Hanopol v.

Pilapil
G.R. L-19248 – February 28, 1963
J. Barrera

Topic: Double Sale – Sale of Immovables (Unregistered Land)

Plaintiff-Appellant: Iluminado Hanopol

Defendant-Appellee: Perfecto Pilapil

FACTS:
 Case involves a double sale of the same parcel of unregistered land, where both parties are claiming
ownership.
 Hanopol’s Claim: He owns the land by virtue of a series of purchases in 1938, by means of private
instruments by the former owners, the Siapo vendors. He is also relying on a case filed by him against
the Siapo vendors in 1948. CFI of Leyte declaring him the exclusive owner of the land, when there was
a dispute between him and the Siapo siblings.
 Pilapil’s Claim: He said that the Siapo vendors executed a notarized Deed of Sale in his favor on
December 1945, which was then subsequently registered in the Registry of Deeds of Leyte.
 CFI: The CFI ruled in favor of Pilapil based on NCC1544(2)1.

ISSUE + HELD:
1. W/N the judgment in the former case against the vendors Siapos is binding upon Pilapil [NO]
 The case was filed in 1948, when the DoS in favor of Pilapil was executed in 1945. It should be noted
that Pilapil was not made party to that case, and it cannot be claimed that he had knowledge of said
litigation. Since Pilapil was not a party to the action and is not a successor-in-interest by title subsequent
to the commencement of the action, having acquired his title in 1945 and the action filed in 1948, the
decision in said case cannot be binding on him.

2. W/N the registration of the second deed of sale in favor of Pilapil affects his right as the first
vendee
 Hanopol is arguing that, based on Act 3344 (Land Registration Act), Pilapil’s registration shall be
understood to be without prejudice to a third party with a better right. Since it was sold to him prior
1945, then he has a better right, which cannot be prejudiced by the registration of the second sale.
 This contention is untenable. If his theory is correct, then the second paragraph of NCC1544 would have
no application at all except to lands already registered under the Spanish Mortgage Law or the Land
Registration act. Such a theory would thus limit the scope of that codal provision.
 And even if we adopt the view that NCC1544 only applies to registered land, it still cannot be argued
that Hanopol had a “better right” just because he had a previous title or deed of sale. In the Lichauco v.
Berenguer case, it was shown that the term “better right” does not only mean prior ownership. It also
includes other circumstances, such as actual possession of the land.
o In the instant case: There is no showing Hanopol actually took possession of the land. He even
alleged that the Siapo vendors were still occupying the land until Pilapil took possession!

RULING: WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with
costs against the appellant. So ordered.

1
NCC1544: If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person
who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the
possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.