Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
RULING: For failure of Comayas to pay, the real estate mortgage was
foreclosed and the subject property sold at a public auction to
Mendoza. The registration of the parcel of land in question in the the mortgagee Naawan. Sheriff’s certificate of sale was issued
name of Mendoza was affirmed. and registered in the RD of Misamis.
This is a case of a double sale. The first was a conditional sale April 1984 – property was registered by RD of CDO as OCT
while the latter was an absolute sale. While the absolute sale to
the petitioner was subsequent to the conditional sale to Kalaw, July 1984 – TCT in the name of Comayas in the RD CDO
Mendoza obtained the actual possession of the property first. Sept 1986 – period of redemption lapsed; sheriff of CDO issued
Mendoza actually paid to his vendor the purchase price, while and delivered to Nawaan the deed of final conveyance. The
the payment of Kalaw depended upon the performance of deed was registered and recorded by the RD CDO. Naawan
certain conditions mentioned in the contract of sale. instituted an action for ejectment against Comayas which was
In fact, it is hardly a case of two sales because a conditional sale, decided in its favor. RTC affirmed.
before the performance of the condition, can hardly be said to When the writ of execution of judgment was issued, the
be a sale of property especially where the condition has not property was no longer occupied by Comayas but by sps Lumo
been complied with. Hence, Art. 1473 can hardly be said to be who bought it from Comayas.
applicable.
Sps. Lumo filed an action for queting of title which was decided
Netiher can the anotacion preventive be said to have created by the RTC in their favor.
any advantage in Kalaw’s favor. A preventive precautionary
notice only protects the rights of the person securing it for a ISSUE:
WON the earlier registration of the sheriff’s deed of final hearing, the trial court granted the petition and ordered the RD
conveyance should prevail over the later registration of Sps. of Quezon City to issue a TCT in the name of Estrella Mapa and
Lumo’s deed of absolute sale the RD issued the same.
FACTS: ISSUE:
Mapa filed a petition for reconstitution of documents and WON CA erred in upholding the annulment order of the trail
issuance of certificates of title over certain parcels of land court in LRC case authorizing the issuance of titles on the basis
covered by an OCT. of sales certificates and technical descriptions as reconstituted
by the LRC.
Mapa claims that the Director of Lands issued certificates of
sales to Salgado over the parcels of land in accordance with RULING:
Friar Lands Act. Salgado assigned the property to Mapa. After DENIED.
A. Petitioner not owner of land Who between the petitioner spouses and respondent has a
better right to the property.
The sale certificates were void because the sales were not
approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural RULING:
Resources, which is indispensable for the validity of the sale of
friar lands. In view of the invalidity of sales, there can be no valid Otherwise stated, the law provides that a double sale of
titles issued on the basis of such sales. immovables transfers ownership to (1) the first registrant in
good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3)
Assuming valid, the certificates of sale became stale ten years finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. In
from its issuance. They cannot be the source of documents for the instant case, both Petitioners Abrigo and respondent
issuance of title more than 70 years later. Mapa’s inaction for a registered the sale of the property.
period of 56 years bars the petitioner from whatever rights he
could have acquired. De Vera relies on the insight of Justice Paras:
B. Double Sale “x x x If the land is registered under the Land Registration Act
(and has therefore a Torrens Title), and it is sold but the
As between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in subsequent sale is registered not under the Land Registration
his favor has a preferred right over the other who has not Act but under Act 3344, as amended, such sale is not
registered his title even if the latter is in actual possession. considered REGISTERED, as the term is used under Art. 1544 x
x x.”
A certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if the same land
had been registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in It is undisputed that Villafania had been issued a free patent
existence. registered as OCT which was later cancelled in Villapana’s
name. as a consequence of the sale, TCT was subsequently
C. Title not tantamount to ownership cancelled and another was issued to the respondent.
Private respondents’ title must be respected. They have in their Soriano v. Heirs of Magali23 held that registration must be done
favor the law that protects holders of title under the Torrens in the proper registry in order to
system. Torrens certificate is evidence of an indefeasible title to
property in favor of the person whose name appears thereon. bind the land. Since the property in dispute in the present case
CA correctly annulled the trial court’s order allowing was already registered under the Torrens system, petitioners’
registration of the subject property in the name of Estrella registration of the sale under Act 3344 was not effective for
Mapa and her successors in interest. purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code.
4. SPOUSES NOEL AND JULIE ABRIGO vs. ROMANA DE VERA More recently, in Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of
Appeals, the Court upheld the right of a party who had
FACTS: registered the sale of land under the Property Registration
Gloria Villafanie sold a house and lot located at Pangasinan to Decree, as opposed to another who had registered a deed of
Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go. The sale became a final conveyance under Act 3344. In that case, the “priority in
subject of a suit for annulment of documents between time” principle was not applied, because the land was already
Villafania and Salazar & Go. RTC approved a compromise covered by the Torrens system at the time the conveyance was
agreement submitted by the parties. Villafania was given one registered under Act 3344.
year to buy back the house and lot and failure to do so would “Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting
mean that the previous sale shall remain valid. Villafania failed unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice to a third party with a
to buy back the house so the vendees declared the lot in their better right.’
name. Villafania obtained a free patent over the parcel of land
involved. It was later on cancelled by TCT. Petitioners cannot validly argue that they were fraudulently
misled into believing that the property was unregistered. A
Vendees later on sold the house and lot to Sps. Abrigo while Torrens title, once registered, serves as a notice to the whole
Villafania sold the same to Romana de Vera. De Vera registered world. All persons must take notice, and no one can plead
the sale and a tct was issued in her name. De Vera filed an ignorance of the registration.
action for Forcible Entry against Sps which was dismissed.
Good Faith requirement
Spouses filed a case for annulment of documents against
Villafania and RTC ruled in their favor. Both parties appealed to We have consistently held that Article 1544 requires the second
the CA and the CA held that a void title cannot give rise to a valid buyer to acquire the immovable in good faith and to register it
one hence dismissed the appeal of de Vera. CA also dismissed in good faith. Mere registration of title is not enough; good faith
the appeal of spouses for moral and exemplary damages and must concur with the registration.
atty’s fees. However, on reconsideration, CA ruled that de Vera
is a purchaser in good faith and for value. Jurisprudence teaches us that ‘(t)he governing principle is
primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right).
ISSUE:
Knowledge by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat Genito returned the 50k check but Cheng demanded
the first buyer’s rights except when the second buyer first compliance with their agreement. Genato sent the check to
registers in good faith the second sale. Conversely, knowledge Cheng; the latter returned the said check reiterating that the
gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights contract to sell had already been perfected.
even if he is first to register, since such knowledge taints his
registration with bad faith. As stated in the Santiago case, Cheng executed an adverse claim. Spouses paid Genato the
registration by the first buyer under Act No. 3344 can have the complete down payment and delivered 3 postdated checks to
effect of constructive notice to the second buyer that can cover full payment of the balance.
defeat his right as such buyer. However, the cited cases are not After trial on the merits, the lower court ruled that the receipt
in point. issued by Genato to Cheng unerringly meant a sale and not just
As can be gathered from the foregoing, constructive notice to a priority or an option to buy. It also ruled that there was a valid
the second buyer through registration under Act 3344 does not recission of the Contract to sell. Spouses and Genato appealed
apply if the property is registered under the Torrens system, as and the decision was reversed in favor of the spouses.
in this case. ISSUE:
Respondent in Good Faith Who has a better right over the property?
CA examined the facts and found that De Vera was in good RULING:
faith.
Petition of Cheng was denied.
Gloria Villafania, [Respondent] De Vera’s vendor, appears to be
the registered owner. The subject land was, and still is, In a Contract to Sell, the payment of the purchase price is a
registered in the name of Gloria Villafania. There is nothing in positive suspensive condition, the failure of which is not a
her certificate of title and in the circumstances of the breach, casual or serious, but a situation that prevents the
transaction or sale which warrant [Respondent] De Vera in obligation of the vendor to convey title from acquiring an
supposing that she need[ed] to look beyond the title. She had obligatory force. For its non-fulfillment there will be no contract
no notice of the earlier sale of the land to [petitioners]. She to speak of, the obligor having failed to perform the suspensive
ascertained and verified that her vendor was the sole owner condition which enforces a juridical relation.
and in possession of the subject property by examining her
vendor’s title in the Registry of Deeds and actually going to the Obviously, the foregoing jurisprudence cannot be made to
premises. apply to the situation in the instant case because no default can
be ascribed to the Da Jose spouses since the 30-day extension
5. RICARDO CHENG vs. RAMON GENATO AND ERNESTO DA JOSE period has not yet expired.
& SOCORRO DA JOSE
Even assuming in gratia argumenti that the Da Jose spouses
FACTS: defaulted, as claimed by Genato, in their Contract to Sell, the
execution by Genato of the affidavit to annul the contract is not
Genato is the owner of two parcels of land located at Paradise even called for. For with or without the aforesaid affidavit their
Farms, Bulacan covered by TCTs. He entered into an agreement non-payment to complete the full downpayment of the
with Sps. Da Jose over the said land. A contract to sell was purchase price ipso facto avoids their contract to sell, it being
executed for which the purchase price was P80.00 per sqm and subjected to a suspensive condition.
it was duly annotated at the back of the two tcts.
Nevertheless, this being so Genato is not relieved from the
Da Jose spouses, not having finished verifying the titles giving of a notice, verbal or written, to the Da Jose spouses for
mentioned in Clause 3 as afore-quoted, asked for and was his decision to rescind their contract. Ricardo Cheng’s
granted by respondent Genato an extension of another 30 contention that the Contract to Sell between Genato and the
days. However, the extension was granted on condition that a Da Jose spouses was rescinded or resolved due to Genato’s
new set of documents is made. Da Jose spouses denied. unilateral rescission finds no support in this case.
Without notice to the spouses and pending the effectivity of
the extension period, Genato executed an affidavit to annul the Cheng was inconsistent in characterizing the contract he
contract to sell. No annotation was made right away. allegedly entered into. In his complaint, Cheng alleged that the
P50,000.00 down payment was earnest money. And next, his
Cheng expressed interest in buying the properties. Genato testimony was offered to prove that the transaction between
showed TcTs and the annotations and showed him the affidavit him and Genato on October 24, 1989 was actually a perfected
to annul the contract to sell which is not annotated at the titles. contract to sell.” Both courts below correctly held that the
Cheng issued a check upon the assurance that the previous receipt which was the result of their agreement, is a contract to
contract will be annulled. Genato met the spouses at the office sell. even if we are to assume that the receipt, Exh. “D,” is to be
of RC and fount out about the affidavit and reminded Genato treated as a conditional contract of sale, it did not acquire any
of the extension period. Genato decided to continue the obligatory force since it was subject to the suspensive condition
contract he had with the spouses. that the earlier contract to sell between Genato and the Da Jose
spouses should first be cancelled or rescinded—a condition While under Art. 1544 registration in good faith prevails over
never met. possession in the event of a double sale by the vendor of the
same piece of land, said article cannot be applied even if
Notwithstanding this contrary finding with the appellate court,
Balbuena was ignorant of the prior sale. The reason is that the
we are of the view that the governing principle of Article 1544,
purchaser of unregistered land at a sheiff’s execution sale only
Civil Code, should apply in this situation. Jurisprudence38
steps into the shoes of the judgment dbtor,, and merely
teaches us that the governing principle is PRIMUS TEMPORE,
acquires the latter’s interest in the property sold as of the time
PORTIOR JURE (first in time, stronger in right).
the property was levied upon.
The knowledge gained by the Da Jose spouses, as first buyers,
While the time of levy does not clearly appear, it could not have
of the new agreement between Cheng and Genato will not
been made prior when the decision aginst the former owners
defeat their rights as first buyers except where Cheng, as
of the land was rendered in favor of Balbuena, but the deed of
second buyer, registers or annotates his transaction ahead of
sale in favor of Canuto had been executed two years before and
the spouses. In contrast, knowledge gained by Cheng of the first
while only embodied in a private document, the same, coupled
transaction defeats his rights.
with the fact that the buyer had taken possession of the
Even before the receipt was issued to Cheng information of unregistered land sold, sufficed to vest ownership on the said
such pre-existing agreement has been brought to his buyer. When the levy was made therefore, the judgment
knowledge which did not deter him from pursuing his debtor no longer had dominical interest nor any real right over
agreement with Genato. the land that could pass to the purchaser at the execution sale.
Hence, the latter must yield the land to Carumba. The rule is
6. AMANDO CARUMBA vs. CA and ANGELES BOAQUINA different in case of lands covered by Torrens titles, where the
FACTS: prior sale is neither recorded nor known to the execution
purchaser prior to the levy, but the land here in question is
Sps Amado Canuto and Nemesia Ibasco, by virtue of a Deed of admittedly not registered under Act No. 496.
Sale of Unregistered Land with Covenants of Warranty sold a
parcel of land, partly residential and partly coconut land located 7. RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY vs. MANUELITO S.
in CamSur, to sps Amado Carumba and Benita Canuto for the PALILEO
sum of P350,00. The deed of sale was never registered in the FACTS:
RD and the notary was not then an authorized notary public in
the place. Carumba is the brother-in-law of Canuto (the Defendant Sps. Enrique and Herminia Castro sold to plaintiff-
vendor). appellee Manuelito Palileo (private respondent), a parcel of
unregistered coconut land situated in Surigao del Norte. The
Balbuena filed a complaint against Canuto and Ibasco and a sale is evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale however
decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and as against the it was not registered in the registry of property for unregistered
defendants. The ex-officio Sheriff, Justo V. Imperial, issued a lands in the province. Palileo exercised acts of ownership over
“definite deed of sale” of the property now in question in favor the land through his mother as administratix or overseer. He
of Balbuena, registered before the RD. the aforesaid property also has continuously paid the real estate taxes on said land
was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Balbuena. from 1971 until present (1991).
CFI declared Carumba to be the owner of a property after On 1976, a judgment was rendered against Castro to pay
finding that the latter had taken possession of the land; held Readiowealth Finance Company the sum of P22, 350.35 with
void the execution levy made by the sheriff and nullified the interest at the rate of 16% per annum from Nov. 2, 1975, and
sale in favor of Balbuena. further sum for atty’s fees and to pay the cocsts. A writ of
CA declared Balbuena’s title was superior to that of Carumba execution was issued upon the finality of the judgment.
under Art. 1544 of the CC, since the execution sale had been Provincial Sheriff Eviota through provincial sheriff Risma, levied
properly registered in good faith and the sale to Carumba was upon and finally sold at public auction the subject land that
not recorded. Castro had sold to Palielo. A certificate of sale was executed in
favor of Radiowealth by being the only bidder. After the period
ISSUE: of redemption has expired, a deed of final sale was also
executed by the same sheriff. Both the certificate and deed
WON Balbuena has a better right over the property than
were registered with the RD.
Carumba.
Palileo filed an action for queting of title and the court a quo
RULING:
rendered a decision in his favor. On appeal, the decision was
No. affirmed. Radiowealth filed a petition for review.
ISSUE: Mata filed his answer with a counterclaim saying that he signed
the absolute deed of sale with Laureta under duress, threat and
WON the rule provided in Art. 1544 is applicable to a parcel of
intimidation; plaintiff was a commanding officer. Defendants
unregistered land purchased at a judicial sale. Who is the
Mata also admit the existence of a record regarding a
rightful owner between two buyers (first – unrecorded; second
document signed by him in favor of Caram, but denies that he
– purchased in an execution sale registered in RD)
signed the document knowing that he had signed a deed of sale
RULING: in favor of the plaintiff. He alleges that if ever his thumb mark
appeared in the document, his consent was obtained through
The finding of the Court of Appeals that the property in fraud and misrepresentation for he was an illiterate.
question was already sold to private respondent by its previous
owner before the execution sale is evidenced by a deed of sale. Caram filed his answer saying that he has no knowledge about
No substantive proof to support the petitioner’s allegation that the previous encumbrances. RTC rendered a decision in favor
the document is fictitious or simulated. of Laureta.
What the sheriff levied upon and sold to petitioner is a parcel Caram appealed saying that the CA erred in concluding that the
of land that does not belong to Castro, the judgment debtor, lawyers were the atty’s in fact of him for the purpose of buying
hence the execution is contrary to the directive contained in the property. (dami pa issue basta who has the better right
the writ of execution which commanded that the lands and lang)
buildings belonging to Castro be sold to satisfy the execution.
ISSUE:
It must be stressed that this case deals with a parcel of
WON Caram is a purchaser in GF
unregistered land hence the rule on first registrant does not
apply. Who has a better right
Carbonell’s good faith did not cease when she was informed by The existence of prior sale to Carbonell was duly established
Poncio about the sale to Emma Infante From the terms of the memorandum, it tends to show that the
After learning about the second sale, Carbonell tried to talk to sale of the property in favor of Carbonell is already an
the Infantes but the latter refused. accomplished act. As found by the trial court, to repeat the said
(Exact words of the SC: With an aristocratic disdain unworthy memorandum states "that Poncio is allowed to stay in the
of the good breeding of a good Christian and good neighbor, property which he had sold to the plaintiff ..., it tends to show
Infante snubbed Carbonell like a leper and refused to see her.) that the sale of the property in favor of the plaintiff is already
an accomplished act..."
So Carbonell did the next best thing to protect her right — she
registered her adversed claim on February 8, 1955. Under the There was an adequate consideration or price for the sale in
circumstances, this recording of her adverse claim should be favor of Carbonell
deemed to have been done in good faith and should emphasize Poncio agreed to sell the same to Carbonell at P9.50 per square
Infante's bad faith when she registered her deed of sale four (4) meter, on condition that Carbonell:
days later on February 12, 1955. 1. should pay (a) the amount of P400.00 to Poncio and the
arrears in the amount of P247.26 to the bank
The Infantes were in bad faith (5 indications of bad faith listed 2. should assume his mortgage indebtedness.
below) The bank president agreed to the said sale with assumption of
Bad faith arising from previous knowledge by Infante of the mortgage in favor of Carbonell an Carbonell accordingly paid
prior sale to Carbonell is shown by the following facts: the arrears of P247.26.
1. Mrs. Infante refused to see Carbonell.
Her refusal to talk to Carbonell could only mean that she did It is evident therefore that there was ample consideration, and
not want to listen to Carbonell's story that she (Carbonell) had not merely the sum of P200.00, for the sale of Poncio to
previously bought the lot from Poncio. Carbonell of the lot in question.
2. Carbonell was already in possession of mortgage passbook
and copy of the mortgage contract. (Not Poncio’s saving The subject property was identified and described
deposit passbook.) The court has arrived at the conclusion that there is sufficient
Infante naturally must have demanded from Poncio the description of the lot referred to in Exh. As none other than the
delivery to her of his mortgage passbook and mortgage parcel of lot occupied by the defendant Poncio and where he
has his improvements erected. The Identity of the parcel of land the title to the buyer, but since the title is still in the name effect
involved herein is sufficiently established by the contents of the the transfer even though the buyers are able and willing to
note Exh. 'A'. immediately pay the purchase price. The agreement as well
could not have been a contract to sell because the seller or the
ROMULO CORONEL VS. CA Coronel’s made no express reservation of ownership or the title
of the land.
FACTS:
On Feb. 6, 1985, the Contract of Sale between the Coronel’s
This case is about a sale of land in Roosevelt Avenue, Quezon and the Alcaraz’ became obligatory.
City by the vendor Romulo Coronel to the vendees Conception
Alcaraz and her daughter Ramona Patricia Alcaraz with the
following conditions:
ISSUE:
HELD: