sales cases and digests (double sale)

8/10/2019 Sales Cases and Digests (Double Sale)

1/32

NAAWAN COMMUNITY RURAL BANK INC.,petitioner, vs.THE COURT OF APPEALS andSPOUSES ALFREDO AND ANNABELLE LUMO, respondents.

D E C I S I O NCORONA,J.:

Under the established principles of land registration, a person dealing with registered land may

generally rely on the correctness of a certificate of title and the law will in no way oblige him to gobeyond it to determine the legal status of the property.

Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the February 7, !!7 "ecision #$of the

Court of %ppeals in C%&'.R. C( )o. **+!, which in turn affirmed the decision #$of the Regional -rial

Court of isamis /riental, Branch 0 as follows1

2345R5F/R5, the plaintiffs&spouses are ad6udged the absolute owners and possessors of the properties

in uestion 89ot 0*0:, under -C- )o. -&*;:+, and all improvements thereon< and uieting title thereto

as against any and all adverse claims of the defendant. Further, the sheriff=s certificate of sale, 5>hibit +?

+&%? @heriff=s deed of final conveyance, 5>hibit *, *&%? -a> "eclarations )o. 7, 5>hibit 7, and any

and all instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding in favor of the defendant, as against the

plaintiffs, and their predecessor&in&interest, which may be e>tant in the office of the Register of "eeds of

Province of isamis /riental, and of Cagayan de /ro City, and in the City %ssessor=s /ffice of Cagayande /ro City, are declared as invalid and ineffective as against the plaintiffs= title.

2-he counterclaim is dismissed for lacA of merit.

2@/ /R"5R5".#:$

-he facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows1

/n %pril :;, !00, a certain 'uillermo Comayas offered to sell to private respondent&spouses

%lfredo and %nnabelle 9umo, a house and lot measuring :+; suare meters located at PiniAitan,

Camaman&an, Cagayan de /ro City.

3anting to buy said house and lot, private respondents made inuiries at the /ffice of the Register of

"eeds of Cagayan de /ro City where the property is located and the Bureau of 9ands on the legal status

of the vendor=s title. -hey found out that the property was mortgaged for P0,;;; to a certain rs. 'alupo

and that the owner=s copy of the Certificate of -itle to said property was in her possession.

Private respondents directed 'uillermo Comayas to redeem the property from 'alupo at theire>pense, giving the amount of P;,;;; to Comayas for that purpose.

/n ay :;, !00, a release of the adverse claim of 'alupo was annotated on -C- )o. -&++!!

which covered the sub6ect property.

n the meantime, on ay 7, !00, even before the release of 'alupo=s adverse claim, privaterespondents and 'uillermo Comayas, e>ecuted a deed of absolute sale. -he sub6ect property was

allegedly sold for P*,;;; but the deed of sale reflected the amount of only P:;,;;; which was the

amount private respondents were ready to pay at the time of the e>ecution of said deed, the balance

payable by installment.

/n Dune !, !00, the deed of absolute sale was registered and inscribed on -C- )o. -&++!! and, on

even date, -C- )o. -&*;:+ was issued in favor of private respondents.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn1


2/32


3/32

rendered a decision declaring private respondents as purchasers for value and in good faith,

and conseuently declaring them as the absolute owners and possessors of the sub6ect house and lot.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of %ppeals which in turn affirmed the trial court=s decision.

4ence, this petition.

Petitioner raises the following issues1

. 345-45R /R )/- -45 @45RFF=@ "55" /F F)%9 C/)(5I%)C5 3%@ "U9I

5J5CU-5" %)" R5'@-5R5" ) -45 R5'@-5R /F "55"@ /F C%'%I%) "5

/R/ C-I /) "5C5B5R , !0H?

. 345-45R /R )/- R5'@-R%-/) /F @45RFF=@ "55" /F F)%9

C/)(5I%)C5 ) -45 PR/P5R R5'@-RI /F "55"@ C/U9" B5 5FF5C-(5 %@

%'%)@- @P/U@5@ 9U/.

Both parties cite %rticle *++ of the Civil Code which governs the double sale of immovable

property.

%rticle *++ provides1

2> > >. @hould it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acuiring it who in

good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Petitioner banA contends that the earlier registration of the sheriff=s deed of final conveyance in the

day booA under %ct ::++ should prevail over the later registration of private respondents= deed of

absolute sale under %ct +!H,#+$as amended by the Property Registration "ecree, P" *!.

-his contention has no leg to stand on. t has been held that, where a person claims to have superior

proprietary rights over another on the ground that he derived his title from a sheriff=s sale registered in the

Registry of Property, %rticle +7: 8now %rticle *++< of the Civil Code will apply only if said e>ecutionsale of real estate is registered under %ct +!H.#*$

Unfortunately, the sub6ect property was still untitled when it was acuired by petitioner banA by

virtue of a final deed of conveyance. /n the other hand, when private respondents purchased the same

property, it was already covered by the -orrens @ystem.

Petitioner also relies on the case ofBautista *s. /ule #H$where the Court ruled that the registration of

an instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of "eeds creates constructive notice and binds

third person who may subseuently deal with the same property.

4owever, a close scrutiny of the records reveals that, at the time of the e>ecution and delivery of the

sheriff=s deed of final conveyance on @eptember *, !0H, the disputed property was already covered bythe 9and Registration %ct and /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. ;&0; pursuant to "ecree )o. )0!+:

was liAewise already entered in the registration booA of the Register of "eeds of Cagayan "e /ro City as

of %pril 7, !0+.

-hus, from %pril 7, !0+, the sub6ect property was already under the operation of the -orrens

@ystem. Under the said system, registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or

creates a lien upon the land.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn6


4/32

oreover, the issuance of a certificate of title had the effect of relieving the land of all claims e>cept

those noted thereon. %ccordingly, private respondents, in dealing with the sub6ect registered land, were

not reuired by law to go beyond the register to determine the legal condition of the property. -hey were

only charged with notice of such burdens on the property as were noted on the register or the certificate of

title. -o have reuired them to do more would have been to defeat the primary ob6ect of the -orrens@ystem which is to maAe the -orrens -itle indefeasible and valid against the whole world.

Private respondents posit that, even assuming that the sheriff=s deed of final conveyance in favor of

petitioner banA was duly recorded in the day booA of the Register of "eeds under %ct ::++, ownership of

the sub6ect real property would still be theirs as purchasers in good faith because they registered the sale

first under the Property Registration "ecree.

-he rights created by the above&stated statute of course do not and cannot accrue under an inscription

in bad faith. ere registration of title in case of double sale is not enough? good faith must concur with

the registration.#7$

Petitioner contends that the due and proper registration of the sheriff=s deed of final conveyance on

"ecember , !0H amounted to constructive notice to private respondents. -hus, when private

respondents bought the sub6ect property on ay 7, !00, they were deemed to have purchased the saidproperty with the Anowledge that it was already registered in the name of petitioner banA.

-hus, the only issue left to be resolved is whether or not private respondents could be considered as

buyers in good faith.

-he 2priority in time principle being invoAed by petitioner banA is misplaced because its

registration referred to land not within the -orrens @ystem but under %ct ::++. /n the other hand, when

private respondents bought the sub6ect property, the same was already registered under the -orrens

@ystem. t is a well&Anown rule in this 6urisdiction that persons dealing with registered land have the legal

right to rely on the face of the -orrens Certificate of -itle and to dispense with the need to inuire further,

e>cept when the party concerned has actual Anowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a

reasonably cautious man to maAe such inuiry.#0$

"id private respondents e>ercise the reuired diligence in ascertaining the legal condition of the title

to the sub6ect property so as to be considered as innocent purchasers for value and in good faithK

3e answer in the affirmative.

Before private respondents bought the sub6ect property from 'uillermo Comayas, inuiries weremade with the Registry of "eeds and the Bureau of 9ands regarding the status of the vendor=s title. )o

liens or encumbrances were found to have been annotated on the certificate of title. )either were private

respondents aware of any adverse claim or lien on the property other than the adverse claim of a certain

'eneva 'alupo to whom 'uillermo Comayas had mortgaged the sub6ect property. But, as alreadymentioned, the claim of 'alupo was eventually settled and the adverse claim previously annotated on the

title cancelled. -hus, having made the necessary inuiries, private respondents did not have to go beyondthe certificate of title. /therwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the -orrens Certificate of -itle

would be rendered futile and nugatory.

Considering therefore that private respondents e>ercised the diligence reuired by law in

ascertaining the legal status of the -orrens title of 'uillermo Comayas over the sub6ect property and

found no flaws therein, they should be considered as innocent purchasers for value and in good faith.

%ccordingly, the appealed 6udgment of the appellate court upholding private respondents %lfredo and

%nnabelle 9umo as the true and rightful owners of the disputed property is affirmed.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/jan2003/128573.htm#_ftn8


5/32

WHEREFORE, petition is hereby "5)5".SO ORDERED.

NAAWAN COMMUNITY RURAL BANK INC v CA

FACTS: Comayas offered to sell to the Lumo Spouses a house and lot. The propertywas already registered under the Torrens System that time and they made appropriateinquiries with the RD; they found out that it was mortgaged for !"###" paid Comayas tosettle the mortgage" and the release of the ad$erse %laim was annotated in the title.Thereafter" they e&e%uted an A'solute Deed of Sale o$er the su'(e%t property andregistered the same. )owe$er" it turns out that it was already pre$iously soldto *aawan Community Rural+an,; it was then unregistered. The +an, fore%losed onthe property" pur%hased the same" and registered it under A%t --. Thus" the +an,sought to e(e%t the spouses. )owe$er" the latter %ountered with an a%tion for quieting oftitle.

/SS01: 2ho has a 'etter title" *aawan or Lumo spouses3

)1LD: L045 S50S1S; where a person %laims to ha$e superior property rights 'y$irtue of a sheriff6s sale" the 'enefit of Art 78 applies fa$ora'ly only if the property isregistered under the Torrens System9not under A%t --. Registration under theTorrens System is the operati$e a%t that gi$es $alidity to the transfer and %reates lienupon the land. The spouses a%quired their titles under the Torrens System and theya%ted in good faith 'y e&er%ising due diligen%e; thus" they ha$e a 'etter right to the saidproperty.

G.R. No. L-2!" F#$%&a%' (", ()*AMADO CARUMBA,petitioner,vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANTIAGO BALBUENA and ANGELES BOA+UIA a D#&/'P%o01n1a3 S4#%155,respondents.%uis 0. de %eon for petitioner.

&eno &. 1on2ales for respondents.

REYES, 6.B.L.,J.:

%mado Carumba petitions this @upreme Court for a certiorari to review a decision of the Court of

%ppeals, rendered in its Case )o. :H;!+&R, that reversed the 6udgment in his favor rendered by the Court

of First nstance of Camarines @ur 8Civil Case +H+H


6/32

meters, more or less, located in the barrio of @anto "omingo, riga, Camarines @ur, to the

spouses %mado Carumba and Benita Canuto, for the sum of P:*;.;;. -he referred deed

of sale was never registered in the /ffice of the Register of "eeds of Camarines @ur, and

the )otary, r. (icente alaya, was not then an authoriGed notary public in the place, as

shown by 5>h. *. Besides, it has been e>pressly admitted by appellee that he is thebrother&in&law of %mado Canuto, the alleged vendor of the property sold to him. %mado

Canuto is the older brother of the wife of the herein appellee, %mado Carumba.

/n Danuary , !*7, a complaint 85>h. B< for a sum or money was filed by @antiago

Balbuena against %mado Canuto and )emesia basco before the Dustice of the Peace

Court of riga, Camarines @ur, Anown as Civil Case )o. :! and on %pril *, !H7, a

decision 85>h. C< was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. /n

/ctober , !H0, the ex-officio@heriff, Dusto (. mperial, of Camarines @ur, issued a

L"efinite "eed of @ale 85>h. "< of the property now in uestion in favor of @antiago

Balbuena, which instrument of sale was registered before the /ffice of the Register of

"eeds of Camarines @ur, on /ctober :, !*0. -he aforesaid property was declared for

ta>ation purposes 85>h. < in the name of @antiago Balbuena in !*0.

-he Court of First instance, finding that after e>ecution of the document Carumba had taAen possession ofthe land, planting bananas, coffee and other vegetables thereon, declared him to be the owner of the

property under a consummated sale? held void the e>ecution levy made by the sheriff, pursuant to a

6udgment against CarumbaMs vendor, %mado Canuto? and nullified the sale in favor of the 6udgment

creditor, @antiago Balbuena. -he Court, therefore, declared Carumba the owner of the litigated propertyand ordered Balbuena to pay P:;.;;, as damages, plus the costs.

-he Court of %ppeals, without altering the findings of fact made by the court of origin, declared that there

having been a double sale of the land sub6ect of the suit BalbuenaMs title was superior to that of his

adversary under %rticle *++ of the Civil Code of the Philippines, since the e>ecution sale had been

properly registered in good faith and the sale to Carumba was not recorded.

3e disagree. 3hile under the invoAed %rticle *++ registration in good faith prevails over possession inthe event of a double sale by the vendor of the same piece of land to different vendees, said article is of no

application to the case at bar, even if Balbuena, the later vendee, was ignorant of the prior sale made by

his 6udgment debtor in favor of petitioner Carumba. -he reason is that the purchaser of unregistered land

at a sheriffMs e>ecution sale only steps into the shoes of the 6udgment debtor, and merely acuires the

latterMs interest in the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon. -his is specifically

provided by section :* of Rule :! of the Revised Rules of Court, the second paragraph of said sectionspecifically providing that1

Upon the e>ecution and delivery of said 8final< deed the purchaser, redemptioner, or his

assignee shall be substituted to and ac3uire all the right, title, interest, and claim of thejudgment debtorto the property as of the time of the le*y, e>cept as against the 6udgment

debtor in possession, in which case the substitution shall be effective as of the time of thedeed ... 85mphasis suppliedecuted two years before, on %pril !**, and while only

embodied in a private document, the same, coupled with the fact that the buyer 8petitioner Carumba< had

taAen possession of the unregistered land sold, sufficed to vest ownership on the said buyer. 3hen the

levy was made by the @heriff, therefore, the 6udgment debtor no longer had dominical interest nor any


7/32


8/32

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTanilaFR@- "(@/)

G.R. No. "7872 Ma' 2*, ())(RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY,petitioner,vs.

MANUELITO S. PALILEO, respondent.&olando A. Calang for petitioner.

Sisenando 7illalu2, Sr. for respondent.

GANCAYCO,J.:p

f the same piece of land was sold to two different purchasers, to whom shall ownership belongK %rticle

*++ of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of an immovable property, ownership shall be

transferred1 8< to the person acuiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property?8< in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession? and 8:< in default thereof, to

the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. -here is no ambiguity regarding the

application of the law with respect to lands registered under the -orrens @ystem. @ection * of

Presidential "ecree )o. *! 8amending @ection *; of %ct )o. +!H clearly provides that the act ofregistration is the operative act to convey or affect registered lands insofar as third persons are concerned.

-hus, a person dealing with registered land is not reuired to go behind the register to determine the

condition of the property. 4e is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted

on the face of the register or certificate of title. (Following this principle, this Court has time and again

held that a purchaser in good faith of registered land 8covered by a -orrens -itle< acuires a good title as

against all the transferees thereof whose right is not recorded in the registry of deeds at the time of the

sale. 2


9/32

-he uestion that has to be resolved in the instant petition is whether or not the rule provided in %rticle

*++ of the Civil Code as discussed above, is applicable to a parcel of unregistered land purchased at a

6udicial sale. -o be more specific, this Court is asAed to determine who, as between two buyers of

unregistered land, is the rightful ownerNthe first buyer in a prior sale that was unrecorded, or the secondbuyer who purchased the land in an e>ecution sale whose transfer was registered in the Register of "eeds.

-he facts as found by the Court of %ppeals are as follows1

/n %pril :, !7;, defendant spouses 5nriue Castro and 4erminia R. Castro sold to

plaintiff&appellee anuelito Palileo 8private respondent hereinecuted by the Provincial @heriff in favor of

defendant& appellant Radiowealth Finance Company, being the only bidder. %fter theperiod of redemption has 8sic< e>pired, a deed of final sale was also e>ecuted by the same

Provincial @heriff. Both the certificate of sale and the deed of final sale were registered

with the Registry of "eeds. 7

9earning of what happened to the land, private respondent anuelito Palileo filed an action for uieting

of title over the same. %fter a trial on the merits, the court a 3uo rendered a decision in his favor. /nappeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed. 4ence, this petition for review on certiorari.

n its petition, Radiowealth Finance Company presents the following errors1

. -45 C/UR- /F %PP5%9@ 5RR5" ) )/- F)")' -4%- -45 "55" /F

%B@/9U-5 @%95 85J4B- B< %995'5"9I 5J5CU-5" BI 5)RU5 C%@-R/) F%(/R /F %PP59955 %)U59-/ P%995/, 3%@ @U9%-5" /R

FC--/U@.

. -45 C/UR- /F %PP5%9@ 5RR5" ) )/- F)")' %PP59955 %)U59-/

P%995/ %@ %")@-R%-/R /)9I /F -45 "@PU-5" PR/P5R-I? %)"

:. -45 C/UR- /F %PP5%9@ 5RR5" ) )/- F)")' "5F5)"%)-&

%PP599%)- R%"/35%9-4 F)%)C5 C/P%)I /3)5R /F -45 "@PU-5"

PR/P5R-I BI R5%@/) /F -45 C5R-FC%-5 /F @%95 %)" -45 "55" /F

F)%9 @%95 34C4 35R5 %99 R5'@-5R5" ) -45 R5'@-5R /F "55"@,


10/32

45)C5, @UP5R/R -/ -4%- /F -45 "55" /F @%95 ) P/@@5@@/) /F

%)U59-/ P%995/, F/R B5)' )/- R5'@-5R5". 8

%s regards the first and second assigned errors, suffice it to state that findings of fact of the Court of

%ppeals are conclusive on this Court and will not be disturbed unless there is grave abuse of discretion.-he finding of the Court of %ppeals that the property in uestion was already sold to private respondent

by its previous owner before the e>ecution sale is evidenced by a deed of sale. @aid deed of sale isnotariGed and is presumed authentic. -here is no substantive proof to support petitionerMs allegation that

the document is fictitious or simulated. 3ith this in mind, 3e see no reason to re6ect the conclusion of the

Court of %ppeals that private respondent was not a mere administrator of the property. -hat he e>ercised

acts of ownership through his mother also remains undisputed.

'oing now to the third assigned error which deals with the main issue presented in the instant petition,

3e observe that the Court of %ppeals resolved the same in favor of private respondent due to the

following reason? what the Provincial @heriff levied upon and sold to petitioner is a parcel of land that

does not belong to 5nriue Castro, the 6udgment debtor, hence the e>ecution is contrary to the directive

contained in the writ of e>ecution which commanded that the lands and buildings belonging to 8nri3ue

Castrobe sold to satisfy the e>ecution. !

-here is no doubt that had the property in uestion been a registered land, this case would have been

decided in favor of petitioner since it was petitioner that had its claim first recorded in the Registry of

"eeds. For, as already mentioned earlier, it is the act of registration that operates to convey and affect

registered land. -herefore, a bona fidepurchaser of a registered land at an e>ecution sale acuires a goodtitle as against a prior transferee, if such transfer was unrecorded.

4owever, it must be stressed that this case deals with a parcel of unregistered land and a different set of

rules applies. 3e affirm the decision of the Court of %ppeals.

Under %ct )o. ::++, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is Lwithout pre6udice to a

third party with a better rightL. -he aforeuoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean that the mere

registration of a sale in oneMs favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was notanymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale

was unrecorded.

-he case of Carumba *s.Court of Appeals9is a case in point. t was held therein that %rticle *++ of theCivil Code has no application to land not registered under %ct )o. +!H. 9iAe in the case at bar, Carumba

dealt with a double sale of the same unregistered land. -he first sale was made by the original owners andwas unrecorded while the second was an e>ecution sale that resulted from a complaint for a sum of

money filed against the said original owners. %pplying @ection :*, Rule :! of the Revised Rules of

Court, this Court held that %rticle *++ of the Civil Code cannot be invoAed to benefit the purchaser atthe e>ecution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even if this second sale was registered.t was e>plained that this is because the purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriffs e>ecution sale only

steps into the shoes of the 6udgment debtor, and merely acuires the latterMs interest in the property sold asof the time the property was levied upon.

%pplying this principle, the Court of %ppeals correctly held that the e>ecution sale of the unregistered

land in favor of petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer belonged to the 6udgment debtor as of

the time of the said e>ecution sale.

345R5F/R5, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of %ppeals in C%&'.R. C( )o. ;700

is hereby %FFR5". )o costs.


11/32

@/ /R"5R5".

0ar*asa, Cru2, 1ri9o-A3uino and 5edialdea, 44., concur.


12/32


13/32

'.R. )o. 9&7++

WELGO DICHOSO, ET AL.,plaintiffs&appellees,

vs.

LAURA ROAS, ET AL.,defendants,

CELSO BOR6A and NELIA ALANGUILAN,defendants&appellants.

6osimo . +analega for plaintiffs-appellees.

5anuel A. Al*ero for defendant %aura A. &oxas.

Brion, Baldo, Cho2as and Alcantara for defendants-appellants.

DI;ON,J.:

%ppeal from the following decision of the Court of First nstance of 9aguna1

345R5F/R5, the Court renders 6udgment ordering the plaintiffs to deposit with the ClerA of this Court

for the account of defendant 9aura %. Ro>as the amount of P:;.;; and, upon the deposit of the said

amount, defendant 9aura %. Ro>as is ordered to e>ecute a document transferring her rights, title and

interest in the land in controversy to plaintiffs 3elgo "ichoso and 5milia 4ernandeG within five 8*< days

from such deposit. n the event that 9aura %. Ro>as fails to e>ecute the document within the

aforementioned period, the same shall e>ecuted by the ClerA of Court in her behalf.

"efendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan are order to e>ecute a deed of re&sale of the land in

controversy and the improvements thereon in favor of plaintiffs 3elgo "ichoso and 5milia 4ernandeG

within five 8*< days after the document transfer has been e>ecuted by or on behalf of 9aura %. Ro>as. f

defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan fail to do so, the ClerA of Court shall e>ecute the document

in their behalf. %t any time after the e>ecution of the deed of re&sale, defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia

%languilan may withdraw from the PeopleMs BanA and -rust Company of @an Pablo City the amount of

P0*;.;; which had been deposited by plaintiff 3elgo "ichoso as repurchase price and the PeopleMs BanA

Q -ru Company is ordered to deliver the said amount to the aforementioned defendants.

-he Court considers defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan as possessors in good faith and are not

reuired account for the fruits that they have received from the an it controversy up to the time this

decision becomes final.

9aura %. Ro>as is ordered to return to defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan the amount of

P,H0+.;; which she received as additional purchase price for the land in controversy.


14/32

%ll defendants are 6ointly and severally ordered to pay the costs.

-he complaint alleged, in substance, that on "ecember :, !*+, 9aura %. Ro>as sold to appellants for

the sum of P0*;.;; a parcel of unregistered coconut land with an area of H,!H* suare meters and with

:!: coconut trees, situated in Barrio @an "iego, @an Pablo, 9aguna, sub6ect to the condition, inter alia,

that the vendor could repurchase it for the same amount within five years, but not earlier than three years,

from the date of the sale, which was evidenced by a public document attached to the complaint as %nne>

%? that from )ovember H, !** to Duly *, !*7, Ro>as had received from appellees several sums of

money amounting to P77;.;;, their agreement being that after "ecember :, !*7, Ro>as would sell the

same property, by absolute sale, to appellees for the total sum of P,;;;.;;, the aforesaid sum of P77;.;;

to be considered as initial or advance payment on the purchase price? that out of the balance of P,:;.;;,appellees would use the sum of P0*;.;; to repurchase the property from appellants after "ecember :,

!*+ but within the five years stipulated for the e>ercise of Ro>asM right to repurchase? that on /ctober ,

!*7, pursuant to Ro>asM reuest made on Duly :, !*7, appellees sent her a checA for the sum of

P:;.;; Lin full payment of the P,;;;.;; consideration for the deed of absolute saleL and thereafter they

informed appellants of their readiness to repurchase the property? that on )ovember !, !*7 Ro>as sent

them bacA the checA 6ust referred to with the reuest that they endorse the same to appellants when they

made the repurchase, because it appeared that, aside from the P0*;.;; consideration of the pacto de

retro sale, Ro>as had received additional sums from appellants? that again, after "ecember :, !*7,

appellees made representations to appellants that they were ready to maAe the repurchase, as well as to

Ro>as for the latter to be ready to e>ecute the corresponding deed of absolute sale in their favor after they

had made the repurchase? that notwithstanding these demand and representations, Ro>as and appellants

had deliberately failed to e>ecute the corresponding deed of absolute sale and deed of resale already

mentioned.

/n Danuary 0, !*0 appellants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that appellees had

no cause of action against them because their contract was not them but with 9aura %. Ro>as. %fter due

hearing, lower court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint because, according to the same,

Lthere e>ists no written contract of assignment of rights e>ecuted by 9aura %. Ro>as in favor of the herein

plaintiffs concerning property which said 9aura %. Ro>as sold to her co&defendants under a deed ofpacto

de retro sale, and that the purpose of the present action is precisely to compel 9aura %. Ro>as to e>ecute

the corresponding deed of assignment.L


15/32

4owever, on Duly :, !*0, over appellantsM ob6ection, the lower court admitted the amended complaint

previously filed by appellees. -he principal amendment introduced consisted in the allegation that on Duly

*, !*7, for sum of P77;.;;, 9aura %. Ro>as had ceded to appellees her right to repurchase the property

from appellants? that on )ovember !, !*7, Ro>as had Lordered and author the said plaintiffs spouses to

repurchase the said parcel land from the defendants vendee&a&retro after the : years period, which would

terminate on "ecember :, !*7,L and that on "ecember :, !*7, appellees tendered to appellants the

reuired sum with which to effect the repurchase, but that the latter refused to accept the same, thus

compelling appellees to consign the amount with the /ffice of ClerA, Court of First nstance of 9aguna.

Upon petition of appellants, the lower court on %ugust 0, !*0, ordered appellees to furnish, and the

latter furnished appellants, with a copy of the alleged deed of assignment dated Duly 0, !*0, referred to in

paragraph + of the amended complaint, which deed reads as follows1

-%9%@-%@) )' @)/ %)1

-inangap Ao ngayong Dulio *, !*7 ang halagang Pit "ean at Pitong Pong 8P77;.;;< peso cuartang pang

Aasal yan sa mag& asawa ni 3elgo "ichoso at 5milia 4ernandeG, lang paunang bayad sa isang puesto

Aong lupa humigit Aumulang sa apat na raang tanim na niog.

%ng aming pinagAasondoan pag dating ng dalagang wang libong 8P,;;;.;;< pesong pagAaAautang pate

tobos walong daan at limang pong 8P0*;.;;< peso sa pagAa pag na mabibiling muli o sanla< sa magasawa

ni Celso Bor6a )elia %languilan ay mag gagawaan ng documento o Aasulatan bilihang toloyan o bintarial

absoluta sa halagang dalawang libong 8P,;;;.;;< peso na nasabe sa itaas nito.

%ng nasabing lupa ay naAatayo sa @alang lupa Aung tawagin Bo. @an "iego saAop ng Ciudad ng @an

Pablo. @a Aatonayan na hinde aAo sisira sa pinagusapan ay lumagda aAo ng pangalan at apellido na

Aaharap ang isang testigo.

89gda.< Cosme Punto 89gda.< 9aura %. Ro>as

% motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied by the lower court for the reason that the grounds

relied upon therein did not appear to be indubitable and their consideration was deferred until after trial

on the merits. -hereafter appellants filed their answer in which, after maAing specific denial of some facts

averred in the amended complaint, they alleged the following affirmative defenses1


16/32

. -hat the alleged transfer of right to repurchase supposedly e>ecuted by defendant 9aura %. Ro>as in

favor of plaintiffs herein is not in any manner a transfer of right to repurchase but at most a receipt of

indebtedness?

. -hat even assuming although not admitting that there was a transfer of right to repurchase made by the

defendant 9aura %. Ro>as in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the property in uestion, yet said right to

repurchase could not be e>ercised by the plaintiffs considering that before "ecember :, !*7 arrived, the

period within which the repurchase might be made, said land in uestion had already become the absolute

and e>clusive property of the answering defendants herein.

:. -hat defendants spouses in the e>ercise of the rights of dominion over the property, had since

"ecember :, !*7 harvested and are harvesting the fruits to date? and paid the ta>es therefor? and had

attended to the disposition of the pro. proceeds therefrom?+. -hat whatever alleged agreement may have been entered into between plaintiffs and defendant 9aura

Ro>as cannot in any way affect third persons liAe defendants spouses Celso Boria and )elia %languilan,

unless the same is in a public document?

*. -hat even assuming, although not admitting, that the Plaintiffs tendered into the answering defendants

the repurchase price of the land in uestion on or immediately after "ecember :, !+7, yet the

answering defendants have all the reasons and are 6ustified in refusing to accept the said repurchase price

considering that before said date of "ecember :, !*7, answering defendants were already the absolute

and e>clusive owners of the land in uestion, sub6ect to no other conditions.

%s counterclaim, appellants alleged in their answer following facts1

. -hat the answering defendants incorporate and part hereof paragraph of the plaintiffsM amended

complaint?

. -hat before this case was filed, plaintiffs Anew f well that the property in uestion is already owned

absolute by answering defendants? and which therefore, cannot be sub6ect of repurchase anymore?

:. -hat plaintiff 3elgo "ichoso was the agent who responsible for the consummation of the sale with

right to purchase as a matter of fact he was the witness to the s document?

+. -hat a parcel of land abutting this parcel in uest was liAewise offered by plaintiff 3elgo "ichoso to

defend spouses who acceded to buy the same on the representation the former "ichoso that inasmuch as

answering defendant are now the owners of the land in uestion, this smaller if united with the bigger


17/32

piece of property here in uest would not only enhance agriculture but would afford t greater benefits as

to two parcels are ad6oining to each other.

*. "efendants spouses would not have bought the p property in uestion if not for the assurance of 3elgo

"ichoso t co& defendant would sooner or later sell same to them by of absolute sale?

H. -hat in filing this case, plaintiffs have acted w evident bad faith, considering that this case was only

intended to harass answering defendants who are his first cousins a therefore ore must be reuired to pay

answering defendants amount of P*;;.;; as e>emplary damages?

7. -hat because of the unwarranted and un6ustified filing this case, the answering defendants suffered

damages in amount of P*;;.;; and will continue to suffer the same by of litigation e>penses? and at the

same time were compel to retain the services of counsel and are obliged to pay amount of P,;;;.;; in

the concept of attorneyMs fees,

/n @eptember !, !*0, appellees filed a reply in which they alleged, inter alia, that when they offered torepurchase the property from appellants, on behalf of 9a %. Ro>as, appellants had not become absolute

and e>clusive owners of the property in uestion? that after the offer to repurchase made on "ecember :,

!*7, appellate became possessors in bad faith and were in duty bound to account for the fruits of the

property? that although the agreement between appellees, on the ore hand, a Ro>as, on the other, was not

contained in a public instrument appellants were bound by it because they Anew the agreement. %ppellees

also denied the facts alleged in the counterclaim.

/n %pril , !*!, appellees filed a supplementary complaint wherein, on the claim that after Duly :,

!*0 the price of coconuts had considerably gone up, they prayed that the 6udgment for damages they

sought in the amended complaint be increased in amount accordingly.

%fter trial upon the issues stated above, the lower court rendered the appealed 6udgment, from which the

Bor6a spouses appealed claiming that the court committed the following errors1

. n not finding defendant&appellants Celso Boria and )elia %languilan as the true, lawful and absolute

owners of the land in uestion, their title thereto being evidenced by public and private documents

coupled by possession in good faith and for value.

. n not finding appellants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan possessors as absolute owners from

"ecember 0, !*7, the date of the e>ecution of the deed of absolute sale 85>h. L7L< in their favor.

:. n not giving weight to the deed of confirmation 85>h. L0Lecuted to cure defects

in proof only.


18/32

+. n construing 5>hibit LL 8a private document< as a document of sale and in e>tending its effects to third

parties 8appellants< who are total strangers to it.

*. n not sustaining the plea of res judicataby the defendant&appellants.

-he pertinent portions of the decision appealed from are the following1

t appears from the evidence that 9aura %. Ro>as had sold her rights to the land in controversy to two 8ecution on "ecember 0, !*7. that is, five days prior to "ecember :, !*7, when.according to appellees themselves, they made the first attempt to repurchase the property in uestion, and

on which occasion appellants refused to allow the repurchase Lbecause 9aura %. Ro>as was not with

themL, according to the lower court. %fter "ecember 0, !*7, appellantsM rights were no longer based on

the supersededpacto de retro sale but on the aforesaid deed of absolute sale N which was a perfectly

valid contract as between the parties. n plain words, after that date 9aura %. Ro>as no longer had any

right to repurchase the property.

Upon the other hand, appelleesM contention that appellants were aware of their agreement with 9aura %.

Ro>as has not been sufficiently substantiated. %ppelleesM own evidence shows that appellants became

aware of their claim to the property when they tried, for the first time, to e>ercise the right to repurchase

on "ecember 0, !*7 five days after the deed of absolute sale in favor of said appellants. %fter a careful

consideration of the issues and the evidence, we believe that the lower court also erred in considering

5>hibit , e>ecuted on Duly *, !*7, as a deed of sale of the land in uestion in favor of appellees.

n the first place, the phraseology employed therein shows that the contract between the parties was a

mere promise to sell, on the part of Ro>as, because the latter merely promised to e>ecute a deed of

absolute sale upon appellees complaining payment to her of the total sum of P,;;;.;;, of which the

P0*;.;; to be paid to appellants for the repurchase of the property would be an integral part. -his

repurchase had not yet been made on Duly *, !*7, when this 5>hibit was e>ecuted. n the second place,

an that date all that Ro>as could possibly sell or convey in relation to the property in uestion was her

right to repurchase the same from appellants. Conseuently, the best consideration that could be given to


20/32

the private document 5>hibit is that it was an assignment by Ro>as to appellees of her right to

repurchase of which N according to the evidence N appellants had no Anowledge until "ecember :,

!*7 when appellees attempted to maAe the repurchase. @uch being its condition, it could not possibly

give rise to the case of one and the same property having been sold to two different purchasers. -he salt

N in favor of appellants was of the property itself, while the one in favor of appellees, if not a mere

promise to assign, was at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the same property. -he

provisions of paragraph :, %rticle *++ of the Civil Code of the Philippines do not, therefore, apply.

4aving arrived at the above conclusions, we are constrained to hold that, upon the facts of the case,

appellees are not entitled to the reliefs sought in their amended complaint and that whatever remedy they

have is e>clusively against 9aura %. Ro>as to recover from her, among other things, what they paid as

consideration for the e>ecution of the private document 5>hibit .

345R5F/R5, the decision appealed from is reversed, with the result that this case is dismissed, with

costs, reserving to appellees, however, the right to file a separate action against 9aura %. Ro>as to enforce

whatever rights they may have against her in consonance with this decision.

Dichoso v. RoxasGR No. L-17441 J!" #1$ 1%&' ( )CRA 7*1

FACTS:

Ro&as sold to Di%hoso and )ernande a par%el of unregistered %o%onut land"su'(e%t to the %ondition that the $endor %ould repur%hase the land within 8years from the date of sale . Ro&as re%ei$ed from Di%hoso se$eral sums of moneyas initial or ad$an%e payments" with the agreement that Ro&as would sell the sameproperty" 'y a'solute sale" to Di%hoso. 5ut of their remaining 'alan%e" they would use!8# to repur%hase the property from +or(a and Alanguilan within the period stipulated.Di%hoso informed +or(a of their readiness to repur%hase and sent Ro&as a%he%,. Ro&as returned the %he%, with the request that they indorsed it to+or(a and Alanguilan when they ma,e the repur%hase. Despite the repeateddemands and representations" Ro&as and +or(a had deli'erately failed to e&e%ute the%orresponding deed of a'solute sale and deed of resale.

SS01: 2hether or not there was a dou'le sale.

)1LD: *o. The %ontra%t 'etween the petitioners and Ro&as was a mere promise tosell 'e%ause Ro&as merely promised to e&e%ute a deed of a'solute sale upon Di%hoso6s%omple tion of payment. 5n the date that Ro&as %ould possi'ly sell sell or %on$ey inrelation to the property in question was her right to repur%hase the same from +or(a.The pri$ate do%ument e&e%uted 'etween Ro&as and Di%hoso %an 'e %onsidered as


21/32

an assignment 'y Ro&as to Dis%hoso of her right to repur%hase whi%h Ro&asonly had ,nowledge thereof when Di%hoso attempted to ma,e the repur%hase. Su%h'eing its %ondition" it %ould not possi'ly gi$e rise to the %ase of one and thesame property ha$ing 'een sold to two different pur%hasers. The sale in fa$or of+or(a was of the property itself" while the one in fa$or of Di%hoso" if not a mere promise

to assign" was at most an a%tual assignment of the right to repur%hase the sameproperty. Art. 78" par. - of the CC do not apply


22/32

8+< /rdering the defendants to proportionally reimburse plaintiff the produce of the property in

uestion, at +;; Ailos of copra every +* days, or its euivalent in money, from !!, until

they have surrendered or turned over the possession of the land in uestion to the plaintiff?

8*< /rdering the defendants 6ointly and severally to pay plaintiff the amount of P0,;;;.;; as

attorney=s fees, and the further sums of P:,;;;.;; as incidental litigation e>penses, and

8H< -o pay the costs.

@/ /R"5R5".#:$

%lso assailed by petitioners is the %pril 0, !!! Resolution of the Court of %ppeals, which denied

their otion for Reconsideration.#+$

n essence, the petition poses a challenge against the appellate court=s conclusion that the first sale of

a parcel of land to respondent 'audioso )ogales prevails over the second sale of the said property to

petitioners Francisco Bayoca, )onito "ichoso and spouses Pio and "olores "ichoso. %s such, there is no

dispute as to the following facts found by the Court of %ppeals1

23hen the @pouses Duan Canino and Brigida "omasig died intestate, before !+7, they were survived bytheir legitimate children, namely, Preciosa Canino, married to 5milio "eocareGa, Consolacion Canino,

"olores Canino, sidra Canino and -omas Canino who inherited, from their father, a parcel of land,

located in Prieto&"iaG, @orsogon covered by -a> "eclaration )o. !H*!, in an assessed value of P*;;.;;,

with the following boundary owners abutting the same1

)orth & (icente "ino?

3est & 'enaro enor and Roman Bayle

5ast & Pedro (argas and Fely "etablan

@outh & Bartolome "omalaon

5ach of the heirs, therefore, had apro indivisoshare of the property, -omas Canino, being then still a

minor at 7 years of age, was under the care and custody of his sister, Preciosa Canino "eocareGa. @he

and her husband, 5milio "eocareGa, and -omas Canino stayed in the said property.

/n "ecember *, !+7, Preciosa Canino e>ecuted an &nno/a%1?#d @D##d o5 Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o#%/' 1/4R14/ o5 R#&%4a# over a portion of the above property, with an area of *,;;; suare meters, in favorof her sister&in&law, Dulia "eocareGa, the sister of her husband, 5milio "eocareGa, for the price of P;;.;;

8E41$1/ @Kecution of the said deed."olores and aria Canino affi>ed the imprints of their thumbmarAs

on the deed 8E41$1/ @K-( and @K-2ecuted an &nno/a%1?#d @D##d o5Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o#%/' 1/4 R14/ o5 R#&%4a#covering a portion of said property, 1/4 an a%#a o5!,77* &a%# =#/#%,in favor of Dulia "eocareGa, for the price of PH;.;;, with a right to repurchase thesaid lot for the said amount, within one 8< year from the e>ecution of said deed 8E41$1/ @Iecuted another unnotariGed 2D##d o5 Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o#%/' 1/4 R14/ /oR#&%4a# over the entirety of the property, in favor of Dulia "eocareGa, for the price of P7;.;;, witha right to repurchase the said lot for the same price, within two 8< years from the e>ecution
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn4


23/32


24/32

2%CC/R")'9I, 6udgment is hereby rendered 8< ordering the defendants Dulia "eocareGa and the

spouses 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa Canino to deliver possession of the land to plaintiff 'audioso

)ogales? 8< ordering the defendants spouses 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa Canino to pay the plaintiff

the sum of P,*;;.;; every +* days as actual damages from the filing of the second amended complaint

on )ovember , !7H until possession of the land is delivered to the plaintiff and to pay attorney=s feesto the plaintiff in the sum of P*;;.;;.

Costs against the defendants spouses 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa Canino.

@/ /R"5R5". E41$1/ @B

5milio "eocareGa, et al., interposed an appeal, from the said "ecision, to this Court, which appeal, was

docAeted as C%&'.R. )/. *:*&C(. 4owever, the %ppellants therein belatedly paid the docAeting fee

for their appeal. /n arch :, !00, this Court promulgated a R#o3&/1on dismissing the appeal. -heResolution of this Court became final and e>ecutory on Dune , !00 8E41$1/ @Cecuted

a @D##d o5 Pa%/1/1on o5 R#a3 P%o#%/', declaring that, although, under -a> "eclaration )o. !H*!, theproperty covering an area of ,;;; suare meters that, as early as !*;, they had verbally partitioned the

said property, with an area of !,H+* suare meters, into five 8*< parcels, namely Pa%#3 @A /o @Eandad6udicated unto each of them, 1n #&a3 4a%# o5 !,*)* &a%# =#/#%, the said parcels as follows1

2Parcel 2% & Consolacion Canino?

Parcel 2B & sidra Canino?

Parcel 2C & -omas Canino?

Parcel 2" & Preciosa Canino?

Parcel 25 & "olores Canino?

8E41$1/ @G "eclaration )o. :0!+ 8E41$1/ @(9


25/32

/n the basis of said deed, sidra Canino declared 2Pa%#3 B, forta>ation purposes, under her name, with-a> "eclaration )o. H;!+ effective !7 8E41$1/ @2ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$o3&/#Sa3# o0#% Pa%#3 @D, with an area of *,!! suare meters, in favor of Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes "onor,two 8< of the %ppellants in the present recourse, for the price of P7*;.;; 8E41$1/ @(ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$o3&/# Sa3#, over 9ot HH!, with an area ofH,**; suare meters, in favor of the %ppellant 5rwin Bayoca, for the price of P+,;;;.;; 8E41$1/@" "eclaration )o. ;*:* was issued, under the name of 5rwin Bayoca,over said property 8E41$1/ @)ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$o3&/# Sa3#, o0#% Lo/ 9(, with anarea of *,!! suare meters, in favor of )onito "ichoso, one of the %ppellants in the present recourse,

and a son of the @pouses Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes "ichoso, for the price of P,:;;.;; 8E41$1/ @!


26/32

/n @eptember 0, !!, the %ppellee filed a complaint against the %ppellants Francisco Bayoca, )onito

"ichoso and the @pouses Pio "ichoso and "olores "ichoso for 2A1on R#1n01nd1a/o%1a 1/4Da=a#, with the Regional -rial Court of @orsogon. /n February *, !!+, Pio "ichoso died and wassubstituted by his son, the %ppellant )onito "ichoso. 3ith prior leave of Court, the %ppellees filed

an A=#nd#d Co=3a1n/, impleading 9ourdes "ichoso and 5rwin Bayoca, as parties defendants, prayingthat1

2345R5F/R5, it is most respectfully prayed of the 4onorable Court that pending hearing on the merits

issue a writ of preliminary in6unction, or in the alternative, to appoint a receiver in the premises in

uestion so that the produce be deposited in court to be disposed of after the termination of this case, andthat after due hearing, 6udgment issue1

8a< aAing the in6unction permanent?

8b< "eclaring plaintiff the absolute owner of the land in uestion and entitled to the peaceful possession

thereof?

8c< /rdering the defendants to vacate the premises within ; days after the decision has become final, and

to perpetually refrain from disturbing plaintiff in his peaceful possession thereof?

8d< /rdering the defendants to pay plaintiff whatever produce they may have gathered from the land in

uestion until they have vacated or turned over the possession to the plaintiff?

8e< /rdering defendants 5rwin Bayoca, Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes "ichoso to reconvey -ransfer

Certificate of -itle )o. -&7; and /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. P&!0 to the plaintiff, and should

the said defendants refuse to reconvey the said certificates of title, the ClerA of Court be ordered to

e>ecute the deed of reconveyance in favor of the plaintiff within * days the decision becomes final and

e>ecutory?

8f< /rdering defendants 6ointly and severally to pay plaintiff the amount of P,;;;.;; as attorney=s fees,plus P*;;.;; for every appearance of his lawyer in court, P:,;;;.;; as incidental litigation e>penses, and

to pay the costs.

Plaintiff further prays for such other relief 6ust and euitable in the premises. 8a/ a# (*8-(*!,R#o%decuted their 2D##d o5 Pa%/1/1/1on o5 R#a3 P%o#%/' and conveyed titles to the vendees, the %ppellantsin the present recourse, as buyers in good faith.#*$
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn5


27/32

%s mentioned at the outset, after hearing, the trial court ruled against herein petitioners Francisco

Bayoca, )onito "ichoso, 5rwin Bayoca, and spouses Pio and "olores "ichoso. -he trial court found and

declared, under its "ecision dated arch , !!H, that 'audioso )ogales had acuired ownership over

the property on the basis of the 2Co=%o=1# A%##=#n/ 8E41$1/ @I< and the 2D##d o5 A$o3&/#Sa3#, 8E41$1/ @G< e>ecuted by Dulia "eocareGa, who had previously acuired ownership over the saidproperty on the basis of the deeds, 8E41$1/ @H, @I, @6 and @K< as confirmed by the trial court

under its "ecision, E41$1/ @G. 4ence, the sales of portions of said property by Preciosa Canino, whowas no longer the owner thereof, to herein petitioners were null and void. -he trial court declared further

that petitioners were purchasers in bad faith.

/n appeal, the Court of %ppeals affirmed in totothe R-C ruling. 4ence, this recourse to this Court.

n their emorandum, petitioners raise the following issues1#H$

2345-45R /R )/- -45 P5--/)5R@ C9% /F /3)5R@4P BI (R-U5 /F -45R

R5@P5C-(5 --95 @@U5" %)"E/R R5'@-R%-/) 399 PR5(%9 /(5R -4%- /FR5@P/)"5)-K

345-45R /R )/- -45 R5'/)%9 -R%9 C/UR- 4%@ DUR@"C-/) -/ -RI -45 @%5

C%@5 345) -45 @%5 9%)" @UBD5C- /F -45 C%@5 @ % PUB9C 9%)"K

-he petition lacAs merit.

n fine, the main issue is who has the superior right to the parcel of land sold to different buyers at

different times by its former owners.

-here is no uestion from the records that respondent )ogales was the first to buy the sub6ect

property from Dulia "eocareGa, who in turn bought the same from the Canino brothers and

sisters. Petitioners, however, rely on the fact that they were the first to register the sales of the different

portions of the property, resulting in the issuance of new titles in their names. Petitioners insist that they

have a better right over respondent )ogales considering the following circumstances1 8< Pio and 9ourdes

"ichoso were issued Free Patent )o. (&:&;77; over 9ot H7;, the property they purchased from sidraCanino on the basis of which /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. P&!0 was issued under their names by

the Register of "eeds? 8< 5rwin Bayoca acuired the property covered by /C- )o. P&*+; covering a

portion of 9ot HH0 from Preciosa Canino, on the basis of which -C- )o. 7; was issued in his

name. %s far as )onito "ichoso and Francisco Bayoca are concerned they declared the properties theyacuired, respectively, from Consolacion Canino and "olores Canino, for ta>ation purposes. Petitioners

also assail the conclusion of the Court of %ppeals that they were purchasers in bad faith of the sub6ect

lots.

%rticle *++ of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales,as follows1#7$

2%rt. *++. f the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be

transferred to the person who may have first taAen possession thereof in good faith, if it should bemovable property.

@hould it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acuiring it who in good faith

first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn7


28/32


29/32

the sales to the %ppellants and that the %ppellee tooA possession of the said property much earlier than the

%ppellants considering that the @D##d o5 Sa3#8E41$1/ @G< is a public deed. t bears stressing thatpossession, under %rticle *++ of the )ew Civil Code,includes symbolic possession1

23e are of the opinion that the possession mentioned in article +7: 8for determining who has better right

when the same piece of land has been sold several times by the same vendor< includes not only the

material but also thesymbolic possession, which is acuired by the e>ecution of publicinstrument. Na%1a San4#? 0#%& Ro Ra=o, 8* P413. 9(8, a/ a# 9(, &nd#%o%1n&31#d.

(erily, there is absence of prior registration in good faith by petitioners of the second sale in their

favor. %s stated in the Santiago case, registration by the first buyer under %ct )o. ::++ can have the

effect of constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer, #$/n account of

the undisputed fact of registration under %ct )o. ::++ by respondent )ogales as the first buyer,

necessarily, there is absent good faith in the registration of the sale by the petitioners 5rwin Bayoca and

the spouses Pio and 9ourdes "ichoso for which they had been issued certificates of title in their names. t

follows that their title to the land cannot be upheld. %s for petitioners Francisco Bayoca and )onito

"ichoso, they failed to register the portions of the property sold to them, and merely rely on the fact that

they declared the same in their name for ta>ation purposes. @uffice it to state that such fact, does not, byitself, constitute evidence of ownership,#$and cannot liAewise prevail over the title of respondent

)ogales.

5nlightening in this regard is the following commentary1

2-he governing principle isprius tempore,potior jure8first in time, stronger in rightcept when the second buyer first

registers in good faith the second sale 8Oli*ares *s. 1on2ales, *! @CR% :: >.#:$

t is worth mentioning that while the certificates of title in the names of 5rwin Bayoca and the

spouses Pio and 9ourdes "ichoso are indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world,

including the government itself, they do not create or vest title. -hey merely confirm or record title

already e>isting and vested. -hey cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they beused as a shield for the commission of fraud? neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the e>pense

of others.#+$-he -orrens @ystem is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn14


30/32

certificate of registration but it cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the

registered land.#*$

9astly, petitioners= argument that the sub6ect property is a public agricultural land over which the

Regional -rial Court has no 6urisdiction over is clearly untenable. -he prior grant of a free patent in favor

of petitioners 5rwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio and "olores "ichoso removed or segregated the property

sub6ect thereof from the mass of the public domain.#H$

@o too, respondent )ogales had already registeredthe entire property under %ct. )o. ::++. ndeed, registration with the Register of "eeds of a parcel of land

divests the government of title to the land. #7$3e also find that petitioners, who raised this issue only

before this Court, are now estopped from claiming that the sub6ect property is a public agricultural land,

considering that petitioners have actively participated in the proceedings before the lower and appellate

courts with their principal defense consisting of the certificates of titles in their names. 3hile it is a rule

that 6urisdictional uestions may be raised at any time, an e>ception arises where estoppel has

supervened,#0$as in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby "5)5" and the assailed "5C@/) of the Court of%ppeals is %FFR5". Costs against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

5elo, ;ChairmanL LA2; S1CAL C5*TRACTS; SAL1S; D550+L1 SAL1; R0L1 *

CAS15F 40LTL1 SAL1S 5F 445>A+L1 R51RT?.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/sept2000/138201.htm#_edn18


31/32


32/32

io and Dolores Di%hoso remo$ed or segregated the property su'(e%t thereoffrom the mass of the pu'li% domain. So too" respondent *ogales had alreadyregistered the entire property under A%t *o. --.ndeed" registration with theRegister of Deeds of a par%el of land di$ests the go$ernment of title to the land.

8. A1AL; 1*1D.

etitioners" who raised @the issue @of (urisdi%tion only 'efore this Court" are nowestopped from %laiming that the su'(e%t property is a pu'li% agri%ultural land"%onsidering that petitioners ha$e a%ti$ely parti%ipated in the pro%eedings 'eforethe lower and appellate %ourts with their prin%ipal defense %onsisting of the%ertifi%ates of titles in their names. 2hile it is a rule that (urisdi%tional questionsmay 'e raised at any time" an e&%eption arises where estoppel has super$ened"as in the instant %ase.

sales cases and digests (double sale)

Documents