Double sale

Article 1544 of the Civil Code

- 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.
In general, first sale registered in good faith
prevails
The case under consideration can also be viewed
under a different angle. It can also be treated as one
of double sale, where a person sells the same land to
two different persons who are unaware of the flaw
that lies in its title, and where the law adjudicates the
property to the purchaser who first registers the
transaction in his name in the registry of property.
And applying this principle, we cannot conclude that
the title should likewise be adjudicated to appellant
whose predecessor-in-interest acquired and
registered the property much ahead in point of time
than the appellees. Verily, the title acquired by the
latter is invalid and ineffective, contrary to the
finding of the court a quo. (DBP vs Mangawang, 11
SCRA 405)
 In this jurisdiction, it is settled that "(t)he general
rule is that in the case of two certificates of title,
purporting to include the same land, the earlier in
date prevails . . . . In successive registrations, where
more than one certificate is issued in respect of a
particular estate or interest in land, the person
claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to
the estate or interest; and that person is deemed to
hold under the prior certificate who is the holder
of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly
from the person who was the holder of the earliest
certificate issued in respect thereof (Realty Sales
Enterprises vs. IAC, 154 SCRA 328)
 It is settled in this jurisdiction that a sale of real estate,
whether made as a result of a private transaction or of a
foreclosure or execution sale, becomes legally effective
against third persons only from the date of its registration.
Consequently, and considering that the properties subject
matter hereof were actually attached and levied upon at a
time when said properties stood in the official records of the
Registry of Deeds as still owned by and registered in the
name of the judgment debtor, Tomas de Vera, the
attachment, levy and subsequent sale of said properties are
proper and legal.
In case of double sale of realty, the ownership passes to the
vendee who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of
Property. Hence, the petitioner has the better right to the
disputed parcels of land because the sale in his favor was
recorded. (Campillo vs. CA, 129 SCRA 513)
 (Gatioan vs. Gaffud, 27 SCRA 706) As between
original parties
We have laid the rule that where two certificates of
title around issued to different persons covering the
same land in whole or in part, the earlier in date must
prevail as between original parties and in case of
successive registrations where more than one
certificate is issued over the land, the person holding
under the prior certificate is entitled to the land as
against the person who rely on the second certificate.
The purchaser from the owner of the later certificate
and his successors, should resort to his vendor for
redress, rather than molest the holder of the first
certificate and his successors, who should be
permitted to resort secure in their title
 (De Villa vs. Trinidad 22 SCRA 1167) In
case of successive registrations
Consequently, since Original Certificate
of Title No. 183 was registered on January
30, 1920, De Villa's claim which is based
on said title should prevail, as against
Trinidad's whose original title was
registered on November 25, 1920. And
from the point of equity, this is the proper
solution, considering that unlike the titles
of Palma and the DBP, De Villa's title was
never tainted with fraud.
(Bergado vs. CA) Good faith in registration is
essential
The inscription of the Escritura de Compraventa in
1964 produced no legal effect because it was made
in bad faith. Ownership should therefore vest in the
respondent Republic of the Philippines because it
was first in possession of the property in good
faith. If any recourse is still available to the
petitioners, it definitely is not against the Republic
of the Philippines. Their claim for satisfaction on
which we do not rule at this time may be
addressed only to Marciana Trinidad who, for
reasons still to be discovered, sold the same land
once, and then once again, to separate purchasers
 A title procured by fraud or
misrepresentation can still be the source
of a completely legal and valid title if the
same is in the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value.
 A person is considered in law as an innocent purchaser for
value when he buys the property of another, without notice
that some other person has a right or an interest in such
property, and pays a full price for the same at the time of
such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or
interest of some other person in the property. A person
dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title of the
vendor/transferor, and the law will in no way oblige him to
go behind the certificate to determine the condition of the
property. The courts cannot disregard the rights of innocent
third persons, for that would impair or erode public
confidence in the torrens system of land registration. Thus, a
title procured by fraud or misrepresentation can still be the
source of a completely legal and valid title if the same is in
the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. (Heirs of Tiro
vs. PES, 563 SCRA 309)
The remedy of the owner
Sec. 53 of PD 1529
Presentation of owner's duplicate upon entry of
new certificate.

No voluntary instrument shall be

registered by the Register of Deeds, unless
the owner's duplicate certificate is
presented with such instrument, except in
cases expressly provided for in this
Decree or upon order of the court, for
cause shown.
The production of the owner's duplicate certificate,
whenever any voluntary instrument is presented for
registration, shall be conclusive authority from the
registered owner to the Register of Deeds to enter a new
certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in
accordance with such instrument, and the new certificate or
memorandum shall be binding upon the registered owner
and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every
purchaser for value and in good faith.
In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner
may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the
parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the
rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title.
After the entry of the decree of registration on the original
petition or application, any subsequent registration
procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate
certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall
be null and void.
A forged deed is an absolute nullity and conveys no
title
Raneses vs. IAC
Issue: Whether or not the deed of absolute sale
executed by Isabelo G. Cuevas in favor of Raneses
which is registered with the office of the Register of
Deeds of Camarines Norte, should prevail over the
deed of absolute sale executed by Isabelo G. Cuevas in
favor of Francisco Lumbis which is not registered with
the office of the Register of Deeds for Camarines
Norte?
The intermediate Appellate Court pronounced the
Raeses to be vendees in bad faith, and their deed of
sale, Exhibit E, a forgery.
In any case, "(t)he principle that a forged deed is an
absolute nullity and conveys no title (which) is firmly
embedded in our jurisprudence, . . ." clearly militates
against according any primacy to the claim of the
Raeses over that of respondent Lamadrid,
 BUT, if the certificate of title has already been
transferred from the name of the true owner to
the name of the forger or the name indicated
by the forger, and while it remained that way,
the land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser, the forged deed or document may
be the root of a valid title.
Solivel vs. Francisco, 170 SCRA 218
Issue: Whether a buyer of property is deemed to
be a purchaser in good faith on the basis that a
deed of sale was executed in the name of owners
by reason of a forged special power of attorney
in their behalf?
Thus the rule is simple: the fraudulent and
forged document of sale may become the root of
a valid title if the certificate has already been
transferred from the name of the true owner to
the name indicated by the forger. What is
important is that at the time the mortgage was
executed, the mortgagees in good faith actually
believed person to be the owner, as evidenced
by the registration of the property in the name of
said person
 Same rule applies if the certificate has been
transferred to the name of the forger
Tenio-Obsequio vs. CA, 230 SCRA 550
It has been consistently ruled that a forged deed can
legally be the root of a valid title when an innocent
purchaser for value intervenes. A deed of sale
executed by an impostor without the authority of the
owner of the land sold is a nullity, and registration
will not validate what otherwise is an invalid
document. However, where the certificate of title was
already transferred from the name of the true
owner to the forger and, while it remained that way,
the land was subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser, the vendee had the right to rely upon
what appeared in the certificate and, in the absence
of anything to excite suspicion, was under no
obligation to look beyond the certificate and
investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the
face of said certificate.
 Reason: The vendee has the right to rely
on the correctness of the certificate of
title
Duran vs. IAC, 138 SCRA 489 (1985)
Thus, where innocent third persons relying
on the correctness of the certificate of title
issued, acquire rights over the property, the
court cannot disregard such rights and
order the total cancellation of the certificate
for that would impair public confidence in
the certificate of title; otherwise everyone
dealing with property registered under the
torrens system would have to inquire in
every instance as to whether the title had
been regularly or irregularly issued by the
court
. Indeed, this is contrary to the evident purpose of the
law. Every person dealing with registered land may
safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title
issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him
to go behind the certificate to determine the
condition of the property. Stated differently, an
innocent purchaser for value relying on a torrens title
issued is protected. A mortgagee has the right to rely
on what appears in the certificate of title and, in the
absence of anything to excite suspicion, he is under
no obligation to look beyond the certificate and
investigate the title of the mortgagor appearing on
the face of said certificate.
 Exception: Rule on double sale does not apply if
the owner still holds a valid and existing
certificate of title covering the same property;
Reason:
Torres vs. CA, 186 SCRA 672
Moreover, even if we grant Mota the status of an
innocent mortgagee, the doctrine relied upon
by the appellate court that a forged instrument
may become the root of a valid title, cannot be
applied where the owner still holds a valid and
existing certificate of title covering the same
interest in a realty
The claim of indefeasibility of the petitioner's
title under the Torrens land title system would
be correct if previous valid title to the same
parcel of land did not exist.
The respondent had a valid title ... It never
parted with it; it never handed or delivered to
anyone its owner's duplicate of the transfer
certificate of title, it could not be charged with
negligence in the keeping of its duplicate
certificate of title or with any act which could
have brought about the issuance of another
certificate upon which a purchaser in good faith
and for value could rely. If the petitioner's
contention as to indefeasibility of his title should
be upheld, then registered owners without the
least fault on their part could be divested of their
title and deprived of their property. Such
disastrous results which would shake and destroy
the stability of land titles had not been foreseen
by those who had endowed with indefeasibility
land titles issued under the Torrens system
Remedies of the person or victim prejudiced
PNB vs. CA, 187 SCRA 735
The right or lien of an innocent mortgagee for
value upon the land mortgaged must be
respected and protected, even if the mortgagor
obtained his title through fraud. The remedy of
the persons prejudiced is to bring an action for
damages against those who caused the fraud,
and if the latter are insolvent, an action against
the Treasurer of the Philippines may be filed for
recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund