Espiritu vs.

Valerio o Echibit 1 had many irregularities with regards to the

DOUBLE SALES | Dec. 26, 1963 | Dizon thumbarks and signatures.

Digest maker: Claud Issue: WON appellants have a better right since the Deeds of sale in their
SUMMARY: Valerio filed an action to quiet title against Espiritu and favor were registered earlier despite the forgery? – No
Apostol. The deed of sale Valerio presented in evidence was registered
later than the deeds of sale that Espiritu and Apostol presented. However,
 It was proved in the trial court that both deeds of sale presented
it was deemed that the deeds of sale that Espiritu and Apostol presented
by the appellants are forgeries
were forgeries, thus, Valerio had the better right.
 This case concerns the sales of one parcel of land by the same
vendor but in favor of two different vendees. If these were the only
DOCTRINE: Article 1544 provides that if the same immovable thing is sold
issues in this case, there is no question that under Art. 1544 of the
to different vendees the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it
New Civil Code, Exhibit "1" would be considered to be effective as
who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. If there is a
against Exhibit "A", it having been registered prior to Exhibit "A".
forgery, however, the one who has the genuine document shall own it.
 Over and the above the application of Art. 1544 of the New Civil
Code is the determination of whether or not Exhibits "1" and "2"
have been falsified". Having arrived at the conclusion that the two
FACTS:
exhibits just mentioned had been falsified, the trial court rendered
decision on July 23, 1956, "adjudging ownership of the land
 On September 15, 1955 Valerio filed an action to quiet title against
described in the complaint in favor of the plaintiff and hereby
appellants Esperanza Espiritu and her daughter Antonia Apostol,
permanently and definitely enjoins the defendants to abstain and
alleging in his complaint that he was the owner of a parcel of
desist from disturbing and molesting the plaintiff from the peaceful
unregistered land in Pangasinan.
enjoyment and possession of the parcel of land described in the
o He claims to have gotten it from Pelagia Vegilia, the previous
complaint or in any way to interfere personally or by agents in the
owner shown by a deed of sale executed by the latter in his
said peaceful possession by the plaintiff of the land in litigation; the
favor on January 31, 1955, Exhibit A. This was registered on
defendants are hereby further ordered to pay the costs of this
June 16, 1955.
suit."
 Appellants said they were the rightful owners, inheriting it from the
late Santiago Apostol, husband and father of appellants Espiritu
and Apostol respectively
o Santiago bought it from Mariano Vegilia on June 3, 1934, as
evidenced by the deed of sale Exhibit 2
o Mariano acquired it from his niece, Pelagia Vegilia, on May 26,
1932, by virtue of the deed of sale Exhibit 1.
o Both were registered 11 days before the deed of sale to
Espiritu.
 The lower court found that both deeds presented by appellants
were forged:
o Pelagia Vegilia testified that she did not sell the land to
Mariano Vegilia nor did she exectute Exhibit 1
o Mariano Vegilia denied that he bought the said land from
Pelagia Vegilia, and that he sold the same to Santiago
Apostol as recited in Exhibit 2.