Double Sale Digest

Mar0uez whi'h the for#er 'onfir#ed The deed .

DOUBLE SALE DIGEST 1. Rural bank of Cagayan Valley v CA

of sale was registered with the )R$ of Isabela. Subse0uentl%& Subse0uentl%& Mar0uez subdivided lot A! into

FACTS: eight -1/ lots. )n the sa#e date& Mar0uez and The Madrid Madrid brothers brothers were the his spouse& Mer'edita Mariana& #ortgaged 2 registered owners of Lot A situated in Isabela. lots to the Consolidated Rural 3an,& In'. of Said lot was subdivided into several lots. Rizal Caga%an 4alle% -hereafter& CR3/ to se'ure a Madrid sold part of his share identified lot A! loan. These deeds of real estate #ortgage were to "a#iao and $a%ag b% virtue of a Deed a Deed of registered with the )R$. Sale& Sale& to whi'h his brothers offered no ob(e'tion as eviden'ed b% their Joint their Joint Affidavit Affidavit .The .The deed

As Mar0uez defaulted defaulted in the pa%#ent pa%#ent of his

of sale was not registered with the )R$ of

loan& CR3 'aused the fore'losure of the

Isabela. *owever& "a#iao and $a%ag de'lared

#ortgages in its favor and the lots were sold to

the propert% in their na#es on a Ta+

it as the highest bidder.

$e'laration. "a#iao and $a%ag sold the sub(e't southern

The *eirsnow respondents filed a 'ase for

half of lot to Teodoro dela Cruz& and the

re'onve%an'e re'onve%an'e and da#ages da#ages for the southern southern

northern half to *ernandez. Thereupon&

portion of Lot 5o. !678A -hereafter& the

Teodoro dela Cruz and *ernandez too,

sub(e't propert%/ against Mar0uez and CR3.

possession of and 'ultivated the portions of the propert% respe'tivel% sold to the# -Later Restituto *ernandez donated the northern half to his daughter. The 'hildren of Teodoro dela Cruz 'ontinued possession of the southern half after their fathers death./ In a Deed a Deed of Salethe Sale the Madrid brothers 'onve%ed all their rights and interests over lot A! to

The RTC handed down a de'ision in favor of Mar0uez. The *eirs interposed an appeal with the CA& whi'h upheld the 'lai# of the *eirs. *en'e& the instant CR3 petition.

ISS9:

Titles you can't find anywhere else

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.











;)5 Art. <=22 of of the Civil Code -double

was first in possession? possession? and& and& in the absen'e absen'e

sale/ appli'able in this 'ase

thereof& to the person who presents the oldest

*L$:

title& provided there is good faith.

5).The petition is denied& and the de'ision as #odified is affir#ed. Li,e the lower 'ourt& the appellate 'ourt resolved the present 'ontrovers% b% appl%ing the rule on double sale provided in Arti'le <=22 of the Civil Code. The%& however& arrived at different 'on'lusions. 'on'lusions. The RTC #ade CR3 and the other defendants win& while the Court of Appeals de'ided de'ided the 'ase in favor of the *eirs. Arti'le <=22 of the the Civil Code reads& thus: thus:

The provision is not appli'able in the present 'ase. It 'onte#plates a 'ase of double or #ultiple sales b% a single vendor. It 'annot be invo,ed where the two different 'ontra'ts of sale are #ade b% two different persons& one of the# not being the owner of the propert% sold. And even if the sale sale was #ade b% the the sa#e person& if the se'ond sale was #ade when su'h person was no longer the owner of the propert%& be'ause it had been a'0uired b% the

ART. <=22. If the sa#e sa#e thing should should have been

first pur'haser in full do#inion& the se'ond

sold to different vendees& the ownership shall

pur'haser 'annot a'0uire an% right.

be transferred transferred to the person who #a% have first first ta,en possession thereof in good faith& if it should be #ovable propert%.

In the 'ase at bar& the sub(e't propert% was not transferred to several pur'hasers b% a single vendor. In the first first deed of sale& sale& the vendors

Should it be i##ovable propert%& the

were "a#iao "a#iao and $a%ag whose right right to the

ownership shall belong to the person a'0uiring

sub(e't propert% originated fro# their

it who in good faith first re'orded it in the

a'0uisition thereof fro# Rizal Madrid with the











had long before disposed of the propert% in

transfer legall%. In this 'ase& sin'e the Madrid

favor of "a#iao and $a%ag.

brothers were were no longer the owners owners of the

=7

sub(e't propert% at the ti#e of the sale to In a situation where not all the re0uisites are present whi'h would warrant the appli'ation of Art. <=22& the prin'iple prin'iple of prior of prior tempore, tempore, potior jure or jure or si#pl% @he who is first in ti#e is preferred in right& should appl%. The onl% essential re0uisite re0uisite of this rule is priorit% in ti#e? in other words& the onl% one who 'an invo,e this is the first vendee. 9ndisputedl%& he is a pur'haser in good faith be'ause at the ti#e he bought the real propert%& there was still no sale to a se'ond vendee. In the instant 'ase& the sale to the *eirs b% "a#iao and $a%ag& who first bought it fro# Rizal Madrid& was anterior to the sale b% the Madrid brothers to Mar0uez. The *eirs also had possessed the sub(e't propert% first in ti#e. Thus& appl%ing the

Mar0uez& the latter did not a'0uire an% right to it. 5)TS: In an% event& assu#ing arguendo that arguendo that Arti'le <=22 applies to the present 'ase& the 'lai# of Mar0uez still 'annot prevail over the right of the *eirs sin'e a''ording to the eviden'e he was not a pur'haser pur'haser and registrant registrant in good faith. In the instant 'ase& the a'tions of Mar0uez have not satisfied the re0uire#ent of good faith fro# the ti#e of the pur'hase of the sub(e't propert% to the ti#e of registration. Found b% the Court of Appeals& Mar0uez ,new at the ti#e of the sale that the sub(e't propert% was being 'lai#ed or @ta,en b% the *eirs. This was a detail whi'h 'ould indi'ate a defe't in the vendors title title whi'h he failed to in0uire in0uire into. Mar0uez also ad#itted that he did not ta,e possession of the propert% and at the ti#e he testified he did not even ,now who was in possession.

prin'iple& the *eirs& without a s'intilla of doubt& have a superior right to the sub(e't propert%.

2. ar!"ne# v CA

Moreover& it is an established prin'iple that no

Facts: Private respondents Godofredo De la Paz and a nd his sister Manuela entered into an oral











petitioner. "eneracion eneracion never too$ actual possession of the lots, %ut all titles were #iven to him an d re#istered the same in his name. Petitioner discovered that the lot had %een sold to the spouses "eneracion, "eneracion, so he demanded the eecution of the deed of sale from De la Paz and informed "eneraci "eneracion on that he was the owner of the property as he had previously purchased the same. "eneracion "eneracion %rou#ht an action for e&ectment, while petitioner caused a notice of lis pendens to %e recorded on the title. 'hile the e&ectment case was pendin#, petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of sale with dama#es a#ainst the "eneracions "eneracions and De la Pazes. (ssue: 'hether or not private respondents "eneracion "eneracion are %uyers % uyers in #ood faith. Rulin#: )*. +he reuirement of the law, where where title to the property is recorded is two-fold: acuisition in #ood faith and recordin# in #ood faith. +o %e entitled to priority, priority, the second purchaser must not only prove prior recordin# of his title %ut that he acted in #ood faith, i.e.,without $nowled#e or notice of a prior sale to another. +he presence of #ood faith should %e ascertained from the circumstances surroundin# the purchase of the land. +his ourt in several cases has ruled that a purchaser who is aware of facts which should puta reasona%le man upon his #uard cannot turn a %lind eye and later claim that he acted in #ood faith. Private respondent "eneracion "eneracion $new that there were already occupants on the property as early as /01/. +he fact that there are persons, other than the vendors, in actual possession of the disputed lot should have put private respondents on inuiry as to the nature of petitioner2s ri#ht over the property. 3ut he never tal$ed to petitioner to verify the nature of his ri#ht. 4e merely relied on the assurance of private respondent Godofredo De la Paz, who was not even the owner of the lot in uestion, that he would ta$e care of the matter. +his does not meet the standard of #ood faith. +he deed of sale eecuted %y private respondents Godofredo and Manuela De la Paz in favor of private respondents

So#eti#e in Bul% <D& Cattle%a Land& In'. -hereinafter referred to as respondent/ respondent/ as,ed so#eone to 'he',& on its behalf& the titles of nine -/ lots& the sub(e't land in'luded& whi'h it intended to bu% fro# the spouses Troadio and Asun'ion Te'son. Te'son. Finding no no defe't on the titles& respondent pur'hased the nine lots through a $eed of Conditional Sale on 8 5ove#ber <D. Subse0uentl%& on 76 August <7& respondent and the Te'sons e+e'uted a $eed of Absolute Sale over the sa#e properties. The $eed of Conditional Sale and the $eed of Absolute Sale Sale were registered registered with the Register Register of $eeds on 68 5ove#ber <D and 62 )'tober <7& respe'tivel%. The Register of $eeds refused to a'tuall% annotate the deed of sale on the titles be'ause of the e+isting noti'e of atta'h#ent pending before the Regional Trial Court of 3ohol. The atta'h#ent was eventuall% 'an'elled b% virtue of a 'o#pro#ise agree#ent between the Te'sons Te'sons and their atta'hing 'reditor whi'h was bro,ered b% respondent. Titles to si+ -8/ of the nine -/ lots were issued& but the Register Register of $eeds refused to to issue titles to the re#aining three -7/ lots & be'ause the titles 'overing the sa#e were still una''ounted for. Later& respondent learned that the Register of $eeds had alread% registered registered the deed of sale in favor of petitioner and issued a new title herein. The respondent filed its Co#plaintfor Euieting )f Title G)r Re'over% )f )wnership& Can'ellation )f Title ;ith $a#ages before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran Cit%. ISS9: ;)5 there is a double sale *L$: There is no double sale to spea, of. Art. <=22 of the Civil Code whi'h Code whi'h provides the rule on double sale& applies onl% to a situation where the sa#e propert% is validl% sold to different vendees. In this this 'ase& there is onl% onl% one sale sale to advert to& that between the spouses Te'son and respondent.











Court held that despite the fa't that one deed of sale was registered ahead of the other& Art. <=22 of the Civil Code will not appl% where said deed is found to be a forger%& the result of this being that the right right of the other vendee vendee should prevail. ven assu#ing that there was double sale in this 'ase& petitioner would still not prevail. The pertinent portion of Art. <=22 provides: Art. <=22. + + +. Should it be i##ovable propert%& the ownership shall belong to the person person a'0uiring it who in good faith first first re'orded it in the Registr% of >ropert%. + + + +. In interpreting this provision& the Court de'lared that the governing prin'iple is primus is primus tempore, potior jure -first jure -first in ti#e& stronger in right/. Hnowledge gained b% the first bu%er of the se'ond sale 'annot defeat the first bu%ers rights& e+'ept where the se'ond bu%er registers in good faith the se'ond sale ahead of the first as provided b% the afore0uoted provision of the Civil Code. Su'h ,nowledge of the first bu%er does not bar hi# fro# availing of his rights under the law& a#ong the# to register first his pur'hase as against the se'ond bu%er. *owever& ,nowledge ,nowledge gained b% the se'ond bu%er of the first first sale defeats his his rights even if he is first to register the se'ond sale& sin'e su'h ,nowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. It is thus essential& to #erit the prote'tion of Art. <=22& se'ond paragraph& that the se'ond realt% bu%er #ust a't in good faith in registering his deed of sale. (. A)an'"o v. CA Case $o'trine: The general rule is that a pur'haser #a% be 'onsidered a pur'haser in good faith when he has e+a#ined the latest 'ertifi'ate 'ertifi'ate of title. An e+'eption to this rule is when there e+ist e+ist i#portant i#portant fa'ts that would 'reate suspi'ion suspi 'ion in an otherwise reasonable re asonable

Fa'ts: The sub(e't of the present 'ontrovers% is a par'el of land situated in Mari,ina 'overed b% Transfer Certifi'ate of Title 5o. 5<<87< and registered in the na#e of the plaintiff appellee R)$A55A RALT C)R>)RATI)5 -Rodeanna Realt% G RRC/. The land was previousl% owned b% the Sar#iento spouses b% virtue of a deed of absolute sale e+e'uted on Bul% $R) )"SI5R as their overseer. )n August <=& <!D& the sub(e't land was #ortgaged b% the Sar#iento spouses to Carlos Moran Sison -Mr. Sison/ as a se'urit% for a loan obtained b% the Sar#iento spouses fro# Mr. Sison. 9pon failure of the Sar#iento spouses to pa% the loan& Mr. Sison initiated the e+tra(udi'ial e+tra(udi'ial fore'losure sale of the #ortgaged propert%& and on )'tober )'tob er D6& <!!& the said propert% was fore'losed fore'losed through the )ffi'e of the Sheriff of Rizal& Rizal& whi'h a''ordingl%& a''ordingl%& issued a 'ertifi'ate 'ertifi'ate of sale in favor of Mr. Sison& and whi'h Mr. Sison Sison 'aused to be annotated annotated on the title of Sar#iento spouses on Banuar% 7<& <!1. )n August D=& <1D& B)S >9J)5 -Mr. >uzon/ pur'hased the sa#e propert% in an au'tion sale for nonpa%#ent of ta+es. After pa%ing >7&266.66& he was issued a 'ertifi'ate 'ertifi'ate of sale and 'aused it to be registered in the Registr% of $eeds of Mari,ina. 5o rede#ption having been #ade b% the Sar#iento spouses& a final bill of sale was issued in his Mr. >uzons favor. Thereafter& Thereafter& Mr. >uzon filed a petition for 'onsolidation of ownership and issuan'e of new title over the sub(e't propert% before the Regional Trial Court of >asig. The said petition was granted granted b% the 'ourt on August August 67& <12. Thereafter& Transfer Certifi'ate of Title 5o. 5o . <6D6D was issued issue d in the t he na#e of Bose >uzon. )n August August <8& <18& Mr. Mr. >uzon sold the propert% in 0uestion to Rodeanna Realt%. 3% virtue of su'h sale& a transfer 'ertifi'ate 'ertifi'ate of title over the sub(e't propert% was











a 'o#plaint for re'over% of possession possessio n with da#ages against the Sar#iento spouses and >edro )gsiner& the Sar#iento spouses 'areta,er of the sub(e't propert% who refused to va'ate the pre#ises. In its 'o#plaint& plaintiffappellee alleged that the Sar#iento spouses lost all the rights rig hts over the propert% in 0uestion when a 'ertifi'ate 'ertifi'ate of sale was e+e'uted in favor of Mr. Sison for their failure to pa% the #ortgage loan. The trial 'ourt ruled in favor of plaintiff against all defendants and ordered defendant >edro )gsiner and all persons 'lai#ing rights under hi# to va'ate the pre#ises and surrender pea'eful possession to the plaintiff to Rodeanna Realt%. The Court of Appeals affir#ed the trial 'ourts de'ision Issue: ;hether or not Rodeanna Realt% Corporation is entitled to ownership of sub(e't propert% as an inno'ent pur'haser for value. *eld: 5o. ver% person dealing with registered land #a% safel% rel% on the 'orre'tness of the 'ertifi'ate of title issued therefor and the law will in no wa% oblige hi# to go behind the 'ertifi'ate to deter#ine the 'ondition of the propert%.22 Thus& the general rule is that a pur'haser #a% be 'onsidered 'onsi dered a pur'haser pu r'haser in good faith when he has e+a#ined the latest 'ertifi'ate of title.2= An e+'eption e+'eption to this rule rule is when there e+ist i#portant fa'ts that would 'reate suspi'ion in an otherwise reasonable #an to go be%ond the present title and to investigate those that pre'eded it. Thus& Thus& it has been said that a person who deliberatel% ignores a signifi'ant fa't whi'h would 'reate suspi'ion in an otherwise o therwise reasonable r easonable #an is not an inno'ent pur'haser for value.28 A pur'haser 'annot 'lose his e%es to fa'ts whi'h should put a reasonable #an upon his guard& and then 'lai# that he a'ted in good faith under the belief that there was no defe't in the title of the vendor. )ne who pur'hases real propert% whi'h whi 'h is in the a'tual possession of another should& at least #a,e so#e in0uir% 'on'erning 'on'erning the right of those in possession. The a'tual possession b% b % other

>edro )gsiner& as their overseer& was in a'tual possession thereof #eans that it was not an inno'ent pur'haser for value upon said land. investigate the Sar#iento spouses 'lai# over the possession )gsiner& pur'haser asfor their value overseer& upon said wasland. in a'tual *. er'a&o v. All"e& Bank ".R. 5o. erla e+e'uted a Spe'ial >ower of Attorne% -S>A/ -S>A/ in favor of her husband& husband& Bulian $. Mer'ado -Bulian/ over several pie'es of real propert% registered under her na#e& authorizing authorizing the latter to perfor# the following a'ts: <. To a't in #% behalf& to sell& alienate& alienate& #ortgage& lease and deal otherwise over the different par'els of land des'ribed hereinafter hereinafter + + + D. To sign for and in #% behalf an% a't of stri't do#inion or ownership an% sale& disposition& #ortgage& #ortgage& lease or an% other transa'tions in'luding 0uit'lai#s& waiver and relin0uish#ent of rights + + + 7. To e+er'ise an% or all a'ts of stri't do#inion or ownership over the above#entioned properties& rights and interest therein. )n the strength of the aforesaid S>A& Bulian obtained a loan fro# the respondent. Still using the sub(e't propert% as se'urit%& Bulian obtained an additional loan fro# the respondent. It appears& however& that there was no propert% identified in the S>A and registered with the Registr% of $eeds. ;hat was identified in the S>A instead was the propert% different fro# the one used as se'urit% for loan. Bulian defaulted on the pa%#ent of his loan obligations. obligations. Thus& respondent initiated e+tra (udi'ial fore'losure fore'losure pro'eedings pro'eedings over the sub(e't propert% whi'h was subse0uentl% sold at publi' au'tion wherein the respondent was de'lared as the highest bidder. >etitioners initiated an a'tion for the annul#ent of RM 'onstituted 'onstituted over the sub(e't propert% on the ground that the sa#e was not 'overed b% the S>A and that the said S>A& at the ti#e the loan obligations were 'ontra'ted& no longer had for'e and effe't sin'e it was previousl% revo,ed













Issues: -A. -7/ Constru'tion of powers of attorne%. Rulings: -erla& 'onsidered a third part% to the loan obligations between Bulian Bulian and respondent. respondent. It was& thus& thus& a situation re'ognized b% the last paragraph of Arti'le D61= of the Civil Code that that third persons who are not parties to the prin'ipal obligation #a% se'ure the latter b% pledging or #ortgaging their own propert%. There is no 0uestion therefore that Bulian was vested with the power to #ortgage the pie'es of propert% identified in the S>A& however& the sub(e't propert% was not a#ong those enu#erated therein. Bulian was not 'onferred b% >erla with the authorit% to #ortgage the sub(e't propert% under the ter#s of the S>A& the real estate #ortgages Bulian e+e'uted over the said propert% are therefore unenfor'eable. -D/ The said S>A was revo,ed b% virtue of a publi' instru#ent instru#ent e+e'uted b% >erla. To address respondents assertion that the said revo'ation was unenfor'eable unenfor'eable against it as a third part% to the S>A and as one who relied on the sa#e in good faith& the rule is that an agen'% is e+tinguished& a#ong others& b% its revo'ation - Article 1, 1, !e" #ivil #ode of of t$e %$ilippines %$ilippines/. /. The prin'ipal #a% revo,e the agen'% at will& and 'o#pel the agent to return

grant onl% those powers whi'h are spe'ified therein& and the agent #a% neither go be%ond nor deviate fro# the power of attorne%. ;here powers and duties are spe'ified and defined in an instru#ent& all su'h powers and duties are li#ited and are 'onfined to those whi'h are spe'ified and defined& and all other powers and duties are e+'luded. Eualifi'ation Eualifi'ation of the rule this is but in a''ord with the disin'lination disin'lination of 'ourts 'ourts to enlarge enlarge the authorit% granted be%ond the powers e+pressl% given and those whi'h in'identall% flow or derive therefro# as being usual and reasonabl% ne'essar% and proper for the perfor#an'e of su'h e+press powers. +. Gabr"el v. aban!a FACTS: )n )'tober D=& <!= spouses Mabanta #ortgaged D par'els of land with the $3> as 'ollateral for a ><2&666 loan. In <16& the% sold the lots to Susana Soriano with the right to repur'hase repur'hase the propert% within D %ears. The% failed to do repur'hase. repur'hase. In <12& the% 'onvin'ed petitioner Ale(andro "abriel to pur'hase the lot fro# Soriano as a result& $3> had to restru'ture the loan #a,ing "abriel as the #ortgagor. In <1D however& one lot was sold to Jenaida TanRe%es b% the spouses Mabanta who in turn filed an intervention to the 'ase after not being a part% in the instant 'ase. As a result& the petitioners filed for da#ages& and spe'ifi' perfor#an'e whi'h the trial 'ourt ruled in their favor holding that the sale between the spouses Mabanta and Tan Re%es null and void. )n appeal& the CA











that it is the "abriels who are in possession of the land. ,. San'-e# v. Ra)o ".R. 5o. L<722D $e'e#ber D6& << FACTS: This is an a'tion for the re'over% of a pie'e of land des'ribed in the se'ond paragraph of the 'o#plaint. This land is in the defendantKs possession and for#erl% belonged to Ciria'o Fernandez. )n Bul% <& <<6& Ciria'o Fernandez sold it to the spouses Mar'elino "o#ez and 5ar'isa San'hez under pacto under pacto de retro for retro for the period of one %ear. This also was e+e'uted in a publi' instru#ent. Mar'elino "o#ez and 5ar'isa San'hez never too, #aterial possession of the land. The period for repur'hase repur'hase elapsed without the vendor #a,ing use of it. )n Bul% 7& <
it would not be b% virtue of the sale& be'ause this has been alread% 'onsu##ated and has produ'ed all its effe'ts& but b% virtue of the vendeeKs ownership& ownership& in the sa#e sa#e wa% as said vendee 'ould re0uire re0uire of another person person although sa#e were not the vendor. This #eans that after the sale of a realt% b% #eans of a publi' instru#ent& the vendor& who resells it to another& does not trans#it an%thing to the se'ond vendee and if the latter& b% virtue of this se'ond sale& ta,es #aterial possession of the thing& he does it as #ere detainer& and it would be un(ust to prote't prote't this detention detention against the rights to the thing lawfull% a'0uired b% the first vendee. The possession possession #entioned #entioned in arti'le arti'le <2!7 -for deter#ining who has better right when the sa#e sa#e pie'e of land has has been sold several ti#es b% the sa#e vendor/ in'ludes not onl% the #aterial but also the s%#boli' possession& possession& whi'h is a'0uired b% the e+e'ution of a publi' instru#ent. /. Ten %or!y Real!y v. Cru# FACTS:  >etitioner filed an e(e't#ent 'o#plaint against Marina Cruz-respondent/ before the MTC. >etitioner alleges that the land indispute was pur'hased pur'hased fro# 3arbara 3arbara "alino on $e'e#ber <8& andthat said land was again sold to respondent on April <1?  )n the other hand& respondent answer with 'ounter'lai# that never was there an o''asion when petitioner petitioner o''upied a portion portion of the pre#ises. In addition& respondent alleges that said land was a publi' land -respondent filed a











5o. Respondent is the true owner of the land.etitioner has not proven that respondent was aware that her #ode of a'0uiring the propert% was defe'tive at the ti#e she a'0uired it fro# "alino. At the ti#e& the propert% O whi'h was publi' land N had not been registered in the na#e of "alino? thus& respondent relied on the ta+ de'larations thereon. As shown& the for#ers na#e appeared on the ta+ de'larations for the propert% until its sale to the latter in <1. "alino was in fa't o''up%ing the realt% when respondent too, over possession. Thus& there was no 'ir'u#stan'e 'ir'u#stan'e that that 'ould have pla'ed pla'ed the latter upon in0uir% or re0uired her to further investigate petitioners right of ownership. $)CTRI5GS: +e'ution of $eed of Sale? 5ot suffi'ient as deliver%. )wnership is transferred not b%

provided under Se'tion 7 of Arti'le PII of the Constitution. ;hile 'orporations 'annot a'0uire land of the publi' do#ain& the% 'an however a'0uire private land. *owever& petitioner has not presented proof that& at the ti#e it pur'hased the propert% fro# "alino& the propert% had 'eased to be of the publi' do#ain and was alread% private land. The established rule is that alienable and disposable land of the publi' do#ain held and o''upied b% a possessor O personall% or through prede'essorsininterest& openl%& 'ontinuousl%& and e+'lusivel% for 76 %ears O is ipso (ure 'onverted to private propert% b% the #ere lapse of ti#e. R9LI5": The Supre#e Court $5I$ the petition 0. L"'-au'o v. Berenguer FACTS: Crisanto Li'hau'o& on his own behalf& and his brothers& Faustino& Faustino& Ja'arias& Ja'arias& "alo& and and his sister& Ti#otea Li'hau'o& his 'oheirs& applied for the registration& in the new propert% registr%& of two rural estates situated in the pueblo of Ara%at& >rovin'e of >a#panga& one of whi'h& in the barrio barrio of 3atasan& 3atasan& has an area of D62 he'tares& 77 ares& and 71.!= 'entares& and the other& in the sitio of >anantagla%& barrio of Calu#pang&










having been filed with this 'ourt& with right to a review of the eviden'e& the% allege against the said (udg#ent the following assign#ents of error: The eviden'e to be 'onsidered with respe't to the three pre'eding assign#ents of error& are: First& on the part of the appli'ants& the publi' instru#ent e+e'uted b% Ma'ario 3erenguer in favor of Cornelia Lao'hang'o -+hibit C/? se'ond& on the part of the opponent& the a''ount 'urrent between Cornelia Lao'hang'o and Ma'ario 3erenguer -+hibit =/? and& third& the oral testi#on% produ'ed 'on'erning this do'u#entar% eviden'e. ISS9: ;hether or not not there is a valid 'ontra't 'ontra't of pur'hase and sale under pa'to de retra'to R9LI5": 3ut in the present 'ase& unli,e others heard b% this 'ourt& there is no proof that the sale with right of repur'hase& #ade b% 3erenguer in favor of Lao'hang'o is rather a #ortgage to se'ure a loan. The a''ount 'urrent between 3erenguer and Lao'hang'o Lao'hang'o appears to be nothing but the beginning of so#e so#e business transa'tion transa'tion in sugar& whi'h gave rise to the 'ontra't of pur'hase and sale under pa'to de retra'to& and the 'ontinuation of the sa#e transa'tions whi'h #aintained #aintained the 'ontra't 'ontra't be%ond the the period fi+ed for the rede#ption. It is suffi'ient for the purposes of the appeal to find& as we hereb% do find& that the right of rede#ption has not lapsedlapse whi'h was the ground for the appli'ation for registration that was based on the the 'onsolidation 'onsolidation of the

1. araga v. 3e"r of Do)"na&or Bala'ano FACTS: "regorio 3ala'ano& #arried to Lorenza& owned D par'els of land. *e was alread% 1< %ears old& ver% wea,& 'ould 'ould barel% tal,& tal,& and had been battling wG liver liver disease for over over a #onth. )n his deathbed& barel% a wee, before he died& he allegedl% signed a $eed of Absolute Sale over the lots in favor of the >aragas Spouses& a''o#panied b% Att%. $e "uz#an who pro'eeded to notarize the sa#e& alleging that it was a #ere 'onfir#ation 'onfir#ation of a previous sale and and that "regorio had alread% paid a > =6&666.66 deposit. The >aragas driver was also there to ta,e a pi'ture of "regorio signing the said deed& wG a ballpen ballpen in his hand. There There was nothing to show that the 'ontents of the deed were e+plained to "regorio. >aragas then sold a portion of the disputed lot to Catalino. The grandson of "regorio& $o#ingo& sought to annul the sale and partition. There was no suffi'ient eviden'e to support an% prior agree#ent or partial e+e'ution thereof. ISS9: ;G5 3ala'ano is in'apa'itated to enter into a 'ontra't of sale *L$: A person is not rendered in'o#petent #erel% be'ause of old age? however& when su'h age has i#paired the #ental fa'ulties as to prevent a person fro# prote'ting his rights& then he is undeniabl% in'apa'itated. *e is 'learl% at a disadvantage& and the 'ourts #ust be vigilant for his prote'tion. In In this 'ase&











".R. 5). ablo 3abasanta. The latter #ade a downpa%#ent downpa%#ent of fift% thousand pesos ->=6&666.66/ as eviden'ed b% a #e#orandu# re'eipt issued b% >a'ita Lu of the sa#e date. Several other pa%#ents totaling two hundred thousand pesos ->D66&666.66/ were #ade b% 3abasanta. 3abasanta. *e de#anded the e+e'ution of a Final $eed of Sale in his favor so he #a% effe't full pa%#ent of the pur'hase pri'e? however& the spouses de'lined to push through with the sale. The% 'lai#ed that when he re0uested for a dis'ount and the% refused& he res'inded the agree#ent. agree#ent. Thus& 3abasanta filed a 'ase for Spe'ifi' >erfor#an'e. >erfor#an'e. )n the other hand& San Lorenzo $evelop#ent Corporation Corporation -SL$C/ alleged that on 7 Ma% <1& the two par'els of land involved& na#el% Lot
3abasanta e+'ept upon full pa%#ent of the pur'hase pri'e. 3abasantas letter dated DD Ma% <1 was 0uite telling. *e stated therein that despite his repeated re0uests for the e+e'ution of the final deed of sale in his favor so that he 'ould effe't full pa%#ent of the pri'e& >a'ita Lu allegedl% refused to do so. In effe't& 3abasanta 3abasanta hi#self hi#self re'ognized that ownership of the propert% would not be transferred transferred to hi# hi# until su'h ti#e ti#e as he shall have effe'ted full pa%#ent of the pri'e. $oubtlessl%& the re'eipt signed b% >a'ita Lu should legall% be 'onsidered as a perfe'ted 'ontra't to sell. The perfe'ted 'ontra't to sell i#posed upon 3abasanta the obligation to pa% the balan'e of the pur'hase pri'e. There being an obligation to pa% the pri'e& 3abasanta should have #ade the proper tender of pa%#ent and 'onsignation of the pri'e in 'ourt as re0uired b% law. "laringl% absent fro# the re'ords is an% indi'ation that 3abasanta even atte#pted to #a,e the proper 'onsignation of the a#ounts due& thus& the obligation on the part of the sellers to 'onve% title never a'0uired obligator% for'e. There was no double sale in this 'ase be'ause the 'ontra't in favor of 3abasanta was a #ere 'ontra't to sell? hen'e& Art. <=22 is not appli'able. There was neither a'tual nor 'onstru'tive deliver% as his title is based on a #ere re'eipt. 3ased on this alone& the right of SL$C #ust be preferred.













private respondent spouses Ra#on and "loria Martinez -Martinez spouses/. It appears that a 'ertain Att%. >aterno Santos& a bro,er& offered to #ortgage the sub(e't propert% to the Martinez spouses for >D66&666. Att%. Santos was in possession of a Q'leanQ TCT 5o. <28==7 ISS9 ISS9:: ;G5 the Mart Martine inezz owns owns the sub(e' sub(e'tt propert% *L$: S. The sub(e't #atter of the instant petition involv involves es regist registere ered d land. land. 9nli,e 9nli,e the the 'ase 'ase of unregistered land& in whi'h an earlier instr instru#e u#ent nt&& be it sale sale or #ortga #ortgage& ge& prevai prevails ls over a latter one& and the registration of an% one one of the# the# is i##a i##ate teri rial al&& with with resp respe' e'tt to registered land& the rule is different. 3etween two transa'tions 'on'erning the sa#e par'el of land& land& the register registered ed transa't transa'tion ion prevails prevails over the the earl earlie ierr unre unregi gist ster ered ed righ right. t. The The a't a't of registration operates to 'onve% and affe't the registered land so that a bonafide pur'haser of su'h land a'0uires good title as against a prior transferee& if su'h prior transfer was

#ortga #ortgagee geess for value& value& the Marti Martinez nez spous spouses es a'0uired a superior right over the propert%.

1$. re)"er Develo4)en! Bank v. CA FACTS: D different persons with e+a'tl% the sa#e na#e& i.e.& 4i'ente T. "ara%ga%& ea'h 'lai#ed e+'lusive ownership of Lot D7 b% virtue of an owners dupli'ate 'ertifi'ate ea'h had possession of during the period #aterial 'overing said lot. )ne held TCT 5o. !16& supra& and the other& TCT 5o. !16 -87/& supra. The te'hni'al des'ription of the land appearing in one 'op% 'orresponds e+a'tl% with that in the other. The date @Bune <2& <22 appears on the fa'e of both 'opies as a 'o##on date of entr%. )ne& however& 'ontained 'ertain features& #ar,ings& andGor entries not found in the other and vi'e versa. )n April










his nephew Boselito was registered& paving the issuan'e in the latters na#e. Thereafter& thru the efforts of sa#e ngr. Cortez& Lot D7 was subdivided into three -7/ lots. Boselito posthaste sold the first lot to Tound(is who& pursuant to a Contra't to Sell undertoo, to pa% Boselito the >.= Million balan'e of the >D.= Million pur'hase pri'e on'e she is pla'ed in possession of a fen'edoff propert%. And& for shares of sto',& Boselito assigned the other two -D/ lots to Centur% Realt% whi'h& after se'uring TCTs therefor& #ortgaged the sa#e to >re#iere 3an, to se'ure a loan. Clashing 'lai#s of ownership first 'a#e to a head when& so#eti#e in Ma% <6& a#bao and his agents for'ibl% prevented Boselitos hired hands fro# 'on'retefen'ing the sub(e't propert%. The poli'e and eventuall% the 5ational 3ureau of Investigation -53I/ entered into the pi'ture. In the #eanti#e& a#bao& Rodri0uez and Morales as pro indiviso bu%ers of the sub(e't lot& 'aused the of their respe'tive adverse 'lai#s on Boselitos TCT The% then filed with

ISS9: ;)5 the Court of Appeals erred erred in holding "ara%ga% of Rizal& instead of "ara%ga% of Cebu& as the real owner of Lot D7. ;)5 the sa#e sa#e 'ourt erred erred in finding "ara%ga% "ara%ga% of Rizals owners 'op%& TCT 5o. !16& instead of the "ara%ga% of Cebus 'op%& TCT 5o. !16 -87/& as the authenti' title 'overing Lot D7. ;)5 Tound(is Tound(is and >re#iere ban, ban, are bu%ers in good faith *L$: The instant petitions are $5I$ and the i#pugned $e'ision of the CA AFFIRM$. 3oth defining do'u#ents& +hibit @<'ebu and +hibit @3 rizal& appear to have been issued b% the appropriate Registr% of $eeds and as su'h would ordinaril% en(o% the guarantees flowing fro# the legal presu#ption of regularit% of issuan'e. 3ut how and pre'isel% when the legal aberration aberration o''urred o''urred where where two -D/ owners dupli'ate 'ertifi'ates ended up in the hands of two -D/ distin't persons& 'o#plete strangers to ea'h other& are 0uestions whi'h the re'ords do not provide 'lear answer. It #a%











The 'ourts finding that "ara%ga% of Rizal is an authenti' person& on'e residing in and a registered voter of Angono& Rizal has ade0uate evidentiar% support in his voters I$& the C)MLC and baranga% 'ertifi'ations 'ertifi'ations afore#entioned afore#entioned and the testi#on% of an o''upant of Lot D7. Moreover& fa'ts and reasonable inferen'es drawn therefro# point to +hibit @< as being spurious& ne'essaril% ne'essaril% leaving +hibit @3 as the authenti' dupli'ate 'op%. For starters& there is the appearan'e and ph%si'al 'ondition of the owners 'opies in 0uestion whi'h would help in deter#ining deter#ining whi'h is genuine and whi'h is sha#. As aptl% observed b% the appellate 'ourt& rationalizing rationalizing its 'on'lusion adverted to above& +hibit @3 has no defe't& e+'ept for its partl% being torn. Respondents Respondents e+planation e+planation for the the defe'tive state of +hibit @3& as related to the# b% "ara%ga% of Rizal& Rizal& i.e.& it was due to to e+posure of the do'u#ent to the ele#ents during the Bapanese o''upation& #erited approval fro# the trial 'ourt and the CA 3oth

true for his nephew Boselito N did not appear before the 'urrent 'urrent standoff to to have e+er'ised do#inion over Lot D7. For one& it has not been shown that "ara%ga% of Cebu was at an% ti#e in possession of the propert% in 0uestion& unli,e his na#esa,e fro# Rizal who #anaged to pla'e the propert% under the 'are of 'ertain individuals who built se#iper#anent se#iper#anent stru'turedwelling stru'turedwelling houses thereon without so #u'h of a protest fro# "ara%ga% of Cebu or his nephew Boselito after the latter purportedl% bought the propert%. propert%. For another& another& neither "ara%ga% of Cebu nor his nephew Boselito ever instituted an% a'tion to e(e't or re'over possession fro# the o''upants of Lot D7. This passivit% bespea,s strongl% against their 'lai# of ownership. 5ot lost on this Court are 'ir'u#stan'es noted b% the trial 'ourt whi'h negativel% refle't on "ara%ga% of Cebus and his nephews 'lai# of ownership. In short& it appears to the Court that without doing an%thing& 4i'ente T. "ara%ga% of Cebu has his title -+h. @</ re'onstituted. )n the other hand& without ,nowing an%thing& B)SLIT) obtained TCT










subdivided the land into three lots for easier sale& those at the 53I who tried to persuade a#bao and Morales Morales to settle settle the dispute . . . are apparentl% part of the U(oint venture v enture or stand to profit fro# it

1(.S"gaya v. aguya FACTS: Dionisia Alorsabes owned a three hectare land in Dao, Capiz. In 1934, she sold a portion o the lot to !"anito F"entes while the re#ainder was inherited b$ her children %az Dela Cr"z, &osela Dela Cr"z, and Consorcia Arro'a (an adopted child), and a *randson, Francisco Abas, in representation o his deceased #other +ar*arita Dela Cr"z. These o"r heirs eec"ted eec"ted an -tra -tra !"dicial Settle#ent with Sale dated Febr"ar$ 4, 19/4 wherein Consorcia sold her share with an area o /,/94 s0"are #eters to spo"ses alleriano +a$"*a. 2n April 1, 19, %az %az also sold her share to

%artition with Deed o Sale, rel$in* rel$in* on these instr"#ents and ater inspectin* the land and seein* that nobod$ occ"pied the sa#e, Teod"lo bo"*ht the land and had the title s"bse0"entl$ iss"ed in his na#e %etitioners, %etitioners, in their +e#orand"#, "rther a7er that: Teod"lo is a p"rchaser in *ood aith ha7in* relied on 2CT 6o. &2=41 (18=) in the na#e o Dionisia and the -tra!"dicial %artition with Deed o Sale which shows that Francisco is the absol"te owner o the lot< o"r $ears had elapsed ro# the date that the 2CT was reconstit"ted and the ti#e Teod"lo bo"*ht the propert$ ro# Francisco Francisco and $et $et none o the respondents had re*istered re*istered their ri*ht in the propert$< the -tra!"dicial Settle#ent o 5ot 3/3 o the Cadastral S"r7e$ o Dao, Capiz with Sale, on which respondents base their clai#s, was ne7er re*istered with the &e*istr$ o Deeds< not ha7in* been re*istered, re*istered, this will not a>ect the ri*ht o third persons who had no ?nowled*e thereo<











person on in0"ir$. here there is nothin* in the certi;cate o title to indicate an$ clo"d or 7ice in the ownership o the propert$, propert$, or an$ enc"#brance thereon, the p"rchaser is not re0"ired to eplore "rther than what the Torrens Title "pon its ace indicates in 0"est or an$ hidden deects or inchoate ri*ht that #a$ s"bse0"entl$ deeat his ri*ht thereto.34 owe7er, this r"le shall not appl$ when the part$ has act"al ?nowled*e o acts and circ"#stances circ"#stances that wo"ld i#pel a reasonabl$ ca"tio"s #an to #a?e s"ch in0"ir$ or when the p"rchaser has ?nowled*e o a deect or the lac? o title in his 7endor or o s"Bcient acts to ind"ce a reasonabl$ pr"dent #an to in0"ire into the stat"s o the title o the propert$ in liti*ation.3= In this case, preponderance o e7idence shows that respondents had been in act"al possession o their respecti7e respecti7e portions e7en prior to 19/. &oll$ Daniel, which the trial co"rt considered as a credible witness, testi;ed that not onl$ were respondents in act"al possession o their

re0"ired re0"ired o a pr"dent #an in a si#ilar sit"ation. (8)%etitioners (8)%etitioners also ar*"e that the r"le on do"ble sale o real propert$ propert$ sho"ld appl$ in this case, and since the$ are the ;rst to re*ister the sale in *ood aith, the$ are entitled to be awarded ownership thereo. The Co"rt disa*rees. Apart ro# the act that Teod"lo is not a p"rchaser in *ood aith, the law on do"ble sales as pro7ided in Art. 1=44 o the Ci7il Code3 conte#plates a sit"ation where a sin*le 7endor sold one and the sa#e i##o7able propert$ to two or #ore b"$ers. For the r"le to appl$, it is necessar$ that the con7e$ance #"st ha7e been #ade b$ a part$ who has an eistin* ri*ht in the thin* and the power to dispose it. The r"le cannot be in7o?ed where the two di>erent contracts o sale are #ade b$ two di>erent persons, one o the# not bein* the owner o the propert$ propert$ sold.39 In this case, respondents deri7e their ri*ht o7er their respecti7e respecti7e portions either thro"*h inheritance or sale ro# Dionisia while













western portion with the sa#e area, to his son Atinedoro Atinedoro @lep #arried #arried to eatriz @lep, and to his other da"*hter alentina @lep. 2n !"ne =, 19=8, all the transerees o 5ot 4, na#el$, +ai#a &odico &odico (or the eastern portion) and Atinedoro Atinedoro @lep and alentina @lep (or the western portion), were 'ointl$ iss"ed in their na#es Transer Certi;cate o Title 6o. 18=8=. 2n !"ne 1, 191, Atinedoro @lep, his wie eatriz and sister alentina alentina @lep sold the onehal (1E8) portion o the area sold to the# b$ their ather a ther to their brother Sa#"el @lep and the latters wie, S"sana &epo*ia@lep. The doc"#ent o sale was re*istered with the

respondents I6C, +ai#a +ai#a &odico &odico and the spo"ses arlito %arin*it and -ncarnation ante, on the basis o which aBda7it 5ot 4 was s"bdi7ided into o"r (4) lots. S"ch was the state o thin*s when, on +arch 89, 193, in the &e*ional Trial Co"rt at %an*asinan, the spo"ses Sa#"el @lep and S"sana &epo*ia@lep, the spo"ses Atinedoro @lep and eatriz @lep and their sister alentina @lep, ;led their co#plaint or G"ietin* o Title, &econ7e$ance and Declaration o 6"llit$ o Title and S"bdi7ision %lan with Da#a*es a*ainst respondents I6C, +ai#a +ai#a &odico &odico and the spo"ses arlito %arin*it and











area (/8 s0"are#eter) o 5ot 4 to I6C. S"bse0"entl$, on !an"ar$ 1, 191, 191, a second sale was eec"ted eec"ted b$ the sa#e sa#e 7endors in a7or o spo"ses Sa#"el @lep and S"sana @lep. @lep. The Co"rt is, thereore, thereore, called "pon to deter#ine which o the two *ro"ps o b"$ers has a better ri*ht to the area in 0"estion. The law pro7ides that a do"ble sale o i##o7able transers ownership to (1) the ;rst re*istrant re*istrant in *ood aith< (8) then, the ;rst possessor in *ood aith< and (3) ;nall$, the b"$er who in *ood aith presents the oldest title. !"rispr"dence teaches that the *o7ernin* principle is pri#"s te#pore, potior '"re (;rst in ti#e,

the sale #ade to the#, the$ did so onl$ ater 1 $ears ro# the ti#e I6C ca"sed the re*istration o its own doc"#ent o sale. J&e*istrationK #eans an$ entr$ #ade in the boo?s o the &e*istr$ which records records sole#nl$ and per#anentl$ per#anentl$ the ri*ht o ownership and other real ri*hts. owe7er, #ere re*istration re*istration is not s"Bcient. ood aith #"st conc"r conc"r with with re*istration, re*istration, else re*istration re*istration beco#es an eercise in "tilit$. In the instant case, the re*istration re*istration #ade b$ respondent I6C o its deed o o sale #ore #ore than satis;es satis;es this re0"ire#ent. re0"ire#ent. The sa#e thin* cannot be said o petitioners Sa#"el @lep and











least, presented Att$. Fernandez to pro7e the eistence o that deed, b"t the$ did not. The onl$ pla"sible concl"sion is that no s"ch deed eists. In a lastditch b"t "tile atte#pt to pers"ade the Co"rt, petitioners alternati7el$ pra$ that I6Cs portion o /8 s0"are s0"a re #eters o 5ot 4, ass"#in* that I6C is entitled to it, sho"ld be ta?en ro# the western portion o the the sa#e lot sold to respondent spo"ses arlito %arin*it and -ncarnacion ante, and not ro# the#. To petitioners, the share o the spo"ses arlito and -ncarnacion sho"ld accordin*l$ be red"ced ro# =.= s0"are #eters to onl$ 19 s0"are

Trial Trial Co"rt, +a?ati Cit$, Cit$, ranch 13, a co#plaint a*ainst %alabasan or recon7e$ance recon7e$ance with da#a*es. The$ alle*ed that the$ had been in possession o the propert$ since 19/8 b$ 7irt"e o a Deed o Sale with Ass"#ption o +ort*a*e which was was not notarized< that Salo#e eec"te eec"ted d a notarized Deed o Sale with Ass"#ption o +ort*a*e in their a7or on +arch 31, 19//< that, p"rs"ant to this notarized deed, the$ settled Salo#eLs obli*ations with the Co"ntr$ an?ers Ins"rance and S"ret$ Co#pan$< that the$ tried to redee# the propert$ b"t were not able to do so beca"se %alabasan %alabasan had done so and











pro#"l*ated a decision aBr#in* in toto the decision o the trial co"rt. The appellate co"rt, howe7er, o"nd Article 1=44 o the Ci7il Code inapplicable to the case as there was no sale between the spo"ses arrera and Salo#e beca"se Salo#eLs testi#on$ *i7en in a pre7io"s case18 to this e>ect was stric?en o> the record since she died prior to cross ea#ination< ea#ination< the testi#on$ o Cenon +ateo, the co##onlaw h"sband o Salo#e showed that he was not aware aware o the transaction entered into on +arch 31, 19//< and co"nsel or spo"ses arrera ad#itted that the sale transaction in 19/8 did not #aterialize as the propert$

o>ered the ollowin*: Transer Certi;cate o Title 6o. 1/3, Ta Declaration 6o. 38=1, the Deed o Absol"te Sale dated !"ne 3, 19//, eec"ted eec"ted b$ Salo#e in a7or o respondent %alabasan, the Contract o 5ease, with respondent %alabasan as the lessor and petitioner 5eoncio arrera as the lessee, and the decision or the co"rt o First Instance, %asi*, ranch NIN in Ci7il Case 6o. 3/, ;ndin* respondent %alabasan to be the law"l owner o the propert$ co7ered b$ Transer Certi;cate o Title Title 6o. 1/3. 8. Anent the 0"estion o whether this case is one o do"ble sale, s"Bce it to sa$ that there











A China#an na#ed na#ed To Ban Co ere'ted ere'ted a store building on a par'el par'el of land belonging belonging to Apolonia Re#igio& Re#igio& under an agree#ent agree#ent whereb% onehalf onehalf of the rents were to go to her and onehalf to To Ban Co. The owner of the land& not having re'eived the rents agreed upon& instituted an a'tion against To Ban Co and one of the o''upants of the building to re'over these rents? Thereafter the house was pur'hased b% the (udg#ent 'reditor& 'reditor& Apolonia Re#igio& Re#igio& at the sheriffs sale? she too, possession forthwith? The &efen&an! is &efen&an! is the ad#inistrator of the estate of Apolonia Re#igio de'eased& and is now in possession of the house and the land upon whi'h it stands? 5ot long after the filing of the 'o#plaint& To

good faith at a sheriffs sale of all the right& title and interest of a (udg#ent debtor in a house& is entitled to the propert% under the provisions of arti'le <2!7 of the Civil Code as against one who 'lai#s the propert% b% virtue of an unre'orded deed of sale e+e'uted in his favor b% the (udg#ent debtor prior to the date of the sheriffs sale& it appearing that the pur'haser at the sheriffs sale se'ured possession& and that the 'lai#ant under the unre'orded deed of sale never went into possession

1/. %ab"an v. S)"!-5 Bell 6 Co. %ACTS7 )n the D1th of Banuar% <6< #iliano 3on'an was the owner of the real estate in 0uestion in this 'ase his title thereto being re'orded in the registr% of propert%. )n that the% he sold and 'onve%ed the sa#e b% a publi' do'u#ents to the plaintiffs. This deed was













#ade in a 'ertain wa%? but nothing is said in an% of these se'tions as to an% priorit% se'ured b% the atta'h#ent. atta'h#ent. The provision provision whi'h is found in the statute law of a great #an% of the States of A#eri'a& to the effe't that an unre'orded deed shall be void as to subse0uent atta'hing or (udg#ent 'reditors& nowhere

filed for an issuan'e of new )$)CT before the R$ of $avao on the ground of loss of the said title. The Trial Court ruled infavor of Laureta& stating that Cara#& Br. was not a pur'haser in good faith& and the Court of Appeals thenafter affir#ed the de'ision of the lower 'ourt. >TITI)5RS C)5T5TI)5:











and Irespe ,new that even if Mata previousl% had sold the disputed propert% su'h sale 'ould not have been registered.'drep There is no doubt then that Irespe and Aportadera& a'ting as agents of Cara#& pur'hased the propert% of Mata in bad faith. Appl%ing the prin'iple of agen'%& Cara#& as prin'ipal& should also be

rendering the ,e%s given to her useless. Respondent pro'eeded to RSLAI but she was infor#ed that the #ortgage has been full% paid and that the titles have been given to the said person. Respondent then filed a 'o#plaint for spe'ifi' perfor#an'e and de'laration of nullit% of the se'ond sale and da#ages. The petitioner











downpa%#ent downpa%#ent of fift% thousand pesos ->=6&666.66/ as eviden'ed b% a #e#orandu# re'eipt issued b% >a'ita Lu of the sa#e date. Several other pa%#ents totaling two hundred thousand pesos ->D66&666.66/ were #ade b% 3abasanta. 3abasanta. *e de#anded the e+e'ution of a Final $eed of Sale in his favor so he #a% effe't

of the pri'e. $oubtlessl%& the re'eipt signed b% >a'ita Lu should legall% be 'onsidered as a perfe'ted 'ontra't to sell. The perfe'ted 'ontra't to sell i#posed upon 3abasanta the obligation to pa% the balan'e of the the pur'hase pri'e. pri'e. There being an obligation to pa% the pri'e& 3abasanta should

Double Sale Digest

Recommend Documents