C

carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, and Poncio

Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, and Poncio
69 SCRA 99
January 1976

FACTS:

On January 27, 1955, respondent Jose Poncio executed a private memorandum of sale of his parcel of
land with improvements situated in San Juan, Rizal in favor of petitioner Rosario Carbonell who knew
that the said property was at that time subject to a mortgage in favor of the Republic Savings Bank (RSB)
for the sum of P1,500.00. Four days later, Poncio, in another private memorandum, bound himself to
sell the same property for an improved price to one Emma Infante for the sum of P2,357.52, with the
latter still assuming the existing mortgage debt in favor of the RSB in the amount of P1,177.48. Thus, in
February 2, Poncio executed a formal registerable deed of sale in her (Infante's) favor. So, when the first
buyer Carbonell saw the seller Poncio a few days afterwards, bringing the formal deed of sale for the
latter's signature and the balance of the agreed cash payment, she was told that he could no longer
proceed with formalizing the contract with her (Carbonell) because he had already formalized a sales
contract in favor of Infante.

To protect her legal rights as the first buyer, Carbonell registered on February 8, 1955 with the Register
of Deeds her adverse claim as first buyer entitled to the property. Meanwhile, Infante, the second
buyer, was able to register the sale in her favor only on February 12, 1955, so that the transfer
certificate of title issued in her name carried the duly annotated adverse claim of Carbonell as the first
buyer. The trial court declared the claim of the second buyer Infante to be superior to that of the first
buyer Carbonell, a decision which the Court of Appeals reversed. Upon motion for reconsideration,
however, Court of Appeals annulled and set aside its first decision and affirmed the trial courts
decision.

ISSUE:

Who has the superior right over the subject property?

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate courts decision and declared the first buyer Carbonell to
have the superior right over the subject property, relying on Article 1544 of the Civil Code. Unlike the
first and third paragraphs of said Article 1544, which accord preference to the one who first takes
possession in good faith of personal or real property, the second paragraph directs that ownership of
immovable property should be recognized in favor of one "who in good faith first recorded" his right.
Under the first and third paragraphs, good faith must characterize the prior possession, while under the
second paragraph, good faith must characterize the act of anterior registration.

When Carbonell bought the lot from Poncio on January 27, 1955, she was the only buyer thereof and
the title of Poncio was still in his name solely encumbered by bank mortgage duly annotated thereon.
Carbonell was not aware - and she could not have been aware - of any sale to Infante as there was no
such sale to Infante then. Hence, Carbonell's prior purchase of the land was made in good faith which
did not cease after Poncio told her on January 31, 1955 of his second sale of the same lot to Infante.
Carbonell wanted to meet Infante but the latter refused so to protect her legal rights, Carbonell
registered her adverse claim on February 8, 1955. Under the circumstances, this recording of Carbonells
adverse claim should be deemed to have been done in good faith and should emphasize Infante's bad
faith when the latter registered her deed of sale 4 days later.

















Dagupan Trading vs. Macam
14 SCRA 99
May 1965

FACTS:

Sammy Maron and his seven brothers and sisters were pro-indiviso owners of a parcel of unregistered
land located in barrio Parayao, Binmaley, Pangasinan. In 1955, while their application for registration of
said land under Act No. 496 was pending, they executed, on June 19 and on September 21, two deeds of
sale conveying the property to herein respondent Rustico Macam who thereafter took possession of the
property and made substantial improvements upon it. On October 14, 1955, OCT No. 6942 covering the
land was issued in the name of the Marons, free from all liens and encumbrances.

On August 4, 1956, however, by virtue of a final judgment of the Municipal Court of Manila in a civil case
in favor of Manila Trading and Supply Co. (Manila Trading) against Sammy Maron, levy was made upon
whatever interest he had in the subject property. Thereafter, said interest was sold at public auction to
the judgment creditor Manila Trading. The corresponding notice of levy, certificate of sale and the
sheriff's certificate of final sale in favor of Manila Trading - because nobody exercised the right of
redemption - were duly registered, and on March 1, 1958, the latter sold all its rights and title in the
property to herein petitioner Dagupan Trading Company (Dagupan Trading).

On September 4, 1958, Dagupan Trading filed an action against Macam, praying that it be declared
owner of one-eighth portion of the subject property. The CFI of Pangasinan dismissed the said
complaint, and the Court of Appeals affirmed its decision.

ISSUE:

Who has the superior right over the one-eight portion of the subject property?

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court likewise affirmed both decisions of the lower courts. At the time of the levy, Sammy
Maron already had no interest on the one-eight portion of the property he and his siblings have
inherited because for a considerable time prior to the levy, said interest had already been conveyed
upon Macam "fully and irretrievably" - as the Court of Appeals held. Consequently, the subsequent levy
made on the property for the purpose of satisfying the judgment rendered against Sammy Maron in
favor of the Manila Trading Company was void and of no effect.

The unregistered sale and the consequent conveyance of title and ownership in favor Macam could not
have been cancelled and rendered of no effect upon the subsequent issuance of the Torrens title over
the entire parcel of land. Moreover, upon the execution of the deed of sale in his favor by Sammy
Maron, Macam had immediately taken possession of the land conveyed as its new owner and
introduced considerable improvements upon it himself. To deprive him, therefore, of the same by sheer
force of technicality would be against both justice and equity.


No david case
No Olivares case

Caram vs. LauretaG.R. No. L-28740February 24, 1981FERNANDEZ,
J.:
FACTS:
On June 10, 1945, Marcos Mata conveyed a large tract of agricultural land covered by OCT No. 3019 in
favor of Claro Laureta,plaintiff, the respondent herein. The deed of absolute sale in favor
of the plaintiff was not registered because it was not acknowledgedbefore a notary public or any other
authorized officer. Since June 10,1945, the plaintiff Laureta had been and is in continuous, adverse
andnotorious occupation of said land, without being molested, disturbed orstopped by any of the
defendants or their representatives. In fact,Laureta had been paying realty taxes due thereon and had
introducedimprovements worth not less than P20,000.00 at the time of the filingof the complaint. On
May 5, 1947, the same land covered by OCT No.3019 was sold by Marcos Mata to defendant Fermin Z.
Caram,
Jr.,petitioner herein. The deed of sale in favor of Caram wasacknowledged before Atty. Abelardo Aporta
dera. On December 9,1947, the second sale between Marcos Mata and Fermin Caram, Jr. wasregistered
with the Register of Deeds. On the same date, TransferCertificate of Title No. 140 was issued in favor of
Fermin Caram Jr.Thedefendant Fermin Caram Jr.
claimed that he has no knowledge orinformation about the previous encumbrances, transactions, andali
enations in favor of plaintiff until the filing of the complaints.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the knowledge petitioner of a priorunregistered sale of a titled property attributable to
petitioner andequivalent in law of registration of sale.
HELD:
Yes. There is no doubt then that Irespe and Aportadera,
actingas agents of Caram, purchased the property of Mata in bad faith.Applying the principle of agency,
Caram as principal, should also bedeemed to have acted in bad faith.Since Caram was a registrant in
badfaith, the situation is as if there was no registration at all. A possessorin good faith is one who is not
aware that there exists in his title ormode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. Laureta was first
inpossession of the property. He is also a possessor in good faith. It istrue that Mata had alleged that the
deed of sale in favor of Laureta wasprocured by force. Such defect, however, was cured when, after the
Jerome C. Aviso

lapse of four years from the time the intimidation ceased, Marcos Matalost both his rights to file an
action for annulment or to set up nullity of the contract as a defense in an action to enforce the same
ruz vs. Cabaa
129 SCRA 656
June 1984

FACTS:

In June 1965, respondent Leodegaria Cabaa sold the subject property to respondent spouses Teofilo
Legaspi and Iluminada Cabaa (spouses Legaspi) under their contract entitled Bilihang Muling Mabibili
which stipulated that Cabaa can repurchase the land within one year from December 31, 1966. The
said land was not repurchased, however, so the spouses Legaspi took possession of the said property.
Later, Cabaa requested that the land title be lent to her in order to mortgage the property to the
Philippine National Bank (PNB), to which the spouses Legaspi yielded. On October 21, 1968, Cabaa
formally sold the land to spouses Legaspi by way of an absolute sale. The spouses Legaspi then
attempted to register the deed of sale, but failed because they could not present the owner's duplicate
of title which was still in the possession of the PNB as mortgage. Subsequently, they were able to
register the document of sale on May 13, 1969 under Primary Entry No. 210113 of the Register of Deeds
of Quezon Province.

On November 29, 1968, Cabaa sold the same property to herein petitioner Abelardo Cruz (now
deceased), who, in turn, tried to register the deed of sale on September 3, 1970. However, he was
informed that Cabaa had already sold the property to the spouses Legaspi, so he was only able to
register the land in his name on February 9, 1971. The CFI of Quezon Province declared the spouses
Legaspi as the true and rightful owners of the subject property and the land title that Cruz had acquired
as null and void. The Court of Appeals affirmed said decision, but ordered Cabaa reimburse to Cruz's
heirs the amounts of P2,352.50, which the late petitioner Abelardo Cruz paid to PNB to discharge the
mortgage obligation of Cabaa in favor of said bank, and the amount of P3,397.50, representing the
amount paid by said Abelardo Cruz to her as consideration of the sale with pacto de retro of the subject
property.

ISSUE:

Who is the rightful owner of the subject property?

COURT RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court with modification ordering and
sentencing respondent Leodegaria Cabaa to reimburse and pay to petitioner's heirs the total sum of
P5,750.00.

There is no question that spouses Legaspi were the first buyers, first on June 1, 1965 under a sale with
right of repurchase and later on October 21, 1968 under a deed of absolute sale and that they had taken
possession of the land sold to them; that Abelardo Cruz was the second buyer under a deed of sale
dated November 29, 1968, which to ail indications, contrary to the text, was a sale with right of
repurchase for ninety (90) days. There is no question, either, that spouses Legaspi were the first and the
only ones to be in possession of the subject property.

The knowledge of the first sale Abelardo Cruz had gained defeats his rights even if he is first to register
the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the price
exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code. Before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he
must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first
buyer's rights) - from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing
registration, by delivery of possession. The second buyer must show continuing good faith and
innocence or lack of knowledge of the first sale until his contract ripens into full ownership through prior
registration as provided by law."


SPOUSES PASTOR VALDEZ AND VIRGINIA VALDEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
AND FELICIDAD VIERNES, FRANCISCO ANTE, AND ANTONIO ANTE, RESPONDENTS.

Spouses Francisco Ante and Manuela Ante were the registered owners of a parcel of land located
in Quezon City. Said spouses executed a special power of attorney in favor of their son, Antonio Ante, a
lawyer, authorizing him to execute any document conveying by way of mortgage or sale a portion or the
whole of said property, to receive payment and dispose of the same as he may deem fit and proper
under the premises. Antonio Ante subdivided the Land into Lot A and B and offered to sell the lots to
Eliseo Viernes, who was occupying the same with the permission of Ante. Viernes, however, turned
down the offer as he did not have money. Antonio Ante, as attorney in fact, executed a deed of sale of
the lot in favor of spouses Pastor Valdez and Virginia Valdez. The Valdez spouses demanded from
Antonio Ante the delivery of the owners duplicate copy of TCT covering said lot. Ante promised them
that he will deliver the title to them in a few days. In the meanwhile petitioners started fencing the
whole lot with cement hollow blocks in the presence of spouses Eliseo and Felicidad Viernes. On said
occasion the Viernes spouses were informed by the Valdez spouses that they were fencing the same as
they purchased the land from Antonio Ante.

The Valdez spouses registered the two deeds of sale dated June 15, 1980 and February 12, 1981 with
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City by presenting the owners duplicate copy of the title. They were,
however, informed that the said owners duplicate certificate of title had been declared null and void
per order of Judge Tutaan dated November 10, 1982. They also found out that spouses Francisco and
Manuela Ante earlier filed a petition for the issuance of a new owners duplicate certificate of title and
to declare null and void the lost owners duplicate certificate of title. The Valdez spouses also
discovered that the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT. No. 141582 and in lieu thereof issued TCT No.
293889 in the name of Felicidad Viernes on the basis of a deed of assignment of the same property
dated February 17, 1982 executed by Antonio Ante in her favor.

When Virginia Valdez inquired from Antonio Ante why he executed the said deed of assignment when
he had previously sold the same lot to them, Ante replied that they could sue him in court. Thus, the
Valdezes filed their adverse claim over the lot covered by TCT No. 293889 in the name of Felicidad
Viernes. After trial on the merits before which the Antes were declared in default, a decision was
rendered by the trial court on April 9, 1986.

Issue:

1. As between plaintiff-spouses Pastor and Virginia Valdez, petitioners in this case and defendant
Felicidad Viernes, one of the private respondents, who is entitled to the subject lot?

Ruling:

The petition is impressed with merit. Petitioner Spouses Pastor and Virginia Valdez are entitled to the
subject lot.

Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides as follows:
"Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be
transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good
faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership, shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in
the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title provided there
is good faith."

From the aforesaid provision of the law, should the subject of the sale be immovable property, the
ownership shall vest in the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the registry of
property. From the foregoing set of facts there can be no question that the sale of the subject lot to
petitioners was made long before the execution of the Deed of Assignment of said lot to respondent
Viernes and that petitioners annotated their adverse claim as vendees of the property as early as
September 6, 1982 with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City. On the other hand the deed of
Assignment in favor of Viernes of the said lot was registered with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City
only on November 11, 1982 whereby a new title was issued in the name of Viernes as above stated.

The rule is clear that a prior right is accorded to the vendee who first recorded his right in good faith
over an immovable property. In this case, the petitioners acquired subject lot in good faith and for
valuable consideration from the Antes and as such owners petitioners fenced the property taking
possession thereof. Thus, when petitioners annotated their adverse claim in the Register of Deeds of
Quezon City they thereby established a superior right to the property in question as against respondent
Viernes.

On the other hand, respondent Viernes cannot claim good faith in the purchase of the subject lot and
the subsequent registration of the Deed of Assignment in her favor. Even before the petitioners
purchased the lot from the Antes respondent Viernes husband was first given the option to purchase
the same by Antonio Ante but he declined because he had no money and so he was informed that it
would be sold to petitioners. After petitioners purchased the lot they immediately fenced the same
with the knowledge and without objection of respondent Viernes and her husband and they were
informed by the petitioners about their purchase of the same. Moreover, when petitioners annotated
their adverse claim as vendees of the property with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, it was
effectively a notice to the whole world including respondent Viernes.






Nuguid vs CA
Leave a comment
171 SCRA 213, G.R. No. 77423
March 13, 1989
FACTS:
The deceased spouses Victorino and Crisanta dela Rosa were the registered owners of a parcel of land
situated in Bataan, and covered by OCT. Victorino dela Rosa (widowed by then) sold one half of the
said property to Juliana Salazar for P 95.00. This sale was not registered. Immediately after the sale,
Juliana Salazar constructed a house on the lot she purchased. Petitioner spouses caused the registration
of a document entitled Kasulatan ng Partihan at Bilihan. In this document, Marciana dela Rosa,
Victoria Buenaventura, Ernesto Buenaventura, Virgilio Buenaventura, and Felicisimo Buenaventura-all
heirs of Victorino and Crisanta dela Rosa- sold to the petitioners the entire area of the property for the
sum of P300.00. Subsequently, the OCT was cancelled by the Register of Deeds, and TCT was issued in
the names of the petitioners.
The private respondents claim that the document is a forged deed. The petitioners assert that the land
subject of this case was offered to them for sale by Nicolas dela Rosa who then claimed that he had
already purchased the shares of the heirs over the subject property as evidenced by a private document
entitled Kasunduan. The RTC dismissed the complaint filed by the private respondents, but on appeal,
this was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the subsequent sale is valid, the petitioner spouses being purchasers in good faith.
HELD:
Yes.The Original Certificate of Title No. 3778 covering the entire property was clean and free from any
annotation of an encumbrance, and there was nothing whatsoever to indicate on its face any vice or
infirmity in the title of the registered owners-the spouses Victorino and Crisanta dela Rosa. Thus, the
petitioners could not have known of the prior sale to Juliana Salazar as, precjsely, it was not registered.
The general rule is that if the property sold is registered land, the purchaser in good faith has a right to
rely on the certificate of title and is under no duty to go behind it to look for flaws. This notwithstanding,
the petitioners did not rely solely upon the certificate of title. They personally inspected the subject
property.
Undeniably, they found the same to be occupied by two houses, one belonging to a certain Doray dela
Rosa and the other to spouses Pedro Guevarra and Pascuala Tolentino, parents of the respondents
Guevarras. Upon being informed of the petitioners desire to purchase the land, Doray dela Rosa
apparently offered to sell her house, which offer was accepted by the petitioners. As regards the
spouses Guevarra, we find no reason to disturb the trial courts finding that they themselves requested
that they be allowed to refrain on the property until such time that the petitioners would need the
entire premises; and in lieu of rentals to the petitioners, they offered to continue paying the real estate
taxes for one-half of the property as this was their arrangement with the previous owners-to which
request the petitioners acceded. Evidently, neither Doray dela Rosa nor the spouses Guevarra professed
ownership over the portions of land they were occupying; on the contrary, by their actuations they
expressly acknowledged that they were not the real owners of the said property. The spouses Guevarra,
in particular, made no mention of the prior unregistered sale to their predecessor-in-interest, Juliana
Salazar.
Thus, when the petitioners registered the sale in their favor with the Register of Deeds, they did so
without any knowledge about the prior sale in favor of Juliana Salazar. The petitioners, therefore, had
acted in good faith.



RADIOWEALTH; GABRIEL; DE LEONcase digest of Julianne Dominique Alpuerto
Double Sale
G.R. No. 83432 May 20, 1991
RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
MANUELITO S. PALILEO, respondent.
FACTS:
In April 1970, defendant spouses Enrique Castro and Herminio R. Castro (spouse Castro) sold to herein
respondent Manuelito Palileo a parcel of unregistered coconut land in Surigao del Norte. The sale is
evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, but the deed was not registered in the Registry of
Property for unregistered lands in the province of Surigao del Norte. Since the execution of the deed of
sale, Palileo who was then employed in Lianga, Surigao del Sur, exercised acts of ownership over the
land through his mother Rafaela Palileo, as administratrix or overseer. Manuelito Palileo has
continuously paid the real estate taxes on said land from 1971 until the present.
In November 1976, the CFI of Manila rendered a judgment was rendered against defendant Enrique T.
Castro to pay herein petitioner Radiowealth Finance Company (Radiowealth), the sum of P22,350.35
with interest rate of 16% per annum from November 2, 1975 until fully paid, and upon the finality of the
judgment, a writ of execution was issued. The Provincial Sheriff Marietta E. Eviota, through defendant
Deputy Provincial Sheriff Leopoldo Risma, levied upon and finally sold at public auction the subject land
that defendant Enrique Castro had sold to Palileo in 1970. The said Provincial Sheriff executed a
certificate of sale was by the in favor of Radiowealth as the only bidder, and upon expiration of the
redemption period, she also executed a deed of final sale. Both documents were registered with the
Registry of Deeds.
Learning of what happened to the land, Palileo filed an action for recovery of the subject property. The
court a quo rendered a decision in favor of Palileo, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE:
Who is the rightful owner of the subject property?
COURT RULING:
The Supreme Court likewise affirmed the appellate courts decision on this case. There is no doubt that
had the subject property been a registered land, this case would have been decided in favor of
Radiowealth since it was the company that had its claim first recorded in the Registry of Deeds for it is
the act of registration that operates to convey and affect registered land. Therefore, a bonafide
purchaser of a registered land at an execution sale acquires a good title as against a prior transferee, if
such transfer was unrecorded.
However, a different set of rules applies in the case at bar which deals with a parcel of unregistered
land. Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is "without prejudice
to a third party with a better right." The afore quoted phrase has been held by the Supreme Court to
mean that the mere registration of a sale in one's favor does not give him any right over the land if the
vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even
if the earlier sale was unrecorded. Applying this principle, the Court of Appeals correctly held that the
execution sale of the unregistered land in favor of petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer
belonged to the judgment debtor as of the time of the said execution sale.










TAEDO V. CA (January 22, 1996)
FACTS:
Lazaro Taedo executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Ricardo Taedo and Teresita Barrera in
which he conveyed a parcel of land which he will inherit. Upon the death of his father he executed an
affidavit of conformity to reaffirm the said sale. He also executed another deed of sale in favor of the
spouses covering the parcel of land he already inherited. Ricardo registered the last deed of sale in the
registry of deeds in their favor.

Ricardo later learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children through a deed of sale.

ISSUE:
WON the Taedo spouses have a better right over the property against the children of Lazaro Taedo.

HELD:
Since a future inheritance generally cannot be a subject of a contract, the deed of sale and the affidavit
of conformity made by Lazaro has no effect. The subject of dispute therefore is the deed of sale made by
him in favor of spouses Taedo and another to his children after he already legally acquired the
property.

Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was later than the one in favor of
petitioners, ownership would vest in the former because of the undisputed fact of registration. On the
other hand, petitioners have not registered the sale to them at all.

Petitioners contend that they were in possession of the property and that private respondents never
took possession thereof. As between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a
preferred right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of
the immovable property.


No last case