G.R. No.

193787, April 07, 2014

SPOUSES JOSE C. ROQUE AND BEATRIZ DELA CRUZ ROQUE,
ET AL.,
Petitioners, v. MA.
PAMELA P. AGUADO, ET
AL., Respondents.
Facts: Sps. Roque and Rivero executed a Deed of Conditional Sale of Real
Property over a subject portion of unregistered Lot 18089. The parties
agreed that Sps. Roque shall make an initial payment upon signing, while
the remaining balance of the purchase price shall be payable upon the
registration. Sabug, Jr. applied for a free patent over the entire Lot 18089
and executed a Joint Affidavit with Rivero acknowledging that the subject
portion belongs to Sps. Roque. Thereafter, Sabug, Jr. sold Lot 18089 to one
Ma. Pamela P. Aguado. Aguado obtained a loan from the Land Bank of the
Philippines and secured the same by a mortgage over Lot 18089. When she
failed to pay her loan obligation, Land Bank commenced extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings. Sps. Roque filed a complaint for reconveyance,
annulment of sale, and damages. Aguado raised the defense of an innocent
purchaser for value and alleged that the certificate of title of the property at
the time of sale was free from any lien and/or encumbrances.
Issue: Whether or not Sps. Roque are the lawful owners of the subject
portion of the lot being the first purchasers and in actual possession hence,
cannot be ousted therefrom by Land Bank?
Ruling: The stipulation shown in the Deed of Conditional Sale between
Rivero and Sps. Roque is actually in the nature of a contract to sell and not
one of sale. Where the seller promises to execute a deed of absolute sale
upon the completion by the buyer of the payment of the purchase price,
the contract is only a contract to sell even if their agreement is denominated
as a Deed of Conditional Sale. A contract to sell is a bilateral contract
whereby the prospective seller, while expressly reserving the ownership of
the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds
himself to sell the subject property exclusively to the prospective
buyer upon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, such as, the full
payment of the purchase price. It is undisputed that Sps. Roque have not
paid the final installment of the purchase price. As such, the condition which
would have effectively transfer the ownership of the subject portion from the
sellers to the buyers cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled.

G.R. No. 183822, January 18, 2012

RUBEN C. CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HILARION AGUSTIN
AND JUSTA AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.
Facts: Ruben C. Corpuz filed a complaint for ejectment against Spouses
Hilarion and Justa Agustin on the allegation that he is the registered owner
of two parcels of land covered by TCT No. 12980. Aforesaid parcels of land
were formerly owned by Francisco D. Corpuz, father of Ruben C. Corpuz.
The elder Corpuz allowed spouses Agustin to occupy subject properties, the
latter being relatives. Despite demand to vacate, the Agustins refused to
leave the premises. Ruben alleged that he has the better right to possess
subject property having acquired the same from his father who executed a
Deed of Quitclaim in his favor. Spouses Agustin interposed the defense that
Francisco Corpuz disposed of subject property by executing a Deed of
Absolute Sale in their favor for a consideration.
Issue: Whether or not Corpuz has the right to possession of the disputed
properties being the registered owner of the same?
Held: Petitioner is correct that as a Torrens title holder over the subject
properties, he is the rightful owner and is entitled to possession thereof.
However, the lower courts and the appellate court consistently found that
possession of the disputed properties by respondents was in the nature of
ownership, and not by mere tolerance of the elder Corpuz. In fact, they have
been in continuous, open and notorious possession of the property for more
than 30 years up to this day. Petitioner opted to file an ejectment case against
respondents where the only question that the courts will resolve is: who is
entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the
possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. For this reason, an
ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has
presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Petitioner has not
proven that respondents' continued possession of the subject properties was
by mere tolerance of his father nor the possession of the properties became
unlawful - a requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case.

G.R. NO. 192450, July 23, 2012

SANTIAGO V. SOQUILLO, Petitioner, v. JORGE P.
TORTOLA, Respondent.
Facts: Lorenzo Coloso, Jr. sold to Ramon Jamis a parcel of land executed by
a notarized deed of conditional sale of the unregistered land. Jamis thereafter
sold the disputed property to Jorge P. Tortola who thereafter took possession
of the property evidenced by a notarized deed of definite sale in favor of the
latter. Tortola and his family moved to Bukidnon and left Godofredo
Villaflores as his agent and caretaker of the disputed property. Coloso and
the other heirs of Coloso, Jr. filed an application for free patent to obtain a
title over the disputed property. Being in possession of the disputed property,
the issuance of the free patent was made in favor of the heirs of Coloso.
After the issuance of OCT, the heirs of Coloso, Jr. executed a notarized deed
of absolute sale conveying the disputed property to Santiago V. Soquillo.
Soquillo filed a complaint for illegal detainer against Villaflores and his wife
which was eventually decided in favor of the former. Tortola discovered the
ejectment case thereby prompting him to file a complaint against the Heirs
of Coloso, Jr. and Soquillo for annulment of title/sale and award of damages.
Issue: Whether or not Soquillo can be considered as a purchaser in good
faith hence, the rightful owner of the disputed property?
Ruling: Santiago Soquillo cannot be considered as purchaser in good faith
and for value. The fact that defendants Heirs of Lorenzo Boy Coloso, Jr.
were not in possession of the disputed land should have impelled him to go
beyond the title. The general rule is that a purchaser may rely on what
appears on the face of a certificate of title. An exception to this rule is when
there exist important facts that would create suspicion in an otherwise
reasonable man to go beyond the present title and to investigate those that
preceded it. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated
an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith, hence, does
not merit the protection of the law. Besides, Heirs of Lorenzo Coloso, Jr. had
not transferred any rights over the disputed land to Soquillo, because the
former were not owners of the same at the time they sold the land to
Soquillo. No one can give what he does not have.

G.R. No. 194846, June 28, 2013

HOSPICIO D. ROSAROSO, ET Al., Petitioners, v. LUCILA LABORTE
SORIA, ET AL., Respondents.
Facts: A complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents with Damages
was filed against Lucila R. Soria, Lucilas daughter, Laila S. Solutan and
Meridian Realty Corporation. It was alleged that Luis, with the full
knowledge and consent of his second wife, Lourdes, executed the Deed of
Absolute Sale covering the several properties in favor of Luis children of
the first marriage Hospicio Rosaroro et al. Despite the fact that the said
properties had already been sold to them, Laila, in conspiracy with her
mother, Lucila, obtained a Special Power of Attorney from Luis who was
then sick, infirm, blind, and of unsound mind. It was alleged that Lucila and
Laila accomplished this by affixing Luis thumb mark on the SPA which
purportedly authorized Laila to sell and convey the lots which had already
been sold to them. A second sale took place where Lucila and Laila made
Luis sign the Deed of Absolute Sale conveying to Meridian three (3) parcels
of residential land. In the pursuit of the acquisition, Meridian did not make
any inquiry as to who were the occupants and owners of said lots and was
not been informed as to the true status of the subject property.
Issue: Whether or not Meridian is the rightful owner of the disputed property
for being in good faith and first recorded it in the Registry of Property?
Ruling: The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger
in right) gains greater significance in case of a double sale of immovable
property. When the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires
it and first records it in the Registry of Property, both made in good faith,
shall be deemed the owner. Verily, the act of registration must be coupled
with good faith that is, the registrant must have no knowledge of the
defect or lack of title of his vendor or must not have been aware of facts
which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as
might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his
vendor.When a piece of land is in the actual possession of persons other
than the seller, the buyer should investigate the rights of those in
possession. Without making such inquiry, one cannot claim that he is a
buyer in good faith.