in the case at bar?
Held:
Yes. Pacto de retro sale prevailed over the extra judicial partition. Deed of sale validly conveyed
land from Alfonso's to the Alcantara's. Good faith or bad faith in pacto de retor registration determined
better right to property under Art. 1544. Said provision does not apply since petitioner did not present
evidence of deed of sale. Registration of extra judicial partition which only mentions sale and is not duly
registered as required in Art. 1544 cannot prevail over a rgistered pacto de retro sale. CA decision
affirmed.

Esquivias v CA
Facts:
Julia Domalaon converted her property into a family home and her children as beneficiaries
thereof. It was later sold to her son in law, Atty. Salvador Esquivias husband of Alicia Domaloan. Family
home was soon dissolved with consent of the children and transferred to Jose Domalaon with increased
area. Prior to sale of lot to Esquivias, both Jose and his sister Elena succeeded in getting patents for said
property. It was only then that Julia realized she consented to a deed of sale of the land in favor of
Esquivias and filed for disbarment of the latter alleging Esquivias took advantage of her failing sight
alleging that said deed was in favor of her children. Court dismissed the disbarment. RTC in favor of
Esquivias but was reversed in the CA.
Issue:
Who has the better right? The Esquivias or Dmoalaons?
Held:
The Court held in favor of the Esquivias. While the deed of sale in favor of Jose G. Domalaon
was registered earlier, the same cannot prevail over the deed of sale in favor of Atty. Esquivias because
private respondent knew of the prior sale to petitioners, and such knowledge tainted his registration
with bad faith. To merit protection under Art. 1544 (2).,the second buyer must act in good faith in
registering his deed.TheDomalaons presented no evidence other than that property was promised to
them by the late Silvestre Domalaon. The fact that such promise was not contradicted by private
respondents does not prove that their claim over the entire property is valid and subsisting.
Furthermore, although the entire property was declared by petitioners in their names for taxation
purposes, it does not by itself constitute conclusive evidence of ownership. CA decision reversed. RTC in
favor of petitioners reinstated.

Fudot v Cattleya Land Inc.

Facts:
Respondent, after finding no title defects on subject land, proceeded to buy said land (9 lots)
from Spouses Tecson via Deed of conditional sale followed via deed of absolute sale. However, said land
in question was subject to attachment in a separate civil case to which spouses Tecson were able to
compromise 6 out of the 9 lots. Petitioner subsequently presented a TCT and deed of sale which Tecsons
purportedly executed in favor of petitioner. Respondent found out that the Registry of deeds registered
a deed with title in favor of petitioners. This prompted respondents to file a complaint against
petitioners with motion for quieting of title. Asuncion Tecson claimed she never signed any deed of sale
favoring petitioner Fudot. Petitioner contends that property was sold to her and delivered owner's copy
of title and that said title was refused registration by RD (Registry of Deeds) due to an attachment. RTC
quieted the title and invalidated deed of sale between Tecson and petitioner. Respondent was a buyer
in good faith ahead of petitioner. CA denied petitioners appeal declaring that there was no double sale
since sale to petitioner was voided due to forgery. CA held repondents sales as prevalent since
respondent registered in good faith and made inquiries prior to purchasing said lot.
Issue:
WON respondent is a buyer in good faith?
Held:
Yes. Respondent is indeed a buyer in good faith. No double sale since the sale between
petitioners and Sps. Tecson was void due to forgery. The only valid sale is between spouses Tecson and
respondent. Assuming that there was double sale, respondent was still a buyer in good faith. In
interpreting this provision (Art. 1544), the Court declared that the governing principle is primus tempore,
potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale
cannot defeat the first buyer's rights, except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second
sale ahead of the first as provided by the aforequoted provision of the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the
first buyer does not bar him from availing of his rights under the law, among them to register first his
purchase as against the second buyer. However, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale
defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior
registration with bad faith. It is thus essential, to merit the protection of Art. 1544 (2), that the second
realty buyer must act in good faith in registering his deed of sale. Petition denied and CA decision
affirmed.

Tanedo v CA
Facts:
Lazardo Tanedo sold his land initially to respondents for a consideration of P 10,000 in 1962. The
sale was recorded in RD. The subsequent Absolute sale was executed in favor of petitioners 10 children
also involved same land but who possessed same parcel of land in 1980. Petitioner's filed a complaint to
rescind respondents' sale and even presented several documents proving that Lazardo's inheritance will
be given to the children. Respondents on the other hand contend that they have file a deed of
revocation of Sale and claims petitioner's sale was simulated since no consideration was given. RTC
upheld respondents for failure to adduce preponderant evidence which was affirmed by the CA.
Issue:
WON petitioner's have a better right than respondent for possessing land ahead of registration
of respondent?
Held:
No. Respondents have better right than petitioners despite subsequent registration. Ownership
shall belong to buyer who in good faith registers in the property. The property in question is land, an
immovable, and following the above-quoted law, ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good faith
registers it first in the registry of property. Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of private
respondents was later than the one in favor of petitioners, ownership would vest in the former because
of the undisputed fact of registration. On the other hand, petitioners have not registered the sale to
them at all. Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the property and that private
respondents 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. Ownership in this case, vest in respondent due to
registration. Petition is denied. CA decision affirmed.

Abarquez v CA
Facts:
In 1972, Landowner Lita Ebarle sold her 862 sqm. land to Spouses Israel, who in turn allowed
Spouses Sagrado and Spouses Jumao-as to occupy said land and even allowed the 2 spouses to build a
house on their land. In 1975, Ebarle sold to Petitioner Abarquez spouses 862 sqm of a parcel of land; 476
sqm of which included in previously sold lot to respondents Israel Spouses. Petitioner, upon seeing that
land had houses/occupants, sent letters to respondents demanding removal of their houses respectively
in said land. Subsequently, petitioner filed for quieting of title against respondents. RTC upheld sps.
Abarquez as legal owners of lot. CA reversed RTC Spouses Abarquez as buyers in bad faith.
Issue:
WON petitoiners were buyers in bad faith?
Held:
Yes. Petitioners are buyers in bad faith. Art. 1544 only grants petitioner preferential rights to
2nd vendee provided said vendee acted in good faith when he bought property. Israel spouses upon
making down payment, immediately took possession of the said land. Petitioners clearly knew there
were already occupants in said land prior to its purchase. This Court had occasions to rule that if a
vendee in a double sale registers the sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous
sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and will not confer upon him any right. It is
as if there had been no registration, and the vendee who first took possession of the real property in
good faith shall be preferred. The prior registration of Abarquez cannot overcome the earlier possession
of Spouses Israel since the former's registration is tainted with bad faith. Petition dismissed.

Navera v CA
Facts:
Leocadio Navera's land was inherited by his children, the subject land now owned by his 2
daughters, Elena and Eduarda under an OCT registration of "Elena Navera et. al". Elena's share was
inherited by her heirs Arsenio Nares and Felix Nares, the other portion owned by Eduarda. Eduarda sold
her portion to her nephew Aresnio. One year later, Eduarda re sold her portion to Mariano Navera. Both
were in public instruments but both were not registered in Registry of Deeds.
Issue:
WON 2nd sale with of land to Mariano Navera valid?
Held:
No. 2nd sale was invalid. Art. 1544 vests ownership upon person in good faith who was first in
possession of disputed lot. Possession mentioned in Article 1544 for determining who has better right
when the same piece of land has been sold several times by the same vendor includes not only the
material but also the symbolic possession, which is acquired by the execution of a public instrument.
This means that after the sale of a realty by means of a public instrument, the vendor, who resells it to
another, does not transmit anything to the second vendee, and if the latter, by virtue of this second sale,
takes material possession of the thing, he does it as mere detainer, and it would be unjust to protect this
detention against the rights of the thing lawfully acquired by the first vendee. In the case at bar, the
prior sale of the land to respondent Arsenio Nares by means of a public instrument is clearly tantamount
to a delivery of the land resulting in the material and symbolic possession thereof by the latter. Petition
denied.
Roman Catholic Church v Pante
Facts:
Arch Bishop Caceres, representing the Roman Catholic Church, sold 32 sqm lot to Regino Pante.
Petitioner was convinced by Pante that he was an occupant of the lot. Subsequently, petitioner also sold
the same lot to the Rubi spouses. Conflict arose when Spouses Rubi erected a fence along the contested
lot blocking respondents access from their home to the municipal road. Respondent moved to annul
sale between petitioners and spouses Rubi. Petitioner contends that respondent misrepresented that
they were actual occupants of the said lot and that mistake would result in a voidable contract because
Pante asserted that he was aqualified occupant and Pante was aware that the lots in question were only
to be sold to occupants and residents. Respondent on the other hand averred that their use of lot as a
path from their home going to municipal road signifies actual use of lot. RTC upheld petitioner which
was reversed by the CA annulling the sale between petitioner and Spouses Rubi.
Issue:
WON the 2nd sale to Spouses Rubi was Valid?
Held:
No. The 2nd sale to Spouses Rubi was invalid. Under Art. 1544, Pante was the first to acquire
possession of said lot. Pante used the lot since 1963 as a passage from their home to municipal road
which was tantamount to control and possession. Constructive delivery was evident in 1992 after Pante
bought said lot. The land also had improvements such as electric connections and water pipes prior to
purchase of the lot. Such superimposed improvements were clear evidence of occupancy of Pante which
Spouses Rubi were clearly aware of. Hence, any assertion of possession by the spouses is considered in
bad faith. Possession mentioned in Article 1544 for determining who has better right when the same
piece of land has been sold several times by the same vendor includes not only the material but also the
symbolic possession, which is acquired by the execution of a public instrument. This means that after
the sale of a realty by means of a public instrument, the vendor, who resells it to another, does not
transmit anything to the second vendee, and if the latter, by virtue of this second sale, takes material
possession of the thing, he does it as mere detainer, and it would be unjust to protect this detention
against the rights of the thing lawfully acquired by the first vendee. Possession for determining who has
better right when the same piece of land has been sold several times by the same seller includes not
only material but also symbolic possession thereof which was demonstrated by Respondents. Petition
denied. CA decision affirmed.