Facts: A parcel of land situtated in the barrio of Patayac Municipality of Sta.

Barbara, Pangasinan was being possessed by petitioner Jose Maramba, whosepossession was subsequently grabbed by Sabina Capua. Maramba filed a civilcase against Capua, but notwithstanding the same, the latter remained inpossession and later on sold the property to Gualberto Calulot, herein one of the private respondents. The court ruled in favor of Maramba and orderedCapua to vacate and deliver the land to the former. Unfortunately, the decisionwas not executed within the reglementary period of 5 years from the time ithad become final.Several years after, Calulot sold the subject land to respondent spouses FelipeCapua and Padilla, who possessed the same despite a writ of possession wasexecuted in favor of Maramba. He then filed a case for revival of judgment which was granted by the court. Upon Marambas death, his heirs sold theproperty to petitioner Dacasin. Capua, together with Calulot, then filed anaction against petitioners, praying that he be declared as the absolute owner of the subject property virtue of his purchase in good faith and by the continuouspossession of his immediate predecessor-in-interest Gualberto Calulot. This wasdenied by the trial court, which was however reversed by CA, holding thatCapua has squarely raised the question of his own title obtained thru acquisitiveprescription; that it must have to be admitted that the property beingunregistered, ownership therein could be defeated by acquisitive prescription. Issue: Whether the respondent court erred in its decision Held: Yes Jose Marambas filing of action against Sabina Capua, latters possession was thereby interrupted, hence, acquisitive prescriptiondid not transpire.

The facts are aundisputed that the deed of sale executed betweenJose Maramba as vendee and Emiliana Abad as vendor in 1958 wasduly registered in the Registry of Deeds as well as the deed of saleexecuted in 1929 between Emiliana Abad and the original ownerFlorentino Quinajon.

Under the law, Article 709 of the New Civil Code, titles of ownershipor of other rights over immovable property duly inscribed orannotated in the Registry of Property constitute notice to thirdpersons and affords protection in favor of him who in good faithrelies upon what appears in the registry.

As between two parties relying on their respective instruments of sale of the same property, law and justice command that he who hasregistered his deed must prevail over his adversary who has not doneso.

The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of thesupposed title of the vendor and he who buys without checking thevendor's title takes all the risks and consequent to such failure. Noneof the deeds of sale evidencing the ownership of Gualberto Calulotand Felipe Capua were registered in the Registry of Property, hencethey cannot prevail over the rights of the petitioner who holds in hisfavor the instrument of sale duly registered