 

USE THE SEARCH FOR ALL YOUR LEGAL RESEARCH NEEDS:

Custom Search Search

Double Sale
Sales

Like 0 Twitter Share Share

Double Sale
It was contend that when buyers bought the property they knew that the same property was previously sold to them.
Therefore, since they are buyers in bad faith, ownership of the property must pertain to the buyers, who, in good faith, were
first in possession. Is the contention correct? Why?

Held: No. The argument is misplaced.

Petitioners invoke Article 1544 of the Civil Code which reads:

Article 1544. If the same things 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
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
possession; and in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
(Emphasis ours)
The above provision does not apply to the instant case considering that the transaction between petitioners and
spouses Belmes is a mere contract to sell, not a contract of sale.

Along the same vein, in Sps. Serrano v. Caguiat, G.R. No. 139173, February 26, 2007, there was a contract where a
partial payment was made. The balance was to be paid on an agreed date and after payment, the owners will execute the
final deed of sale.

The SC held it be a contract to sell.

A contract to sell is akin to a conditional sale where the efficacy or obligatory force of the vendor’s obligation to
transfer title is subordinate to the happening of a future and uncertain event, so that if the suspensive condition does take
place, the parties would stand as if the conditional obligation had never existed. The suspensive condition is commonly the full
payment of the purchase price. (Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals and Lapaz Kaw Ngo, G.R. No. 119580, September
26, 1996, citing Rose Packing Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 167 SCRA 309, 318 (1988) and Lim v. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA
564, 670 (1990)).

The differences between a contract to sell and a contract of sale are well-settled in jurisprudence. As early as 1951, in
Sing Yee v. Santos, 47 O.G. 6372 (1951), it was held:

“x x x [a] distinction must be made between a contract of sale in which title passes to the buyer upon
delivery of the thing sold and a contract to sell x x x where by agreement the ownership is reserved in the seller
and is not to pass until the full payment, of the purchase price is made. In the first case, non-payment of the
price is a positive suspensive condition. Being contraries, their effect in law cannot be identical. In the first case,
the vendor has lost and cannot recover the ownership of the land sold until and unless the contract of sale itself
is resolved and set aside. In the second case, however, the title remains in the vendor if the vendee does not
comply with the condition precedent of making payment at the time specified in the contract.
In other words, in a contract to sell, ownership is retained by the seller and is not to pass to the buyer until full
payment of the price.(Jacinto v. Kaparaz, 209 SCRA 246 (1992).

In this case, the “Receipt for Partial Payment” shows that the true agreement between the parties is a contract to sell.

First, ownership over the property was retained by sellers and was not to pass to buyer until full payment of the
purchase price. Thus, owners need not push through with the sale should buyer fail to remit the balance of the purchase price
before the deadline on March 23, 1990. In effect, petitioners have the right to rescind unilaterally the contract the moment
respondent fails to pay within the fixed period. (Chua v. CA, G.R. No. 119255, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 54).

Second, the agreement between the parties was not embodied in a deed of sale. The absence of a formal deed of
conveyance is a strong indication that the parties did not intend immediate transfer of ownership, but only a transfer after full
payment of the purchase price.

Third, seller/owners retained possession of the certificate of title of the lot. This is an additional indication that the
agreement did not transfer to the buyer, either by actual or constructive delivery, ownership of the property.

It is true that Article 1482 of the Civil Code provides that “Whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it
shall be considered as part of the price and proof of the perfection of the contract.” However, this article speaks of earnest
money given in a contract of sale. In this case, the earnest money was given in a contract to sell. The earnest money forms
part of the consideration only if the sale is consummated upon full payment of the purchase price. Now, since the earnest
money was given in a contract to sell, Article 1482, which speaks of a contract of sale, does not apply.

Prev Next

Visit the site's Law Firm by clicking the above image to avail of Free Legal Advice or for us to assist you in your
legal needs.

More about this topic:

PD No. 957- The Law on Sale division Lots and Condominiums
Republic Act No. 4726- The Condominium Act
Presidential Decree No. 603- The Child and Youth Welfare Code
 Definition: Contract of Sale
Bulk Sales Law (Act No. 3952)
Presidential Decree No. 612- The Insurance Code of the Philippines
Republic Act 3591- Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation Act (PDIC)
Commonwealth Act No. 146- The Public Service Law
Batas Pambansa Bilang 68- The Corporation Code of the Philippines
Republic Act No. 8799- Securities Regulation Code

BATASnatin Philippine Law Library is is brought to you by Libayan & Associates is full service Law Firm providing all kinds of legal services. For all
your legal needs please contact us:
Email: atty.libayan@gmail.com | Globe Mobile: (+63)915 954 6080 | Smart Mobile: (+63)949 589 8377 | Landline: (+63)2 359 4203