SUMALINOG, APRIL B.

Statutory Construction, Assignment

September 28, 2019

LEGAL MAXIM: POTIOR EST IN TEMPORE, POTIOR EST IN JURE

DEFINITION
Latin, meaning “He who is first in time is preferred in right.” 1

DISCUSSION
This maxim is sometimes quoted in its Latin form, Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure.
It deals with the priority of competing interests.2 Accordingly, where there are two
competing equitable interests, the general rule of equity is that the person whose equity
attached to the property first will be entitled to priority over the other. Where the
equities are equal and neither claimant has the legal estate, the first in time prevails.

This maxim is concerned with the priority that is to say which of interests prevails in the
time of conflict. The general rule, is that interests take effect in order of their creation,
but, as regards equitable interests, these may be defeated if a bona fide purchaser
acquires a subsequent legal estate without notice of the equitable one.3 The position of
the bona fide purchaser of a legal estate is stated in the case of Pilcher vs. Rawlins 4. For
the purchaser of the legal estate to gain the priority, it is the must to show off that he is
bona fide. Moreover, the purchaser would be interrogated to the valuable consideration
where he has given the opportunity to his bona fide and to prove the presence of the
absence of notice.

The sort of action that the party might lose his priority was culled from the case of
Spouses Abines vs. BPI.5 The Supreme Court has endeavored to lay down certain criteria
to guide lower courts faced with the legal dilemma as to whether the REFORMATION
CASE or the COLLECTION CASE involving different issues and parties should be
dismissed. As a rule, preference is given to the first action filed to be retained. This is in
accordance with the maxim Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure. There are, however,
limitations to this rule. Hence, the first action may be abated if it was filed merely to pre-
empt the later action or to anticipate its filing and lay the basis for its dismissal. Thus,
the bona fides or good faith of the parties is a crucial element. The records of this case

1
thelaw.com law dictionary & Black's Law Dictionary 2nd ed.
2
Philip H. Pettit, (2009), Equity and the law of Trusts, 11th Edition, Oxford University Press, New York.
3
Richard Edwards and Negel Stockwell, (1999), Trust and Equity, 4th Edition, Pearson Education Limited, England.
4
(1872) LR 7 Ch App 250.
5
G.R. No. 167900, February 13, 2006
show that when petitioners filed the REFORMATION CASE, they were not aware of the
pending COLLECTION CASE, thus, it does not appear that the REFORMATION CASE was
filed to vex or harass Respondents. The COLLECTION CASE should subsist because it is
the first action filed and the more appropriate vehicle for litigating all the issues in
controversy.

In the case of Cave vs. Cave6 the question arose of the priority of an equitable interest, a
legal interest and an equitable interest created in that order. The interests were a
beneficial interest under a trust, a legal mortgage created without notice of the prior
beneficial interest and a legal mortgage created without notice of an equitable
mortgage. Applying the legal maxim above, the court held that the beneficial interest
took the priority over the equitable interest because he is the bona fide for value
without notice, neither beneficial owner being at fault.

6
(1880) 15 Ch D 639.