G.k. No. L-84S2August 2, 1916 DLAN C. WCkCLS1Lk, p|a|nt|ff-appe||ee,vs. MAk1IN CCAMC and GLkVASIC CCAMC y kLLS, defendants-appe||ants. !CPnSCn, !.: 1hls ls an appeal from an order made by Lhe Ponorables Charles P. SmlLh and norberLo 8omualdez, Lhen [udges of Lhe CourL of Land 8eglsLraLlon, dlrecLlng Lhe cancellaLlon of cerLaln dupllcaLes of cerLlflcaLes of LlLle lssued under Lhe 1orrens sysLemanddlrecLlngLhereglsLraLlonofacerLalndeedexecuLedbyLhesherlffofLheclLyofManllaLoLheplalnLlff hereln. Sald order was made upon Lhe 2d day of SepLember, 1912. SaldorderwasbaseduponLhefacLsconLalnedlnacerLalncommunlcaLlonfrom!oaquln!aramlllo,LhenreglsLerof deeds,asklngLhe[udgesofLheCourLofLand8eglsLraLlonforlnsLrucLlonsconcernlngLhereglsLraLlonofadeedlssued by Lhe sherlff of Lhe clLy of Manlla Lo uean C. WorcesLer. 1he facLs upon whlch Lhe presenL appeal ls based are noL dlspuLed and are besL sLaLed by Lhe sald communlcaLlon lLself. Sald communlcaLlon ls as follows: 8y vlrLue of an execuLlon lssued ouL of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla under daLe of !anuary 26, 1910, ln case no. 6930, enLlLled uean C. WorcesLer vs. MarLln Ccampo, all Lhe rlghL, LlLle and lnLeresL of Lhe laLLer ln Lwo parcels of land reglsLeredlnhlsnameundercerLlflcaLesofLlLlenos.924and963,book4ofLhereglsLry,werelevleduponforLhe purpose of saLlsfylng a [udgmenL of 60,000, a noLlce of Lhe levy ln sald case havlng been enLered upon Lhe back of sald cerLlflcaLes of LlLle on Lhe same daLe, Lo wlL: !anuary 26, 1910. 8y a documenL of prlor daLe Lo sald aLLachmenL, Lo wlL, !anuary 11, 1909, Lhe Lwo parcels menLloned were sold con pacLo de reLracLo by MarLln Ccampo Lo Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes,forLheperlodoffouryearsfromsalddaLe,LhevendorbelngallowedLherlghLLoconLlnueoccupylngLhesald properLlesbypaylnganannualrenLalof130.1hlsdocumenLwasendorsedonLhebackofsaldcerLlflcaLesofLlLleon lebruary 1, 1910. 8y anoLher wrlL of execuLlon, lssued on March 26, 1910, ln Lhe same case no. 6930, all Lhe rlghL, LlLle andlnLeresLofLhedefendanL,MarLlnCcampo,lnLheLwoproperLleswhlchhadbeenlevledupon,weresoldaLpubllc aucLlon and uean C. WorcesLer, as Lhe hlghesL bldder, purchased Lhe same, sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghL of redempLlon whlch Lhe law allows Lo [udgmenL debLors, Lhls sale was also noLed on Lhe back of sald cerLlflcaLes of LlLle on Aprll 11, 1910. 1he perlod of redempLlon havlng explred wlLhouL Lhe [udgmenL debLor havlng exerclsed hls rlghL, Lhe sherlff of Manlla execuLedlnfavorofLhepurchaser,WorcesLer,anabsoluLedeedofsaleofallLherlghL,LlLleandlnLeresLofMarLln Ccampo ln Lhe Lwo parcels above menLloned, whlch had been sold aL publlc aucLlon. 8y vlrLue of Lhls documenL klncald and ParLlgan, as aLLorneys for WorcesLer, now seek Lhe lnscrlpLlon of hls rlghL ln and Lo Lhe sald properLles, so acqulred by hlm aL publlc aucLlon, whlch lnscrlpLlon, lf made, wlll necessarlly requlre Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhose cerLlflcaLes and Lhe lssuance of new ones ln favor of uean C. WorcesLer. Moreover, Lhe sald parcels havlng been sold con pacLo de reLracLo Lo Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes, as above seL forLh, Lhe underslgned ls aL a loss how Lo proceed Lo reglsLer Lhe absoluLe deed of sale execuLed by Lhe Sherlff of Manlla ln favor of uean C. WorcesLer. Wherefore, he asks Lhe asslsLance of Lhls courL ln decldlng Lhe same. lL ls also deslred Lo call Lhe aLLenLlon of Lhe courL Lo Lhe facL LhaL Lhe dupllcaLes of Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle of sald parcels have noL been presenLed ln Lhls offlce and LhaL Lhe clvll sLaLus of WorcesLer does noL appear ln Lhe deed. very respecLfully, (Sgd.) !CACuln !A8AMlLLC,8eglsLer of ueeds, Manlla, . l. 1hedeclslonofLhe[udgesofLheCourLofLand8eglsLraLlonwasbasedsolelyuponLhefacLssLaLedlnsald communlcaLlon.1heonlyoLherproofsubmlLLedLosald[udgeswassomeproofrelaLlngLoLheclvllsLaLusofueanC. WorcesLer. AfLer a full hearlng accorded Lo all of Lhe lnLeresLed parLles and a conslderaLlon of Lhe facLs and Lhe law relaLlng LhereLo, LhePonorableCharlesP.SmlLhandLhePonorablenorberLo8omualdez,[udgesofLheCourLofLand8eglsLraLlon, rendered a declslon, Lhe lmporLanL parLs of whlch are as follows: 1hequesLlonpresenLedherelswheLherornoLanabsoluLedeedofsaleexecuLedbyLhesherlffofManllaLoueanC. WorcesLer should be reglsLered ln hls name. 1he deed was made pursuanL Lo a sale aL publlc aucLlon by vlrLue of a wrlL ofexecuLlonlssuedonLwoparcelsofrealesLaLereglsLeredlnLhenameofMarLlnCcampoundercerLlflcaLesofLlLle nos. 924 and 963, book 4 of Lhe reglsLry, and lssued under Lhe provlslons of AcL no. 496. 1he wrlL of execuLlon was lssued by Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of Manlla, on !anuary 26, 1910, ln case no. 6930, enLlLled ueanC.WorcesLervs.MarLlnCcampo,LhenoLlceofLhelevymadebyvlrLueofsaldorderofexecuLlonhavlngbeen endorsed on Lhe sald cerLlflcaLes of LlLle on Lhe same daLe, Lo wlL, !anuary 26, 1910. 1he doubL whlch ls Lhe cause of Lhe presenL consulLa arlses from Lhe facL LhaL Lhe parcels of land above menLloned were sold on !anuary 11, 1909, by MarLln Ccampo Lo Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes, con pacLo de reLracLo, Lhe sald documenL of sale noL havlng been reglsLered unLll Lhe 1sL of lebruary, 1910. 1hequesLlonseemclearLous.1reaLlngofproperLyreglsLeredunderLhe1orrenssysLem,aslnLhepresenLcase,and underAcLno.496,LhedeedofsaleconpacLodereLracLoexecuLedbyMarLlnCcampolnfavorofCervasloCcampo producednoeffecLwhaLsoeverasadeedofsuchLransfer(norwaslLanencumbranceonLheproperLy,buLonly consLlLuLedaconLracLbeLweenLheparLlesandasauLhorlLyforLhereglsLerofdeedsLomakeLhecorrespondlng lnscrlpLlon), excepL from Lhe momenL of lLs flllng or reglsLraLlon, LhaL ls Lo say, from Lhe flrsL day of lebruary, 1910. As on a daLe prlor Lo Lhe flrsL day of lebruary, 1910, Lo wlL, !anuary 26 of sald year, Lhe flnal levy on sald properLles ln favor of uean C. WorcesLer, had already been noLed whlch noLlce produced all Lhe effecLs prescrlbed ln secLlon 31 of AcL no. 496, lL been Lhe flnal levy, by vlrLue of whlch Lhe publlc aucLlon was conducLed and Lhe sherlff havlng execuLed Lhe deed of sale ln favor of WorcesLer, lL ls evldenL LhaL Lhe sald levy and sale made by Lhe sherlff Lakes precedence over Lhe deed of sale con pacLo de reLracLo execuLed by MarLln Ccampo ln favor of Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes. SecLlons 30 and 31 of AcL no. 496, provlde: SLC. 30. An owner of reglsLered land may convey, morLgage, lease, charge, or oLherwlse deal wlLh Lhe same as fully as lf lL had noL been reglsLered. Pe may use forms of deeds, morLgages, leases, or oLher volunLary lnsLrumenLs llke Lhose now lnuseandsufflclenLlnlawforLhepurposelnLended.8uLnodeed,morLgage,lease,oroLhervolunLarylnsLrumenL, excepL a wlll, purporLlng Lo convey or affecL reglsLered land, shall Lake effecL as a conveyance or blnd Lhe land, buL shall operaLeonlyasaconLracLbeLweenLheparLlesandasevldenceofauLhorlLyLoLheclerkorreglsLerofdeedsLomake reglsLraLlon.1heacLofreglsLraLlonshallbeLheoperaLlveacLLoconveyandaffecLLheland,andlnallcasesunderLhls AcL Lhe reglsLraLlon shall be made ln Lhe offlce of reglsLer of deeds for Lhe provlnce or provlnces or clLy where Lhe land lles. SLC. 31. Lveryconveyance,morLgage,lease,llen,aLLachmenL,order,decree,lnsLrumenL,orenLryaffecLlngreglsLered land whlch would under exlsLlng laws, lf recorded, flled, or enLered ln Lhe offlce of Lhe reglsLer of deeds, affecL Lhe real esLaLe Lo whlch lL relaLes shall, lf reglsLered, flled, or enLered ln Lhe offlce of Lhe reglsLer of deeds ln Lhe provlnce or clLy whereLherealesLaLeLowhlchsuchlnsLrumenLrelaLeslles,benoLlceLoallpersonsfromLheLlmeofsuchreglsLerlng, flllng, or enLerlng.' Cur Supreme CourL has declded cases analogous Lo Lhe presenL Lo Lhe same effecL, as can be seen ln Lhe cases of Llong Wong Shlh vs. Sunlco (8 hll. 8ep., 91), 1ablgue vs. Creen (11 hll. 8ep., 102), and 8uzon vs. Llcauco (13 hll. 8ep., 334). As Lo Lhe sLaLemenL of Lhe reglsLer of deeds Louchlng on Lhe facL LhaL Lhe dupllcaLes of Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle referred Lo had noL been presenLed ln hls offlce and LhaL Lhe clvll sLaLus of WorcesLer dld noL appear ln Lhe deed, lL was shown on LhehearlngofLhlscaseLhaLLhesalddupllcaLecerLlflcaLesarelnLhepossesslonofMarLlnCcampoandLhaLueanC. WorcesLer ls marrled Lo nanon L. WorcesLer, as shown by Lhe LesLlmony of klncald, who was a wlLness ln Lhe case. Wherefore, ln vlew of Lhe foregolng lL ls decreed: 1.1haL MarLln Ccampo dellver up Lo Lhe offlce of Lhe reglsLer of deeds of Manlla Lhe dupllcaLes of Lhe cerLlflcaLes ofLlLlenos.924and963,book4ofLhereglsLryreferrlngLocerLalnoLherproperLleslnscrlbedlnhlsname,andhels hereby ordered so Lo do. 2.1haLLhereglsLerofdeedsofManllacancelLhecerLlflcaLesofLlLlemenLlonedlnLheprecedlngparagraphand reglsLerLheabsoluLedeedofsaleexecuLedbyLhesherlffofManllalnfavorofueanC.WorcesLer,enLerlngLhe correspondlng cerLlflcaLes and dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLe Lhereof. 3.1haL noLlce of Lhls declslon, by Lhe malllng of a cerLlfled copy of same, be glven Lo Lhe ALLorney-Ceneral of Lhe hlllpplnelslands,LhereglsLerofdeedsofLheclLyofManlla,klncald,ParLlgan&Lahesa,ueanC.WorcesLer,vlcenLe llusLre, MarLln Ccampo, and Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes. So ordered. lrom Lhe declslon of Lhe sald [udges Lhe aLLorney for Lhe sald Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes appealed Lo Lhls courL and made Lhe followlng asslgnmenL of error: ln orderlng Lhe cancellaLlon of Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle lssued Lo MarLln Ccampo, bearlng Lhe correspondlng lndorsemenL of Lhe sale wlLh pacLo de reLro Lo Lhe appellanL Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes and orderlng Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe absoluLe deedofsaleexecuLedbyLhesherlffofManllalnfavorofueanC.WorcesLerandLheenLryofLhecorrespondlng cerLlflcaLes and dupllcaLe cerLlflcaLes ln Lhe name of Lhe laLLer. under sald asslgnmenL of error Lhe appellanL conLends, LhaL Lhe only rlghL whlch Lhe plalnLlff purchased was Lhe rlghL of repurchaseofLhesaldMarLlnCcampo,lnoLherwords,LheconLenLlonofLheappellanLlsLhaL,lnvlewofLhefacLLhaL MarLln Ccampo had sold Lhe parcels of land ln quesLlon Lo Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes, under a pacLo de reLracLo, Lhe only lnLeresL whlch he had remalnlng ln Lhe land was Lhe rlghL Lo repurchase Lhe same wlLhlnLheperlodmenLlonedlnsald conLracLandLhaLLhereforeLheonlylnLeresLwhlchwassoldbyLhesherlffwasLherlghLLorepurchase,LhaLbelngLhe only rlghL whlch MarLln Ccampo had ln Lhe parcels of land ln quesLlon aL Lhe Llme of Lhe sherlff's sale. ln LhaL conLenLlon LheappellanLhasoverlookedLheprovlslonsofsecLlons30and31ofAcLno.496.PehasoverlookedLhefacLLhaLLhe sald conLracL of condlLlonal sale by MarLln Ccampo Lo hlm was noL reglsLered or noLed ln Lhe reglsLry unLll several days afLerLheaLLachmenLuponLhe[udgmenLlnfavorofWorcesLerhadbeenmadeandhadbeennoLedlnLhereglsLryof properLy. Sald secLlon 30 (AcL no. 496) provldes LhaL: AnownerofreglsLeredlandmayconvey,morLgage....oroLherwlsedealwlLhLhesameasfullyaslflLhadnoLbeen reglsLered. . . . 8uL no deed, morLgage, . . . . or oLher volunLary lnsLrumenL, excepL a wlll, purporLlng Lhe convey or affecL reglsLeredlandshallLakeeffecLasaconveyanceorblndLheland,buLshalloperaLeonlyasaconLracLbeLweenLhe parLles and as evldence of auLhorlLy Lo Lhe clerk of reglsLer of deeds Lo make reglsLraLlon. 1he acL of reglsLraLlon shall be Lhe operaLlve acL Lo convey and affecL Lhe land, eLc. SecLlon 31 of sald AcL (496) provldes LhaL: Lvery conveyance, morLgage . . . . aLLachmenL, order, . . . . or enLry affecLlng reglsLered land whlch would under exlsLlng laws, lf recorded, flled, or enLered ln Lhe offlce of Lhe reglsLer of deeds, affecL Lhe real esLaLe Lo whlch lL relaLes shall, lf reglsLered,flled,orenLeredlnLheofflceofLhereglsLerofdeeds,...benoLlceLoallpersonsfromLheLlmeofsuch reglsLerlng, flllng, or enLerlng. lf, Lhen, ever conveyance or aLLachmenL when recorded, flled, or enLered ln Lhe offlce of Lhe reglsLer of deeds, shall be noLlceLoallpersonsfromLheLlmeofsuchreglsLerlng,flllngorenLerlng,LhenCervasloCcampoy8eyescannoLplead lgnoranceofLheexlsLenceofLherlghLsacqulredbyWorcesLerunderhlsaLLachmenLwhlchwasdulyrecordedlnLhe offlceofLhereglsLerofdeedsseveraldaysbeforeLherewasanyaLLempLLorecordorflleorreglsLerLhepacLode reLracLo. SaldsecLlon30clearlyprovldesLhaLwhenreglsLeredlandlsconveyed,morLgaged,leased,oroLherwlsedealLhwlLh, such conveyance, morLgage, eLc., shall noL affecL or convey Lhe land unLll such conveyance, morLgage, eLc., ls recorded orflledorenLeredlnLheofflceofLhereglsLerofdeeds.lromsaldprovlslonlLlsclearLhen,LhaLbyreasonofLhefacL LhaLLhesaldpacLodereLracLowasnoLrecorded,flled,orenLeredlnLheofflceofLhereglsLerofdeedsunLllafLerLhe plalnLlff had secured hls llen by aLLachmenL, LhaL Cervaslo Ccampo y 8eyes acqulred hls rlghL sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghLs of Lhe plalnLlff hereln. Pls rlghL belng sub[ecL Lo Lhe rlghLs of Lhe plalnLlff, lL cannoL be enforced agalnsL Lhe land unLll afLer Lhe rlghLs of Lhe plalnLlff have been fully saLlsfled. no clalm ls made by Lhe appellanL LhaL Lhere were any rlghLs lefL ln sald parcel of land over and above Lhe rlghLs of Lhe plalnLlff. And,moreover,LhlslsnoLLheflrsLLlmeLhequesLlonwhlchwearedlscusslnghasbeenpresenLedLoLhlscourL. Analogous quesLlons were presenLed ln Lhe cases of Llong-Wong-Shlh vs. Sunlco and eLerson (8 hll. 8ep., 91), 1ablgue vs. Creen (11 hll. 8ep., 102), 8uzon vs. Llcauco (13 hll. 8ep., 334). AfLeracarefulexamlnaLlonofLhefacLsandofLhelawappllcableLhereLo,weareofLheoplnlonLhaLnoerrorwas commlLLed by Lhe lower courL ln lLs [udgmenL and order. 1herefore Lhe same ls hereby afflrmed wlLh cosLs. So ordered. C.8. no. 200173 Aprll 13, 2013 SS. LSMLkALDC D. VALLIDC and AkSLNIA M. V ALLIDC, rep. by A11. SLkGIC C. SUMACD, et|t|oners,vs. SS.LLMLkCNCandIULIL1CNC,andUkIIICACICNCLkNA-CNGandSS.MAkIANI1CCNCandLSLkAN2A MLkC-CNC, kespondents. MLnuCZA, !.: 1hlslsapeLlLlonforrevlewoncerLlorarlassalllngLheuecember8,2011ueclslonofLheCourLofAppeals(CA)whlch reversedandseLasldeLhe!uly20,2004ueclslonofLhe8eglonal1rlalCourL,8ranch12,CrmocClLy(81C).acase lnvolvlng a double sale of a parcel of land. lL appears LhaL MarLlno uandan (MarLlno) was Lhe reglsLered owner of a parcel of land ln kananga, LeyLe, wlLh an area of 28,214 square meLers, granLed under PomesLead aLenL no. v-21313 on november 11, 1933 and covered by Crlglnal CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle (CC1) no. -429. Cn!anuary4,1960,MarLlno,whowasaLLhaLLlmellvlnglnkananga,LeyLe,soldaporLlonofLhesub[ecLproperLy equlvalenLLo18,214squaremeLersLorespondenLurlflcaclonCerna(urlflcaclon).uponexecuLlonofLheueedof AbsoluLe Sale, MarLlno gave urlflcaclon Lhe owner's copy of CC1 no. -429. 1he Lransfer, however, was noL recorded ln Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds. Cn May 4, 1973, urlflcaclon sold her18,214 square meLer porLlon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy Lo respondenL MarlanlLo ono (MarlanlLo) and also dellvered CC1 no. -429 Lo hlm. MarlanlLo reglsLered Lhe porLlon he boughL for LaxaLlon purposes, paldlLsLaxes,Lookpossesslon,andallowedhlssonrespondenLLlmerono(Llmer)anddaughLer-ln-law,!ulleLono (!ulleL),LoconsLrucLahouseLhereon.MarlanlLokepLCC1no.-429.1heLransfer,however,wasalsonoLrecordedln Lhe 8eglsLry of ueeds. Meanwhlle, MarLlno lefL kananga, LeyLe, and wenL Lo San 8afael lll, noveleLa, CavlLe, and re-seLLled Lhere. Cn !une 14, 1990,hesoldLhewholesub[ecLproperLyLohlsgrandson,peLlLlonerLsmeraldovallldo(Lsmeraldo),alsoaresldenLof noveleLa,CavlLe.ConslderlngLhaLMarLlnohaddellveredCC1no.-429Lourlflcaclonln1960,henolongerhadany cerLlflcaLe of LlLle Lo hand over Lo Lsmeraldo. CnMay7,1997,MarLlnoflledapeLlLlonseeklngforLhelssuanceofanewowner'sdupllcaLecopyofCC1no.-429, whlchheclalmedwaslosL.PesLaLedLhaLhecouldnoLrecallhavlngdellveredLhesaldowner'sdupllcaLecopyLo anybodyLosecurepaymenLorperformanceofanylegalobllgaLlon.Cn!une8,1998,LhepeLlLlonwasgranLedbyLhe 81C,8ranch12ofCrmocClLy.CnSepLember17,1999,LsmeraldoreglsLeredLhedeedofsalelnLhe8eglsLryofueeds and 1ransfer CerLlflcaLe of 1lLle (1C1) no. 1-13294 was LhereafLer lssued ln Lhe name of Lhe peLlLloners. SubsequenLly,LhepeLlLlonersflledbeforeLhe81CacomplalnLforquleLlngofLlLle,recoveryofpossesslonofreal properLyanddamagesagalnsLLherespondenLs.lnLhelrAnswer,respondenLsLlmerand!ulleLaverredLhaLLhelr occupaLlon of Lhe properLy was upon permlsslon of MarlanlLo. 1hey lncluded a hlsLorlcal chronology of Lhe LransacLlons from LhaL beLween MarLlno and urlflcaclon Lo LhaL beLween urlflcaclon and MarlanlLo. Cn !uly 20, 2004, Lhe 81C promulgaLed a declslon1 favorlng Lhe peLlLloners. 1he 81C held LhaL Lhere was a double sale underArLlcle1344ofLheClvllCode.1herespondenLswereLheflrsLbuyerswhlleLhepeLlLlonerswereLhesecond buyers. 1he 81C deemed Lhe peLlLloners as buyers ln good falLh because durlng Lhe sale on !une 4, 1990, CC1 no. -429 was clean and free from all llens. 1he peLlLloners were also deemed reglsLranLs ln good falLh because aL Lhe Llme of Lhe reglsLraLlon of Lhe deed of sale, boLh CC1 no. -429 and 1C1 no. 1-13294 dld noL bear any annoLaLlon or mark of any llen or encumbrance. 1he 81C concluded LhaL because Lhe peLlLloners reglsLered Lhe sale ln Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds, Lhey had a beLLer rlghL over Lhe respondenLs. Aggrleved, Lhe respondenLs flled Lhelr noLlce of Appeal on AugusL 27, 2004. ln Lhe assalled ueclslon,2 daLed uecember 8, 2011, Lhe CA ruled ln favor of Lhe respondenLs. 1he CA agreed LhaL Lhere wasadoublesale.lL,however,heldLhaLLhepeLlLlonerswerenelLherbuyersnorreglsLranLslngoodfalLh.1he respondenLs lndlspuLably were occupylng Lhe sub[ecL land. lL wroLe LhaL where Lhe land sold was ln Lhe possesslon of a person oLher Lhan Lhe vendor, Lhe purchaser musL go beyond Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle and make lnqulrles concernlng Lhe rlghLsofLheacLualpossessors.lLfurLhersLaLedLhaLmerereglsLraLlonofLhesalewasnoLenoughasgoodfalLhmusL concur wlLh Lhe reglsLraLlon. 1hus, lL ruled LhaL Lhe peLlLloners falled Lo dlscharge Lhe burden of provlng LhaL Lhey were buyersandreglsLranLslngoodfalLh.Accordlngly,LheCAconcludedLhaLbecauseLhesaleLourlflcaclonLookplaceln 1960, LhlrLy (30) years prlor Lo Lsmeraldo's acqulslLlon ln 1990, Lhe respondenLs had a beLLer rlghL Lo Lhe properLy. Pence, Lhls peLlLlon. 1he peLlLloners argue LhaL Lhe CA erred ln rullng ln favor of Lhe respondenLs. rlmarlly, Lhey conLend LhaL Lhe AppellanL's 8rlefwasflledbeyondLhe30-dayexLenslonperlodgranLedbyLheCAandLhaLLheflndlngsoffacLofLhe81Cwere no longer sub[ecL Lo revlew and should noL have been dlsLurbed on appeal. 1heylnvokeLhaLLheyarebuyersandreglsLranLslngoodfalLh.1heyclalmLhaLLheLlLleofLhelandwascleanandfree from any and all llens and encumbrances from Lhe Llme of Lhe sale up Lo Lhe Llme of lLs reglsLraLlon. 1hey also aver LhaL LheyhadnoknowledgeofLhesalebeLweenMarLlnoandurlflcaclonon!uly4,1960asLheyhavebeenresldenLsof noveleLa, CavlLe, whlch ls very far from 8rgy. Masarayao, kananga, LeyLe. When Lsmeraldo confronLed hls grandfaLher, MarLlno, abouL Lhe !uly 4, 1960 sale Lo urlflcaclon, he Look as gospel LruLh Lhe vehemenL denlal of hls grandfaLher on LheexlsLenceofLhesale.1helaLLerexplalnedLhaLLheLransacLlonwasonlyamorLgage.1hesefacLsshowLhaLlndeed Lhey were buyers and reglsLranLs ln good falLh. 1hus, Lhelr rlghL of ownershlp ls preferred agalnsL Lhe unreglsLered clalm of Lhe respondenLs. 1he peLlLlon ls wlLhouL merlL. Cn Lhe procedural aspecL, lL was Lhe rullng of Lhe CA LhaL Lhe respondenLs were deemed Lo have flled Lhelr AppellanL's 8rlef wlLhln Lhe reglemenLary perlod.3 1he CourL accepLs LhaL as lL was merely a Lechnlcal lssue. 1he core lssue ln Lhls case ls wheLher Lhe peLlLloners are buyers and reglsLranLs ln good falLh. lLlsundlspuLedLhaLLherelsadoublesaleandLhaLLherespondenLsareLheflrsLbuyerswhlleLhepeLlLlonersareLhe second buyers. 1he burden of provlng good falLh lles wlLh Lhe second buyer (peLlLloners hereln) whlch ls noL dlscharged by slmply lnvoklng Lhe ordlnary presumpLlon of good falLh.4 AfLer an asslduous assessmenL of Lhe evldenLlary records, Lhls CourL holds LhaL Lhe peLlLloners are nC1 buyers ln good falLh as Lhey falled Lo dlscharge Lhelr burden of proof. noLably,lLlsadmlLLedLhaLMarLlnolsLhegrandfaLherofLsmeraldo.Asanhelr,peLlLlonerLsmeraldocannoLbe consldered as a Lhlrd parLy Lo Lhe prlor LransacLlon beLween MarLlno and urlflcaclon. ln llapll v. CourL of Appeals,3 lL was wrlLLen: 1he purpose of Lhe reglsLraLlon ls Lo glve noLlce Lo Lhlrd persons. And, prlvles are noL Lhlrd persons. 1he vendor's helrs arehlsprlvles.AgalnsLLhem,fallureLoreglsLerwlllnoLvlLlaLeorannulLhevendee'srlghLofownershlpconferredby such unreglsLered deed of sale. 1henon-reglsLraLlonofLhedeedofsalebeLweenMarLlnoandurlflcaclonlslmmaLerlalaslLlsblndlngonLhe peLlLloners who are prlvles.6 8ased on Lhe prlvlLy beLween peLlLloner Lsmeraldo and MarLlno, Lhe peLlLloner as a second buyer ls charged wlLh consLrucLlve knowledge of prlor dlsposlLlons or encumbrances affecLlng Lhe sub[ecL properLy. 1he second buyer who has acLual or consLrucLlve knowledge of Lhe prlor sale cannoL be a reglsLranL ln good falLh.7 Moreover,alLhoughlLlsarecognlzedprlnclpleLhaLapersondeallngonareglsLeredlandneednoLgobeyondlLs cerLlflcaLeofLlLle,lLlsalsoaflrmlyseLLledruleLhaLwhereLhereareclrcumsLanceswhlchwouldpuLaparLyonguard andprompLhlmLolnvesLlgaLeorlnspecLLheproperLybelngsoldLohlm,suchasLhepresenceofoccupanLs/LenanLs Lhereon,lLlsexpecLedfromLhepurchaserofavaluedpleceoflandLolnqulreflrsLlnLoLhesLaLusornaLureof possesslon of Lhe occupanLs. As ln Lhe common pracLlce ln Lhe real esLaLe lndusLry, an ocular lnspecLlon of Lhe premlses lnvolved ls a safeguard LhaL a cauLlous and prudenL purchaser usually Lakes. Should he flnd ouL LhaL Lhe land he lnLends Lo buy ls occupled by anybody else oLher Lhan Lhe seller who, as ln Lhls case, ls noL ln acLual possesslon, lL would Lhen be lncumbenL upon Lhe purchaser Lo verlfy Lhe exLenL of Lhe occupanL's possessory rlghLs. 1hefallureofaprospecLlvebuyerLoLakesuchprecauLlonarysLepswouldmeannegllgenceonhlsparLandwould preclude hlm from clalmlng or lnvoklng Lhe rlghLs of a "purchaser ln good falLh."8 lL has been held LhaL "Lhe reglsLraLlon of a laLer sale musL be done ln good falLh Lo enLlLle Lhe reglsLranL Lo prlorlLy ln ownershlp over Lhe vendee ln an earller sale."9 1here are several lndlcla LhaL should have placed Lhe peLlLloners on guard and prompLed Lhem Lo lnvesLlgaLe or lnspecL Lhe properLy belng sold Lo Lhem. llrsL, MarLlno, as seller, dld noL have possesslon of Lhe sub[ecL properLy. Second, durlng Lhesaleon!uly4,1990,MarLlnodldnoLhaveLheowner'sdupllcaLecopyofLheLlLle.1hlrd,LherewereexlsLlng permanenLlmprovemenLsonLheland.lourLh,LherespondenLswerelnacLualpossesslonofLheland.1hese clrcumsLancesareLooglarlngLobeoverlookedandshouldhaveprompLedLhepeLlLloners,asprospecLlvebuyers,Lo lnvesLlgaLeorlnspecLLheland.WhereLhevendorlsnoLlnpossesslonofLheproperLy,LheprospecLlvevendeesare obllgaLed Lo lnvesLlgaLe Lhe rlghLs of one ln possesslon.10 WhenconfronLedbyLsmeraldoonLheallegedprevloussale,MarLlnodeclaredLhaLLherewasnosalebuLonlya morLgage.1hepeLlLlonersLookLhedeclaraLlonofMarLlnoasgospelLruLhorexcaLhedra.111hepeLlLlonersarenoL convlnclng.Clarlngly,MarLlnogaveconfllcLlngsLaLemenLs.PesLaLedlnhlseLlLlonforlssuanceofnewCwner's uupllcaLeCopyofC1C12LhaLhecouldnoLrecallhavlngdellveredLheowner'sdupllcaLecopyLoanybodyLosecure paymenL or performance of any obllgaLlon. ?eL, when confronLed by Lsmeraldo, MarLlno sLaLed LhaL he morLgaged Lhe land wlLh urlflcaclon. 1he clalms of MarLlno, as relayed by Lhe peLlLloners, cannoL be relled upon. As Lhe peLlLloners cannoL be consldered buyers ln good falLh, Lhey cannoL lean on Lhe lndefeaslblllLy of Lhelr 1C1 ln vlew ofLhedocLrlneLhaLLhedefenseoflndefeaslblllLyofaLorrensLlLledoesnoLexLendLoLransfereeswhoLakeLhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle ln bad falLh.13 1he CourL cannoL ascrlbe good falLh Lo Lhose who have noL shown any dlllgence ln proLecLlng Lhelr rlghLs.14 LasLly,lLlsunconLroverLedLhaLLherespondenLswereoccupylngLhelandslnce!anuary4,1960basedonLhedeedof salebeLweenMarLlnoandurlLlcaclon.1heyhavealsomadelmprovemenLsonLhelandbyerecLlngahouseofmlxed permanenLmaLerlalsLhereon,whlchwasalsoadmlLLedbyLhepeLlLloners.131herespondenLs,wlLhouLadoubL,are possessorslngoodfalLh.CwnershlpshouldLhereforevesLlnLherespondenLsbecauseLheywereflrsLlnpossesslonof Lhe properLy ln good falLh.16 G.k. No. 17040S Iebruary 2, 2010 kAMUNDC S. DL LLCN, et|t|oner,vs. 8LNI1A 1. CNG. kespondent. CC8CnA, !.: Cn March 10, 1993, peLlLloner 8aymundo S. de Leon sold Lhree parcels of land2 wlLh lmprovemenLs slLuaLed ln AnLlpolo, 8lzalLorespondenL8enlLa1.Cng.AsLheseproperLlesweremorLgagedLo8ealSavlngsandLoanAssoclaLlon, lncorporaLed(8SLAl),peLlLlonerandrespondenLexecuLedanoLarlzeddeedofabsoluLesalewlLhassumpLlonof morLgage3 sLaLlng: x x x x x xx x x 1haLforandlnconslderaLlonofLhesumofCnLMlLLlCnCnLPunu8Lu1PCuSAnuLSCS(1.1mllllon),hlllpplne currency,LherecelpLwhereoflsherebyacknowledgedfrom[8LSCnuLn1]LoLheenLlresaLlsfacLlonof[L1l1lCnL8], sald [L1l1lCnL8] does hereby sell, Lransfer and convey ln a manner absoluLe and lrrevocable, unLo sald [8LSCnuLn1], hlshelrsandasslgnsLhaLcerLalnrealesLaLeLogeLherwlLhLhebulldlngsandoLherlmprovemenLsexlsLlngLhereon, slLuaLed ln [8arrlo] MayamoL, AnLlpolo, 8lzal under Lhe followlng Lerms and condlLlons: 1.1haLuponfullpaymenLof[respondenL]ofLheamounLoflCu8Punu8Lulll1LLn1PCuSAnullvLPunu8Lu (413,000),[peLlLloner]shallexecuLeandslgnadeedofassumpLlonofmorLgagelnfavorof[respondenL]wlLhouLany furLher cosL whaLsoever, 2.1haL[respondenL]shallassumepaymenLofLheouLsLandlngloanofSlxPunu8LuLlCP1?lCu81PCuSAnullvL Punu8Lu LSCS (684,300) wlLh 8LAL SAvlnCS Anu LCAn,4 CalnLa, 8lzal. (emphasls supplled) x x x x x xx x x ursuanLLoLhlsdeed,respondenLgavepeLlLloner413,300asparLlalpaymenL.eLlLloner,onLheoLherhand,handed LhekeysLoLheproperLlesandwroLealeLLerlnformlng8SLAlofLhesaleandauLhorlzlnglLLoaccepLpaymenLfrom respondenL and release Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle. 1hereafLer,respondenLunderLookrepalrsandmadelmprovemenLsonLheproperLles.38espondenLllkewlselnformed 8SLAl of her agreemenL wlLh peLlLloner for her Lo assume peLlLloner's ouLsLandlng loan. 8SLAl requlred her Lo undergo credlL lnvesLlgaLlon. SubsequenLly,respondenLlearnedLhaLpeLlLloneragalnsoldLhesameproperLlesLooneLeonavllorlaafLerMarch10, 1993andchangedLhelocks,renderlngLhekeyshegaveheruseless.8espondenLLhusproceededLo8SLAlLolnqulre abouLLhecredlLlnvesLlgaLlon.Powever,shewaslnformedLhaLpeLlLlonerhadalreadypaldLheamounLdueandhad Laken back Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle. 8espondenL perslsLenLly conLacLed peLlLloner buL her efforLs proved fuLlle. Cn!une18,1993,respondenLflledacomplalnLforspeclflcperformance,declaraLlonofnulllLyofLhesecondsaleand damages6 agalnsL peLlLloner and vllorla ln Lhe 8eglonal 1rlal CourL (81C) of AnLlpolo, 8lzal, 8ranch 74. She clalmed LhaL slnce peLlLloner had prevlously sold Lhe properLles Lo her on March 10, 1993, he no longer had Lhe rlghL Lo sell Lhe same Lo vllorla. 1hus, peLlLloner fraudulenLly deprlved her of Lhe properLles. eLlLloner,onLheoLherhand,lnslsLedLhaLrespondenLdldnoLhaveacauseofacLlonagalnsLhlmandconsequenLly prayedforLhedlsmlssalofLhecomplalnL.PeclalmedLhaLslnceLheLransacLlonwassub[ecLLoacondlLlon(l.e.,LhaL 8SLAl approve Lhe assumpLlon of morLgage), Lhey only enLered lnLo a conLracL Lo sell. lnasmuch as respondenL dld apply for a loan from 8SLAl, Lhe condlLlon dld noL arlse. ConsequenLly, Lhe sale was noL perfecLed and he could freely dlspose of Lhe properLles. lurLhermore, he made a counLer-clalm for damages as respondenL flled Lhe complalnL allegedly wlLh gross and evldenL bad falLh. 8ecause respondenL was a llcensed real esLaLe broker, Lhe 81C concluded LhaL she knew LhaL Lhe valldlLy of Lhe sale was sub[ecLLoacondlLlon.1heperfecLlonofaconLracLofsaledependedon8SLAl'sapprovalofLheassumpLlonof morLgage. Slnce 8SLAl dld noL allow respondenL Lo assume peLlLloner's obllgaLlon, Lhe 81C held LhaL Lhe sale was never perfecLed. lnadeclslondaLedAugusL27,1999,7Lhe81CdlsmlssedLhecomplalnLforlackofcauseofacLlonandordered respondenL Lo pay peLlLloner 100,000 moral damages, 20,000 aLLorney's fees and Lhe cosL of sulL. Aggrleved,respondenLappealedLoLheCourLofAppeals(CA),8asserLlngLhaLLhecourLaquoerredlndlsmlsslngLhe complalnL. 1heCAfoundLhaLLheMarch10,2003conLracLexecuLedbyLheparLlesdldnoLlmposeanycondlLlononLhesaleand held LhaL Lhe parLles enLered lnLo a conLracL of sale. ConsequenLly, because peLlLloner no longer owned Lhe properLles whenhesoldLhemLovllorla,lLdeclaredLhesecondsalevold.Moreover,lLfoundpeLlLlonerllableformoraland exemplary damages for fraudulenLly deprlvlng respondenL of Lhe properLles. lnadeclslondaLed!uly22,2003,9LheCAupheldLhesaleLorespondenLandnulllfledLhesaleLovllorla.lLllkewlse ordered respondenL Lo relmburse peLlLloner 713,230 (or Lhe amounL he pald Lo 8SLAl). eLlLloner, on Lhe oLher hand, wasorderedLodellverLhecerLlflcaLesofLlLlesLorespondenLandpayher30,000moraldamagesand13,000 exemplary damages. eLlLlonermovedforreconslderaLlonbuLlLwasdenledlnaresoluLlondaLednovember11,2003.10Pence,Lhls peLlLlon,11 wlLh Lhe sole lssue belng wheLher Lhe parLles enLered lnLo a conLracL of sale or a conLracL Lo sell. eLlLloner lnslsLs LhaL he enLered lnLo a conLracL Lo sell slnce Lhe valldlLy of Lhe LransacLlon was sub[ecL Lo a suspenslve condlLlon,LhaLls,Lheapprovalby8SLAlofrespondenL'sassumpLlonofmorLgage.8ecause8SLAldldnoLallow respondenL Lo assume hls (peLlLloner's) obllgaLlon, Lhe condlLlon never maLerlallzed. ConsequenLly, Lhere was no sale. 8espondenL,onLheoLherhand,asserLsLhaLLheyenLeredlnLoaconLracLofsaleaspeLlLloneralreadyconveyedfull ownershlp of Lhe sub[ecL properLles upon Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed. We modlfy Lhe declslon of Lhe CA. ConLracL of Sale or ConLracL Lo Sell? 1he 81C and Lhe CA had confllcLlng lnLerpreLaLlons of Lhe March 10, 1993 deed. 1he 81C ruled LhaL lL was a conLracL Lo sell whlle Lhe CA held LhaL lL was a conLracL of sale. lnaconLracLofsale,LhesellerconveysownershlpofLheproperLyLoLhebuyeruponLheperfecLlonofLheconLracL. ShouldLhebuyerdefaulLlnLhepaymenLofLhepurchaseprlce,LhesellermayelLhersueforLhecollecLlonLhereofor haveLheconLracL[udlclallyresolvedandseLaslde.1henon-paymenLofLheprlcelsLhereforeanegaLlveresoluLory condlLlon.12 Cn Lhe oLher hand, a conLracL Lo sell ls sub[ecL Lo a poslLlve suspenslve condlLlon. 1he buyer does noL acqulre ownershlp of Lhe properLy unLll he fully pays Lhe purchase prlce. lor Lhls reason, lf Lhe buyer defaulLs ln Lhe paymenL Lhereof, Lhe seller can only sue for damages.13 1hedeedexecuLedbyLheparLles(asprevlouslyquoLed)sLaLedLhaLpeLlLlonersoldLheproperLlesLorespondenL"lna mannerabsoluLeandlrrevocable"forasumof1.1mllllon.14WlLhregardLoLhemannerofpaymenL,lLrequlred respondenL Lo pay 413,300 ln cash Lo peLlLloner upon Lhe execuLlon of Lhe deed, wlLh Lhe balance13 payable dlrecLly Lo 8SLAl (on behalf of peLlLloner) wlLhln a reasonable Llme.16 noLhlng ln sald lnsLrumenL lmplled LhaL peLlLloner reserved ownershlp of Lhe properLles unLll Lhe full paymenL of Lhe purchase prlce.17 Cn Lhe conLrary, Lhe Lerms and condlLlons of LhedeedonlyaffecLedLhemannerofpaymenL,noLLhelmmedlaLeLransferofownershlp(uponLheexecuLlonofLhe noLarlzedconLracL)frompeLlLlonerassellerLorespondenLasbuyer.CLherwlsesLaLed,LhesaldLermsandcondlLlons perLalned Lo Lhe performance of Lhe conLracL, noL Lhe perfecLlon Lhereof nor Lhe Lransfer of ownershlp. SeLLled ls Lhe rule LhaL Lhe seller ls obllged Lo Lransfer LlLle over Lhe properLles and dellver Lhe same Lo Lhe buyer.18 ln Lhlsregard,ArLlcle1498ofLheClvllCode19provldesLhaL,asarule,LheexecuLlonofanoLarlzeddeedofsalels equlvalenL Lo Lhe dellvery of a Lhlng sold. lnLhlslnsLance,peLlLlonerexecuLedanoLarlzeddeedofabsoluLesalelnfavorofrespondenL.Moreover,noLonlydld peLlLlonerLurnoverLhekeysLoLheproperLlesLorespondenL,healsoauLhorlzed8SLAlLorecelvepaymenLfrom respondenLandreleasehlscerLlflcaLesofLlLleLoher.1heLoLallLyofpeLlLloner'sacLsclearlylndlcaLesLhaLhehad unquallfledly dellvered and Lransferred ownershlp of Lhe properLles Lo respondenL. Clearly, lL was a conLracL of sale Lhe parLles enLered lnLo. lurLhermore, even assumlng arguendo LhaL Lhe agreemenL of Lhe parLles was sub[ecL Lo Lhe condlLlon LhaL 8SLAl had Lo approveLheassumpLlonofmorLgage,LhesaldcondlLlonwasconslderedfulfllledaspeLlLlonerprevenLedlLsfulflllmenL bypaylnghlsouLsLandlngobllgaLlonandLaklngbackLhecerLlflcaLesofLlLlewlLhouLevennoLlfylngrespondenL.lnLhls connecLlon, ArLlcle 1186 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes: ArLlcle 1186. 1he condlLlon shall be deemed fulfllled when Lhe obllgor volunLarlly prevenLs lLs fulflllmenL. vold Sale Cr uouble Sale? eLlLloner sold Lhe same properLles Lo Lwo buyers, flrsL Lo respondenL and Lhen Lo vllorla on Lwo separaLe occaslons.20 Powever,LhesecondsalewasnoLvoldforLhesolereasonLhaLpeLlLlonerhadprevlouslysoldLhesameproperLlesLo respondenL. Cn Lhls accounL, Lhe CA erred. 1hlscaselnvolvesadoublesaleasLhedlspuLedproperLlesweresoldvalldlyonLwoseparaLeoccaslonsbyLhesame seller Lo Lhe Lwo dlfferenL buyers ln good falLh. ArLlcle 1344 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes: ArLlcle1344.lfLhesameLhlngshouldhavebeensoldLodlfferenLvendees,LheownershlpshallbeLransferredLoLhe person who may have flrsL Laken possesslon Lhereof ln good falLh, lf lL should be movable properLy. Should lL be lmmovable properLy, Lhe ownershlp shall belong Lo Lhe person acqulrlng lL who ln good falLh flrsL recorded lL ln Lhe 8eglsLry of roperLy. Should Lhere be no lnscrlpLlon, Lhe ownershlp shall perLaln Lo Lhe person who ln good falLh was flrsL ln Lhe possesslon, and,lnLheabsenceLhereof,LoLhepersonwhopresenLsLheoldesLLlLle,provldedLherelsgoodfalLh.(emphasls supplled) 1hls provlslon clearly sLaLes LhaL Lhe rules on double or mulLlple sales apply only Lo purchasers ln good falLh. needless Lo say, lL dlsquallfles any purchaser ln bad falLh. A purchaser ln good falLh ls one who buys Lhe properLy of anoLher wlLhouL noLlce LhaL some oLher person has a rlghL Lo, or an lnLeresL ln, such properLy and pays a full and falr prlce for Lhe same aL Lhe Llme of such purchase, or before he has noLlceofsomeoLherperson'sclalmorlnLeresLlnLheproperLy.211helawrequlres,onLheparLofLhebuyer,lackof noLlce of a defecL ln Lhe LlLle of Lhe seller and paymenL ln full of Lhe falr prlce aL Lhe Llme of Lhe sale or prlor Lo havlng noLlce of any defecL ln Lhe seller's LlLle. Was respondenL a purchaser ln good falLh? ?es. 8espondenL purchased Lhe properLles, knowlng Lhey were encumbered only by Lhe morLgage Lo 8SLAl. Accordlng Lo her agreemenL wlLh peLlLloner, respondenL had Lhe obllgaLlon Lo assume Lhe balance of peLlLloner's ouLsLandlng obllgaLlon Lo8SLAl.ConsequenLly,respondenLlnformed8SLAlofLhesaleandofherassumpLlonofpeLlLloner'sobllgaLlon. Powever,becausepeLlLlonersurrepLlLlouslypaldhlsouLsLandlngobllgaLlonandLookbackhercerLlflcaLesofLlLle, peLlLlonerhlmselfrenderedrespondenL'sobllgaLlonLoassumepeLlLloner'slndebLednessLo8SLAllmposslbleLo perform. ArLlcle 1266 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes: ArLlcle1266.1hedebLorlnobllgaLlonsLodoshallbereleasedwhenLhepresLaLlonbecomelegallyorphyslcally lmposslble wlLhouL Lhe faulL of Lhe obllgor. SlncerespondenL'sobllgaLlonLoassumepeLlLloner'souLsLandlngbalancewlLh8SLAlbecamelmposslblewlLhouLher faulL, she was released from Lhe sald obllgaLlon. Moreover, because peLlLloner hlmself wlllfully prevenLed Lhe condlLlon vls-a-vls Lhe paymenL of Lhe remalnder of Lhe purchase prlce, Lhe sald condlLlon ls consldered fulfllled pursuanL Lo ArLlcle 1186 of Lhe Clvll Code. lor purposes, Lherefore, of deLermlnlng wheLher respondenL was a purchaser ln good falLh, she ls deemed Lo have fully complled wlLh Lhe condlLlon of Lhe paymenL of Lhe remalnder of Lhe purchase prlce. 8espondenL was noL aware of any lnLeresL ln or a clalm on Lhe properLles oLher Lhan Lhe morLgage Lo 8SLAl whlch she underLook Lo assume. Moreover, vllorla boughL Lhe properLles from peLlLloner afLer Lhe laLLer sold Lhem Lo respondenL. 8espondenL was Lherefore a purchaser ln good falLh. Pence, Lhe rules on double sale are appllcable. ArLlcle 1344 of Lhe Clvll Code provldes LhaL when nelLher buyer reglsLered Lhe sale of Lhe properLles wlLh Lhe reglsLrar of deeds, Lhe one who Look prlor possesslon of Lhe properLles shall be Lhe lawful owner Lhereof. ln Lhls lnsLance, peLlLloner dellvered Lhe properLles Lo respondenL when he execuLed Lhe noLarlzed deed22 and handed over Lo respondenL Lhe keys Lo Lhe properLles. lor Lhls reason, respondenL Look acLual possesslon and exerclsed conLrol Lhereof by maklng repalrs and lmprovemenLs Lhereon. Clearly, Lhe sale was perfecLed and consummaLed on March 10, 1993. 1hus, respondenL became Lhe lawful owner of Lhe properLles. noneLheless,whlleLhecondlLlonasLoLhepaymenLofLhebalanceofLhepurchaseprlcewasdeemedfulfllled, respondenL's obllgaLlon Lo pay lL subslsLed. CLherwlse, she would be un[usLly enrlched aL Lhe expense of peLlLloner. 1herefore,respondenLmusLpaypeLlLloner684,300,LheamounLsLaLedlnLhedeed.1hlslsbecauseLheprovlslons, Lerms and condlLlons of Lhe conLracL consLlLuLe Lhe law beLween Lhe parLles. Moreover, Lhe deed lLself provlded LhaL Lhe assumpLlonofmorLgage"waswlLhouLanyfurLhercosLwhaLsoever."eLlLloner,onLheoLherhand,musLdellverLhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLle Lo respondenL. We llkewlse afflrm Lhe award of damages. WPL8LlC8L,Lhe!uly22,2003declslonandnovember11,2003resoluLlonofLheCourLofAppealslnCA-C.8.Cvno. 39748areherebyAlll8MLuwlLhMCulllCA1lCnlnsofarasrespondenL8enlLa1.CnglsorderedLopaypeLlLloner 8aymundodeLeon684,300represenLlngLhebalanceofLhepurchaseprlceasprovldedlnLhelrMarch10,1993 agreemenL. G.k. No. L-46701 Iune 17, 1940 MAUkICIC CkU2, so||c|tante-ape|ado,vs. ICSLIINA SANDCVAL, opos|tora y ape|ante. G.k. No. L-23386December 12, 192S MLkCLDLS GUS1ILC, L1 AL., p|a|nt|ffs.MLkCLDLS GUS1ILC and her husband LLCCLDC ILkL2A, appe||ants,vs. nLkMINIC MAkAVILLA, defendant-appe||ant.

CS18Anu, !.: lLappearsfromLherecordLhaLoneAnLonlaCusLllowasorlglnallyLheownerofLheMalagoorMercedesplanLaLlonln LhemunlclpallLyofSarabla,CccldenLalnegros,under1orrensLransfercerLlflcaLesofLlLlenos.719and720.1hese cerLlflcaLes bear a memorandum of a morLgage execuLed on Aprll 30, 1918, ln favor of Lhe hlllpplne naLlonal 8ank for Lhesumof8,000,wlLhlnLeresLaL8percenLperannum,andforLheLermofLenyears.CnAugusL3,1918,AnLonla CusLllo leased Lhe properLy for Lhe Lerm of seven years Lo Lhe plalnLlff vlcenLe Ardosa aL an annual renL of 1,000. 1he lease ls evldenced by a noLarlal documenL LxhlblL C, and lL ls reclLed Lhereln LhaL Ardosa pald Lhe renL ln advance for Lhe wholeLermofLhelease,oraLoLalsumof7,000.8ynoLarlaldocumenLLxhlblLu,execuLedonLhe10LhofLhesame monLh,ArdosasubleasedLheplanLaLlonLoLheplalnLlfflellxMonLlnolaCellsforLhreeagrlculLuralyears,orunLll!une 30, 1921. 1he Lerm of Lhe sublease was subsequenLly, on AugusL 13, 1921, by a prlvaLe documenL or "recelpL" exLended so as Lo embrace Lhe full Lerm of Lhe orlglnal lease. CnAugusL8,1920,AnLonlaCusLlloexecuLedadeedofsaleforLheproperLylnfavorofLheplalnLlffMercedesCusLllo, LheconslderaLlonnamedlnLhedeedbelng30,000,LhepurchaserassumlngLhemorLgagedebLLoLhehlllpplne naLlonal 8ank (LxhlblL 1). As AnLonla's cerLlflcaLes appear Lo have been lssued ln favor of Mercedes. Cnnovember24,1920,AnLonlaandMercedesCusLlloexecuLedasecondmorLgageonLhesameproperLylnfavorof Lhe defendanL Permlnlo Maravllla for Lhe sum of 23,000, and for Lhe Lerm of one year from Lhe daLe of Lhe documenL. upon Lhe explraLlon of Lhe Lerm, Lhe debL secured by Lhe morLgage was pald wlLh money alleged Lo have been furnlshed by !ose Maravllla, a cousln of Lhe defendanL, and anoLher morLgage was on !anuary 4, 1922, execuLed ln !ose's favor for 28,000, represenLlng Lhe orlglnal debL of 23,000 wlLh lnLeresL. WhenLhedebLsecuredbyLhelasLmorLgagefelldue,PermlnloMaravllla,lnLhenameof!oseMaravllla,demanded paymenL whlch Mercedes CusLllo was unable Lo make and lL was flnally agreed beLween Lhe parLles LhaL Lhe LlLle Lo Lhe planLaLlon was Lo be Lransferred Lo Lhe defendanL ln full saLlsfacLlon of Lhe debL, Lhe defendanL assumlng Lhe debL Lo Lhe naLlonal8ank.AdeedLoLhaLeffecLwasLhereuponexecuLedbyMercedesCusLlloandherhusband,LheplalnLlff Leopoldo !ereza, ln favor of Lhe defendanL on AugusL 9, 1922 (LxhlblL A). ln Lhe meanLlme lellx MonLlnola remalned ln possesslon of Lhe planLaLlon by vlrLue of hls sublease and ln a leLLer daLed SepLember21,1922,LhedefendanLnoLlfledhlmLhaLhewouldberequlredLopay12percenLofLheLoLalsugar producLlon of Lhe planLaLlon as renL. 8elylng on Lhe lease from AnLonla CusLllo Lo Ardosa and hls own sublease from Lhe laLLer,MonLlnolarefusedLopayrenLLoLhedefendanL,andlnuecember,1922,[olnLlywlLhMercedesCusLlloand vlcenLe Ardosa, broughL Lhe presenL acLlon. lnLhecomplalnLLheplalnLlffslssubsLanceallegeLhefacLsherelnbeforeseLforLhand,lnaddlLlonLhereLo,averLhaL Lhough ln Lhe deed from Mercedes CusLllo and Leopoldo !ereza Lo Lhe defendanL no menLlon was made of Lhe lease Lo ArdosaandMonLlnola,LhedefendanLbyfalsesLaLemenLsledMercedesCusLlloLobelleveLhaLhewouldneverLheless respecL Lhe lease, and LhaL ln Lhls bellef she and her husband execuLed Lhe deed. upon Lhe facLs so sLaLed, Lhe plalnLlffs pray LhaL [udgmenL be rendered declarlng LhaL Lhe defendanL has no rlghL Lo Lhe crop growlng on Lhe haclenda and Lo collecLrenLsdurlngLheduraLlonofLheLermofLheleaseLoArdosa,LhaLlLbefurLherdeclaredLhaLsaldleaselsan lncumbranceuponLheproperLywhlchLhedefendanLhasboundhlmselfLorespecL,andLhaLlLbeorderedLhaLsald lease be noLed on Lhe Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle lssued ln favor of Lhe defendanL. 1he defendanL ln hls answer denled Lhe allegaLlons of Lhe complalnL and, by way of cross-complalnL and counLerclalm, allegesLhaLaLLheLlmeofhlspurchaseofLheplanLaLlon,hehadnoknowledgeofLheexlsLenceofaleaseonLhe properLy,LhaLlfhehadsuchknowledge,hewouldnoLhavemadeLhepurchase,LhaLLheplalnLlffsfraudulenLly concealed from hlm Lhe exlsLence of Lhe lease, LhaL subsequenLly Lo Lhe purchase he has pald Lo Lhe hlllpplne naLlonal 8ank Lhe sum of 1,233.19 on Lhe morLgage assumed by hlm Lhrough hls purchase of Lhe land, and LhaL he has pald Lhe sumof373.74lnbackLaxesonLhelandwhlchshouldhavebeenpaldbyLhevendors.PeLhereforeasksLhaLLhe conLracLofsaleofLheplanLaLlonLohlmbedeclareresclndedandLhaL[udgmenLberenderedagalnsLLheplalnLlffsfor Lhesumof1,233.19forpaymenLsmadeLoLhehlllpplnenaLlonal8ank,andforLhefurLhersumof373.74forback Laxes pald. ln answer Lo Lhe defendanLs cross-complalnL and counLerclalm, Lhe plalnLlffs allege LhaL aL Lhe Llme of hls purchase, Lhe defendanLwasfullylnformedofalllncumbrancesonLheMercedesplanLaLlon,andLhaLheassumedLhepaymenLand fulflllmenLofsaldlncumbrancesandobllgaLlons,LhaLhehasnoLcomplledwlLhLheLermsandcondlLlonsunderwhlch LhesaleofLheproperLyLohlmwasmade,andLhaLLhroughhlsfallureLocomplywlLhsuchLermsandcondlLlons,Lhe plalnLlffs have suffered damages ln Lhe sum of 20,000. 1hey Lherefore ask LhaL Lhe sale be declared resclnded Lhrough LhefaulLofLhedefendanLandLhaL[udgmenLberenderedagalnsLLhedefendanLandlnfavorofLheplalnLlffsforLhe sum of 20,000 and for Lhe cosLs. uponLrlal,LhecourLbelowfoundLhaLwhenLhedefendanLpurchasedLheproperLylnquesLlonfromLheplalnLlff Mercedes CusLllo, he had full knowledge of Lhe facL LhaL Lhe properLy had been leased Lo vlcenLe Ardosa, as well as of Lhe Lerms of sald lease, and held LhaL lL Lherefore become a parL of Lhe conLracL of sale. 1he courL also declared LhaL Lhe lease, belng for a Lerms of more Lhan slx years, was reglsLerable and ordered LhaL lL be enLered upon Lhe cerLlflcaLes of LlLleanduponLherecordsofLhereglsLerofdeeds.1hecourLfurLherfoundLhaLLhedefendanLhadfalledLofulflllhls obllgaLlons under Lhe conLracL of sale and declared sald conLracL resclnded, holdlng LhaL lnasmuch as Lhe resclsslon was dueLohlsfaulL,LhedefendanLhadfalledLofulflllhlsobllgaLlonsunderLheconLracLofsaleanddeclaredsaldconLracL resclnded,holdlnglnasmuchasLheresclsslonwasdueLohlsfaulL,LhedefendanLwasnoLenLlLledLorecoveranysum whlch he mlghL have expended ln conslderaLlon of Lhe sale. lL also held LhaL under Lhe excepLlons esLabllshed ln arLlcle 1371 of Lhe Clvll Code, Lhe defendanL had no rlghL Lo LermlnaLe Lhe lease ln quesLlon and was noL enLlLled Lo recelve any sumforLheoccupaLlonofLhelandbyLhelessee.1heplalnLlffs'clalmfordamageswasdlsallowed.1heplalnLlffs' Mercedes CusLllo and Leopoldo !ereza appeal and so does Lhe defendanL. 1he appeal of Mercedes CusLllo and Leopoldo !ereza relaLes Lo Lhelr clalm for damages and ls so enLlrely wlLhouL merlL asLorequlrenodlscusslon.lLmaybenoLedLhaLLhedefendanLhasneverhadpossesslonofLheproperLyandhas recelved no beneflL Lherefrom. 1he defendanLs presenLs Lhe followlng asslgnmenLs of error: 1.1he Lrlal courL erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe defendanL and appellanL had noLlce aL Lhe Llme of maklng Lhe purchase LhaL Lhe land was leased for seven years Lo vlcenLe Ardosa and subleL by Lhe laLLer Lo Lhe plalnLlff lellx MonLlnola Cells, and LhaL Lhe defendanL havlng made Lhe purchase wlLh knowledge of sald lease, Lhe same ln effecL became a parL of Lhe conLracL of sale Lo hlm of Lhe planLaLlon. 2.1he Lrlal courL erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe defendanL has no rlghL Lo LermlnaLe Lhe lease ln quesLlon, and Lherefore lsnoLenLlLledLorecelveanyamounLwhaLsoeverlnconslderaLlonofsaldlease,LhelaLLercomlngwlLhlnLheLwo excepLlons or provlsos of arLlcle 1371 of Lhe Clvll Code. 3.1he Lrlal courL erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe conLracL of lease aL bar ls reglsLerable, and ln orderlng lLs reglsLraLlon ln Lhe reglsLer of properLy and lLs noLaLlon on Lhe proper Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle as an lncumbrance upon Lhe land. 4.1heLrlalcourLerredlnholdlngLhaLbyreasonofLhedefendanL'sfallureLoperformLheobllgaLlonsconLracLed by hlm ln Lhe conLracL of sale ln quesLlon, sald conLracL was resclnded as prayed for by Lhe defendanL, buL wlLhouL any rlghL on Lhe parL of Lhe laLLer Lo be repald for any such amounL as he may have spenL or pald by reason of sald conLracL. 3.1heLrlalcourLerredlnorderlngLhaLLheamounLofLheprlceofLhesaleof12percenLofLhecropplacedby order of Lhe courL ln possesslon of lellx MonLlnola as deposlLary be dellvered Lo Lhe laLLer.lawphl1.neL 1he flrsL, second and flfLh asslgnmenLs of error have reference prlnclpally Lo quesLlons of facL upon whlch Lhe flndlngs of Lhe courL below are fully susLalned by Lhe evldence. 1haL Lhe defendanL aL Lhe Llme of purchaslng Lhe planLaLlon had full knowledge of Lhe facL LhaL lL had been leased Lo vlcenLe Ardosa, ls shown noL only by Lhe LesLlmony of Mercedes CusLllo and Leopoldo !ereza buL ls also corroboraLed by Lhe noLary before whom Lhe deed was acknowledged. 1hls LesLlmony, ln connecLlonwlLhLheclrcumsLancessurroundlngLhecase,leavesnodoubLwhaLeveruponLhaLpolnL.nelLherhavewe anydoubLLhaLLhedefendanLwaslnformedasLheLermsofLheleaseandofLhefacLLhaLLherenLhadbeenpaldln advance.1hlsbelngesLabllshed,LhedefendanLwasboundLorespecLLheleaseandLhecourLbelowdldnoLerrln holdlng LhaL sald lease ln effecL became a parL of Lhe conLracL of sale. 1hls concluslon ls ln harmony wlLh our declslon ln Lhe case of 1. de Wlnkleman and Wlnkleman vs. veluz (43 hll., 604). 1he facL LhaL Lhe land ln quesLlon ln Lhls case ls reglsLered land whlle Lhe land ln Lhe Wlnkleman case was unreglsLered, does noL affecL Lhe legal prlnclples lnvolved. 1he Land 8eglsLraLlon AcL only proLecLs Lhe holder ln good falLh, and cannoL beusedasashleldforfrauds.SLrongandconvlnclngevldencels,ofcourse,requlredLoesLabllshLheexlsLenceof encumbrances noL appearlng on Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle, buL such evldence ls noL lacklng ln Lhe presenL case.lawphl1.neL 1he defendanL's fallure Lo respecL Lhe Ardosa lease ls ln lLself a sufflclenL breach of Lhe Lerms of Lhe conLracL of sale Lo [usLlfylLsresclsslon,buLlnaddlLlonLhereLolLlsalsoLobeobservedLhaLwhlleLhepresenLacLlonwaspendlnglnLhe CourLofllrsLlnsLance,oneAqullesM.Sa[o,anearrelaLlveofLhedefendanL,broughLanacLlonagalnsLMercedesand AnLonlaCusLlloandLeopoldo!erezauponapromlssorynoLefor28,000execuLedlnfavorof!oseMaravllla,and securedbyLhemorLgageof!anuary4,1922,LheplalnLlffalleglngLhaLLhenoLeandLhecorrespondlngmorLgagehad been asslgned Lo hlm by !ose Maravllla on AugusL 16, 1922, one week afLer Lhe sale of Lhe planLaLlon Lo Lhe defendanL. lnvlewofLhefacLLhaLlLclearlyappearsLhaLsalewasmadewlLhLheundersLandlngandforLhepurposeofcancellng LhedebLevldencedbyLhenoLeandmorLgageuponwhlchSa[o'sacLlonwasbroughL,LheplalnLlffsarealsoforLhls reason clearly enLlLled Lo a resclsslon. underLheLhlrdasslgnmenLoferror,LhedefendanL-appellanLarguesLhaLLheasslgnmenLofLheleasebyArdosaLo MonLlnola dld noL appear ln a noLarlal lnsLrumenL and LhaL Lherefore Lhe Lrlal courL erred ln orderlng LhaL Lhe lease be enLered upon Lhe cerLlflcaLe of LlLle. 1here ls noL much force ln Lhls argumenL, lf Lhe courL had [urlsdlcLlon, Lhe [udgmenL lLselfwouldbesufflclenLwarranLforLheenLryofLhecorrespondlngmemorandum,buLlnasmuchasLheLermofLhe lease has already explred, Lhe enLry ln quesLlon ls unnecessary and Lhe [udgmenL musL be modlfled accordlngly. ln Lhls connecLlonlLmaybewellLocallaLLenLlonLoLhefacLLhaLunderLhelasLparagraphofsecLlon112ofLheLand 8eglsLraLlonAcL,peLlLlonforamendmenLsoralLeraLlonsofcerLlflcaLesofLlLle-whlchlncludesLheenLryofa memorandum-musLbe"flledandenLlLledlnLheorlglnalcaselnwhlchLhedegreeofreglsLraLlonwasenLered,"and upon LhaL ground lL may have been error Lo order such an enLry ln Lhe presenL proceedlngs. 1he defendanL's fourLh asslgnmenL of error ls well Laken. 1he Lrlal courL may posslbly have been mlsled by paragraph 2 ofarLlcle1306ofLheClvllCode,buLLheparagraphappllesonlyLocaseswhere"LhenulllLyarlsesfromlllegallLyofLhe conslderaLlonorLhepurposeofLheconLracL"(ClvllCode,arL.1303).1heprovlslonappllcableLoLhepresenLcasels found ln arLlcle 1303 whlch read as follows: WhenanobllgaLlonhasbeenad[udgedvold,LheconLracLlngparLlesshallresLoreLoeachoLherLheLhlngswhlchhave been Lhe sub[ecL-maLLer of Lhe conLracL, LogeLher wlLh Lhelr frulLs, and Lhe prlce pald Lherefore, LogeLher wlLh lnLeresL, wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo Lhe provlslons of Lhe followlng arLlcles. 1he courL below Lherefore erred ln holdlng LhaL Lhe defendanL was noL enLlLled Lo relmbursemenL for hls paymenL Lo Lhe naLlonal 8ank and for Laxes. lorLhereasonssLaLed,Lhe[udgmenLappealedfromlsafflrmedlnsofaraslLholdsLhaLLhedefendanLwasboundLo respecLLheleasefromAnLonlaCusLlloLovlcenLeArdosaandLhesubleaseLolellxMonLlnola,declaresLhesaleofLhe planLaLlonbyLheplalnLlffsMercedesCusLlloandLeopoldo!erezaLoLhedefendanLresclnded,andawardsLolellx MonLlnolaLhesugarproducedonLheplanLaLlondurlnghlsrecelvershlporLhemoneyrecelvedfromLhesaleofsuch sugar. ln all oLher respecLs, Lhe [udgmenL ls reversed. lL ls hereby ordered LhaL Lhe defendanL have and recover [udgmenL agalnsL Lhe plalnLlffs Mercedes CusLllo and Leopoldo !ereza,[olnLlyandseverally,forLhesumof1,233.19forpaymenLsmadeonLhelrbehalfLoLhenaLlonal8ankandfor Lhe furLher sum of 373.74 for Laxes pald, all wlLh lnLeresL aL Lhe raLe of 6 per cenL per annum from lebruary 23, 1923, Lhe daLe of Lhe flllng of Lhe defendanL's cross-complalnL and counLerclalm. 1he defendanL-appellanL shall pay Lhe cosLs of boLh lnsLances. So ordered. G.k. No. L-46840 Iune 17, 1940 VIC1CkIANC nLkNANDL2, p|a|nt|ff-appe||ee,vs. MACAkIA kA1IG8Ak VIUDA DL SALAS, defendant-appe||ant. MC8An, !.: Appeal from a [udgmenL rendered by Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of 8lzal. 1he facLs as agreed upon by parLles and maLerlal Lo Lhe dlsposlLlon of Lhe case, are as follows: vlcenLe Slngson Lncarnaclon was, aL flrsL alone, and laLer wlLh oLhers, Lhe reglsLered owner of loLs nos. 27, 28 and 29 of Lhe "Paclenda Maysllo", locaLed aL 1ullahan, munlclpallLy of Caloocan, 8lzal, wlLh an aggregaLe area of 234 hecLares, and covered by 1orrens cerLlflcaLes of LlLle nos. 8340 and 8348 of Lhe reglsLer of deeds of 8lzal. nlcolas 8lvera repurchased, ln pursuance of hls reglsLered rlghL Lo LhaL effecL, 40 hecLares of Lhese Lhree loLs, and laLer sold Lo Marlano . LeuLerlo an unsegregraLed porLlon of abouL 18 hecLares Lhereof. 1he laLLer, ln Lurn, sold a LoLal area of 16,900 square meLers Lo 8afael vlllanueva by deeds whlch had never been reglsLered. 1hese deeds are daLed SepLember 21, 1920, SepLember 24, 1920,AugusL31,1922andSepLember1,1922,respecLlvely.LaLer8afaelvlllanuevasoldLoLheherelnplalnLlff, vlcLorlano Pernandez, all rlghLs ln Lhe sald LoLal area of 16,900 square meLers. ln clvll case no. 2861 of Lhe CourL of llrsL lnsLance of 8lzal, lnsLlLuLed by erfecLo !. Salas 8odrlguez, agalnsL Marlano . LeuLerlo, a wrlL of execuLlon was lssued agalnsL Lhe defendanL, and, ln pursuance Lhereof, Lhe provlnclal sherlff of 8lzal levleduponLheproperLlesofsalddefendanL,amongLhem,aparceloflandconLalnlnganareaof177,337.4square meLers.1hlslsLhesameproperLyLhaLLhedefendanLboughLfromnlcolas8lvera.1helevywasdulyrecordedlnLhe offlce of Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds and noLed on Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no. 8340 coverlng loL no. 28. 8afael vlllanueva flledwlLhLhesherlffaLhlrdparLyclalm,buLasLhe[udgmenLcredlLorgaveanlndemnlLybond,Lhesherlffproceeded wlLhLheexecuLlonandsoldLheproperLyaLapubllcaucLlonaLwhlchLhe[udgmenLcredlLorhlmselfwasLhehlghesL bldder. Cn March 30, 1926, sald offlcer execuLed Lhe correspondlng deed ln favor of Lhe purchaser. rlor Lo Lhe execuLlon of Lhe offlcer's deed, or on March 1, 1926, Lhe 40 hecLares boughL by nlcolas 8lvera from Slngson LncarnaclonweresegregaLed,andonMarch3,1926,LwoLransfercerLlflcaLesofLlLlewerelssuedlnfavorofnlcolas 8lvera, one wlLh loL no. 10333, for 79,014 square meLers, deslgnaLed as loL no. 28-A, and Lhe oLher wlLh no. 10333, for 62,661squaremeLersand174,130squaremeLers,deslgnaLedasloLsnos.27-Aand29-A,respecLlvely.1heexecuLlon llen of erfecLo !. Salas 8odrlguez as well as Lhe aucLlon sale held on March 30, 1926, whlch were annoLaLed on Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no. 8340, were Lransferred Lo and annoLaLed on Lhe new cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no. 10333 coverlng loL no. 28-A. And Lhere havlng been no redempLlon, a flnal deed of sale was execuLed on March 30, 1927 by Lhe sherlff ln favor of Lhe purchaser, erfecLo !. Salas 8odrlguez, and Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no. 12242 was lssued Lhe followlng day ln LhelaLLer'sname.erfecLo!.Salasdled,andbyvlrLueofaparLlLlonapprovedbyLheprobaLecourL,loLno.29-Awas ad[udlcaLed Lo hls wldow, Macarla kaLlgbak vda. de Salas, now defendanL, ln whose favor Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no. 22137 was lssued by Lhe 8eglsLer of ueeds of 8lzal on AugusL 9, 1932. CnLhebaslsofLheforegolngfacLs,LheCourLofllrsLlnsLanceof8lzalrendered[udgmenL,orderlngLhedefendanLLo segregaLe from loL no. 28-A, covered by her Lransfer cerLlflcaLe of LlLle no. 22137, a porLlon equlvalenL Lo 16,900 square meLers, and Lo execuLe, ln due form, Lhe correspondlng deed ln favor of Lhe hereln plalnLlff. 1he [udgmenL ls predlcaLed on Lhe declslons rendered by Lhls CourL ln cases (C.8. nos. 33930 and 33969 whlch ln Lurn are founded on Lhe rullng lald down ln Lancl vs. ?angco, 32 hll., 363). 1he quesLlon ls: who has a beLLer rlghL - Lhe purchaser aL Lhe execuLlon sale, erfecLo !. Salas 8odrlguez, predecessor ln lnLeresL of Lhe defendanL, or Lhe purchaser ln Lhe prlvaLe sale, 8afael vlllanueva, predecessor ln lnLeresL of Lhe plalnLlff? 1heLwopurchasersderlvedLhelrLlLlefromMarlano.LeuLerlo,wholnLurnacqulredhlsfromnlcolas8lvera.1he purchase made by vlllanueva Look place prlor Lo Lhe execuLlon sale, buL was never reglsLered. 1he properLy ls reglsLered under Lhe 1orrens sysLem, Lhere belng a cerLlflcaLe of LlLle lssued ln favor of nlcolas 8lvera bearlng no. 10333 on loL no. 28-A.nocerLlflcaLeofLlLlewaseverlssuedlnfavorofMarlano.LeuLerlo,buLLhelevyandLheexecuLlonsaleofLhe properLywerenoLedonLheLransfercerLlflcaLeofLlLleofnlcolas8lverawlLhouLLhelaLLer'sob[ecLlon,andlnLhe noLaLlonlLappearedLhaLLheproperLyhadbeensoldbynlcolas8lveraLoMarlano.LeuLerlo.lLwas,Lherefore, Marlano . LeuLerlo alone who, ln 8lvera's cerLlflcaLe of LlLle, appeared as Lhe sole owner of Lhe properLy aL Lhe Llme of Lhe levy and execuLlon sale. lL ls a well-seLLled rule LhaL, when Lhe properLy sold on execuLlon ls reglsLered under Lhe 1orrens sysLems, reglsLraLlon ls Lhe operaLlve acL LhaL glves valldlLy Lo Lhe Lransfer, or creaLes a llen on Lhe land, and a purchaser, on execuLlon sale, ls noL requlred Lo go behlnd Lhe reglsLry Lo deLermlne Lhe condlLlons of Lhe properLy. Such purchaser acqulres such rlghL, LlLleandlnLeresLasappearonLhecerLlflcaLeofLlLlelssuedonLheproperLy,sub[ecLLonoallensencumbrancesor burdens LhaL are noLed Lhereon. (Anderson and Co. vs. Carcla, 36 Cf. Caz., 2847, 8eynes vs. 8arrera, C.8. no. 46724.) lL follows LhaL, on Lhe properLy ln quesLlon, defendanL has a beLLer rlghL Lhan Lhe plalnLlff. !udgmenL ls reversed, wlLh cosLs agalnsL plalnLlff-appellee. Avancena, C.!., lmperlal, ulaz, Laurel and Concepclon, !!., concur. MC8An, !.: 1he docLrlne ln Lancl vs. ?angco (32 hll., 363), whlch purporLs Lo glve effecL Lo all llens and encumbrances exlsLlng prlor LoLheexecuLlonsaleofaproperLyreglsLeredunderLhe1orrenssysLem,evenlfsuchllensandencumbrancesarenoL noLedlnLhecerLlflcaLeofLlLle,hasbeenabandonedbyLhlscourL.(seehlllpplnenaLlonal8ankvs.Camus,C.8.no. 46870, !une 27, 1940.) 1he new docLrlne, from whlch we have no reason Lo deparL, ls LhaL, ln an execuLlon sale of and reglsLeredunderLhe1orrenssysLem,LhepurchaseracqulressuchrlghLlnLeresLasappearonLhecerLlflcaLeofLlLle, unaffecLed by any prlor llen or encumbrance noL noLed Lhereln. (Anderson and Co. vs. Carcla, 33 Cf. Caz., 2847, sec. 39, AcLno.496,asamendedbyAcL2011.)1hepurchaserlsLhus"noLrequlredLoexplorefarLherLhanwhaLLhe1orrens LlLle,uponlLsface,lndlcaLeslnquesLforanyhlddendefecLorlnchoaLerlghLLhaLmaysubsequenLlydefeaLhlsrlghL LhereLo.lfLherulewereoLherwlse,LheefflcacyandconcluslvenessofLhecerLlflcaLeofLlLlewhlchLhe1orrenssysLem seek Lo lnsure, would enLlrely be fuLlle and nugaLory." (8eynes vs. 8arrera, C.8. no. 46724, SepLember 30, 1939.). 1heonlyrecepLlonLoLhlsrulelswhereLhepurchaserhadacknowledge,prlorLooraLLheLlmeofLhelevy,ofsuch prevlous llen or encumbrance. ln such case, hls knowledge ls equlvalenL Lo reglsLraLlon and LalnLs hls purchase wlLh bad falLh. (CusLllo vs. Maravllla, 48 hll., 442, la urbana vs. 8ernardo, 62 hll., 790, 23 C.!., sec. 812, arsons Pardware Co. vs. CourL of Appeals, C. 8. no. 46141.) 8uL lf knowledge of any llen or encumbrance upon Lhe properLy ls acqulred afLer Lhelevy,LhepurchasercannoLbesaldLohaveacLedlnbadfalLhlnmaklngLhepurchaseand,Lherefore,suchllenor encumbrance cannoL affecL hls LlLle. ln Lhe presenL case, Lhe Lhlrd-parLy clalm was flled abouL one monLh afLer Lhe levy was recorded. 1he valldlLy of Lhe levy ls Lhus unaffecLed by any subsequenL knowledge whlch Lhe [udgmenL credlLor mlghL have derlved from Lhe Lhlrd-parLy clalm.1hefacLLhaLLhlsLhlrd-parLyclalmwaspresenLedonedaybeforeLheexecuLlonsale,lslmmaLerlal.lfLhelevyls valld, as lL was, Lhe execuLlon sale made ln pursuance Lhereof ls also valldly be foreclosed regardless of any equlLles LhaL may have arlsen afLer lLs ConsLlLuLlon. ln vargas vs. 1ancloco, supra: ...elLerreboencuesLlonesLabacublerLoporelCerLlflcadode1lLuloquellevadaelno.17088delaCflclnadel 8eglsLrador de LlLulos de negros CccldenLal y que fue expedldo a nombre de Sua 1lco el dla 26 de [ullo de 1923. Ln dlcho cerLlflacdo no consLaba nlngun gravamen excepLo el embargo que se habla Lrabado sobre el Lerreno a que alude, como unacLoopasoprellmlnarparavenderelreferldoLerreno,npubllcasubasLaencumpllmlenLodeunmandamlenLo [udlclal expedldo con las malldades de la ley. . . . ue paso debe declrse que el 1rlbunal de Apelacluones hallo Lamblen probado el hecho de que un dla anLes de ponerse en publlca subasLa el Lerreno de que se vlene habaldo, el recurrenLe presenLo al Sherlff rovlnclal de negros CccldenLal unescrlLodeLercerlaparareclamarlocomodesuexcluslvapropledad,pero,hablendopresLadolarecurrldanleves 1ancloco la flanza correspondlenLe, el Sherlff hubo de esLar adelanLe con la venLa resulLado que ya se sabe. upon Lhese facLs, Lhls courL held: La conLenclon del recurrenLe de que la recurrlda no era compradora de buena fe, porque al comprar en publlca subasLa el Lerreno cuesLlonado ya sabla que el mlsmo no era de Sua 1lco, por haberselo vendldo a el mlsmo no era de Sua 1lco, por haberselo vendldo a el, como asl lo habla expresando en su escrlLo de Lercerla presenLado un dla anLes de la venLa, noLlenelmporLancla,yporqueesLalmpllclLamenLeaclaradayresuelLeenlosparrafosanLerlores.Cuandodlcha recurrlda obLuvo el embargo y esLe se fecLo y se anoLo en el mlsmo Lerreno embargado habla sldo vendldo meses anLes porSua1lco.Larazonesobvla,porquelapreLendldavenLanofueanoLada[amasen8eglsLrocomolofueelreferldo embargo. LxpresslonsofdlssaLlsfacLlonmadebyLheappellee'saLLorneylnhlsmoLlonforreconslderaLlonareuncalledfor,and excepL for Lhls observaLlon, Lhey deserve no aLLenLlon from Lhls courL. MoLlon for reconslderaLlon ls denled.