NAAWAN COMMUNITY RURAL BANK INC., petitioner, vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS and

SPOUSES ALFREDO AND ANNABELLE LUMO, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CORONA, J.:
Under the established principles of land registration, a person dealing with registered land may
generally rely on the correctness of a certificate of title and the law will in no way oblige him to go
beyond it to determine the legal status of the property.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the February 7, !!7 "ecision
#$
of the
Court of %ppeals in C%&'.R. C( )o. **+!, which in turn affirmed the decision
#,$
of the Regional -rial
Court of .isamis /riental, Branch 0 as follows1
2345R5F/R5, the plaintiffs&spouses are ad6udged the absolute owners and possessors of the properties
in 7uestion 89ot 0*0:, under -C- )o. -&*;:+, and all improvements thereon< and 7uieting title thereto
as against any and all adverse claims of the defendant. Further, the sheriff=s certificate of sale, 5>hibit +?
+&%? @heriff=s deed of final conveyance, 5>hibit *, *&%? -a> "eclarations )o. 7,, 5>hibit 7, and any
and all instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding in favor of the defendant, as against the
plaintiffs, and their predecessor&in&interest, which may be e>tant in the office of the Register of "eeds of
Province of .isamis /riental, and of Cagayan de /ro City, and in the City %ssessor=s /ffice of Cagayan
de /ro City, are declared as invalid and ineffective as against the plaintiffs= title.
2-he counterclaim is dismissed for lacA of merit.
2@/ /R"5R5".B
#:$
-he facts of the case, as culled from the records, are as follows1
/n %pril :;, !00, a certain 'uillermo Comayas offered to sell to private respondent&spouses
%lfredo and %nnabelle 9umo, a house and lot measuring :+; s7uare meters located at PiniAitan,
Camaman&an, Cagayan de /ro City.
3anting to buy said house and lot, private respondents made in7uiries at the /ffice of the Register of
"eeds of Cagayan de /ro City where the property is located and the Bureau of 9ands on the legal status
of the vendor=s title. -hey found out that the property was mortgaged for P0,;;; to a certain .rs. 'alupo
and that the owner=s copy of the Certificate of -itle to said property was in her possession.
Private respondents directed 'uillermo Comayas to redeem the property from 'alupo at their
e>pense, giving the amount of P;,;;; to Comayas for that purpose.
/n .ay :;, !00, a release of the adverse claim of 'alupo was annotated on -C- )o. -&++!!
which covered the sub6ect property.
Cn the meantime, on .ay 7, !00, even before the release of 'alupo=s adverse claim, private
respondents and 'uillermo Comayas, e>ecuted a deed of absolute sale. -he sub6ect property was
allegedly sold for P,*,;;; but the deed of sale reflected the amount of only P:;,;;; which was the
amount private respondents were ready to pay at the time of the e>ecution of said deed, the balance
payable by installment.
/n Dune !, !00, the deed of absolute sale was registered and inscribed on -C- )o. -&++!! and, on
even date, -C- )o. -&*;:+ was issued in favor of private respondents.
%fter obtaining their -C-, private respondents re7uested the issuance of a new ta> declaration
certificate in their names. 4owever, they were surprised to learn from the City %ssessor=s /ffice that the
property was also declared for ta> purposes in the name of petitioner )aawan Community Rural BanA
Cnc. Records in the City %ssessor=s /ffice revealed that, for the lot covered by -C- )o. -&*;:+, %lfredo
9umo=s -E" F 0::,+ bore the note1 2-his lot is also declared in the name of )aawan Community Rural
BanA Cnc. under -E" F 7,;B.
%pparently, on February 7, !0:, 'uillermo Comayas obtained a P*,;;; loan from petitioner BanA
using the sub6ect property as security. At the time said contract of mortgage was entered into, the subject
property was then an unregistered parcel of residential land, tax-declared in the name of a certain Sergio
A. Balibay while the residential one-storey house was tax-declared in the name of Comayas.
Balibay e>ecuted a special power of attorney authoriGing Comayas to borrow money and use the
sub6ect lot as security. But the "eed of Real 5state .ortgage and the @pecial Power of %ttorney were
recorded in the registration booA of the Province of .isamis /riental, not in the registration booA of
Cagayan de /ro City. Ct appears that, when the registration was made, there was only one Register of
"eeds for the entire province of .isamis /riental, including Cagayan de /ro City. Ct was only in !0*
when the /ffice of the Register of "eeds for Cagayan de /ro City was established separately from the
/ffice of the Register of "eeds for the Province of .isamis /riental.
For failure of Comayas to pay, the real estate mortgage was foreclosed and the sub6ect property sold
at a public auction to the mortgagee )aawan Community Rural BanA as the highest bidder in the amount
of PH,;:.:*. -hereafter, the sheriff=s certificate of sale was issued and registered under %ct ::++ in the
Register of "eeds of the Province of .isamis /riental.
On April !, "#$, the subject property was registered in original proceedings under the %and
&egistration Act. -itle was entered in the registration booA of the Register of "eeds of Cagayan de /ro
City as /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. ;&0,;, pursuant to "ecree )o. )&0!+:.
/n Duly ,:, !0+, -ransfer Certificate of -itle )o. -&++!! in the name of 'uillermo P. Comayas
was entered in the Register of "eeds of Cagayan de /ro City.
.eanwhile, on September ', "#(, the period for redemption of the foreclosed sub6ect property
lapsed and the .-CC "eputy @heriff of Cagayan de /ro City issued and delivered to petitioner banA
thesheriff)s deed of final con*eyance. +his time, the deed was registered under Act ,,$$ and recorded in
the registration boo- of the &egister of .eeds of Cagayan de Oro City.
By virtue of said deed, petitioner BanA obtained a ta> declaration for the sub6ect house and lot.
-hereafter, petitioner BanA instituted an action for e6ectment against Comayas before the .-CC
which decided in its favor. /n appeal, the Regional -rial Court affirmed the decision of the .-CC in a
decision dated %pril :, !00.
/n Danuary ,7, !0!, the Regional -rial Court issued an order for the issuance of a writ of e>ecution
of its 6udgment. -he .-CC, being the court of origin, promptly issued said writ.
4owever, when the writ was served, the property was no longer occupied by Comayas but herein
private respondents, the spouses 9umo who had, as earlier mentioned, bought it from Comayas on .ay
7, !00
%larmed by the prospect of being e6ected from their home, private respondents filed an action for
7uieting of title which was docAeted as Civil Case )o. 0!&:0. %fter trial, the Regional -rial Court
rendered a decision declaring private respondents as purchasers for value and in good faith,
and conse7uently declaring them as the absolute owners and possessors of the sub6ect house and lot.
Petitioner appealed to the Court of %ppeals which in turn affirmed the trial court=s decision.
4ence, this petition.
Petitioner raises the following issues1
C. 345-45R /R )/- -45 @45RCFF=@ "55" /F FC)%9 C/)(5I%)C5 3%@ "U9I
5J5CU-5" %)" R5'C@-5R5" C) -45 R5'C@-5R /F "55"@ /F C%'%I%) "5
/R/ CC-I /) "5C5.B5R ,, !0H?
CC. 345-45R /R )/- R5'C@-R%-C/) /F @45RCFF=@ "55" /F FC)%9
C/)(5I%)C5 C) -45 PR/P5R R5'C@-RI /F "55"@ C/U9" B5 5FF5C-C(5 %@
%'%C)@- @P/U@5@ 9U./.
Both parties cite %rticle *++ of the Civil Code which governs the double sale of immovable
property.
%rticle *++ provides1
2> > >. @hould it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person ac7uiring it who in
good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.B
Petitioner banA contends that the earlier registration of the sheriff=s deed of final conveyance in the
day booA under %ct ::++ should prevail over the later registration of private respondents= deed of
absolute sale under %ct +!H,
#+$
as amended by the Property Registration "ecree, P" *,!.
-his contention has no leg to stand on. Ct has been held that, where a person claims to have superior
proprietary rights over another on the ground that he derived his title from a sheriff=s sale registered in the
Registry of Property, %rticle +7: 8now %rticle *++< of the Civil Code will apply only if said e>ecution
sale of real estate is registered under %ct +!H.
#*$
Unfortunately, the sub6ect property was still untitled when it was ac7uired by petitioner banA by
virtue of a final deed of conveyance. /n the other hand, when private respondents purchased the same
property, it was already covered by the -orrens @ystem.
Petitioner also relies on the case of Bautista *s. /ule
#H$
where the Court ruled that the registration of
an instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of "eeds creates constructive notice and binds
third person who may subse7uently deal with the same property.
4owever, a close scrutiny of the records reveals that, at the time of the e>ecution and delivery of the
sheriff=s deed of final conveyance on @eptember *, !0H, the disputed property was already covered by
the 9and Registration %ct and /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. ;&0,; pursuant to "ecree )o. )0!+:
was liAewise already entered in the registration booA of the Register of "eeds of Cagayan "e /ro City as
of %pril 7, !0+.
-hus, from %pril 7, !0+, the sub6ect property was already under the operation of the -orrens
@ystem. Under the said system, registration is the operative act that gives validity to the transfer or
creates a lien upon the land.
.oreover, the issuance of a certificate of title had the effect of relieving the land of all claims e>cept
those noted thereon. %ccordingly, private respondents, in dealing with the sub6ect registered land, were
not re7uired by law to go beyond the register to determine the legal condition of the property. -hey were
only charged with notice of such burdens on the property as were noted on the register or the certificate of
title. -o have re7uired them to do more would have been to defeat the primary ob6ect of the -orrens
@ystem which is to maAe the -orrens -itle indefeasible and valid against the whole world.
Private respondents posit that, even assuming that the sheriff=s deed of final conveyance in favor of
petitioner banA was duly recorded in the day booA of the Register of "eeds under %ct ::++, ownership of
the sub6ect real property would still be theirs as purchasers in good faith because they registered the sale
first under the Property Registration "ecree.
-he rights created by the above&stated statute of course do not and cannot accrue under an inscription
in bad faith. .ere registration of title in case of double sale is not enough? good faith must concur with
the registration.
#7$
Petitioner contends that the due and proper registration of the sheriff=s deed of final conveyance on
"ecember ,, !0H amounted to constructive notice to private respondents. -hus, when private
respondents bought the sub6ect property on .ay 7, !00, they were deemed to have purchased the said
property with the Anowledge that it was already registered in the name of petitioner banA.
-hus, the only issue left to be resolved is whether or not private respondents could be considered as
buyers in good faith.
-he 2priority in timeB principle being invoAed by petitioner banA is misplaced because its
registration referred to land not within the -orrens @ystem but under %ct ::++. /n the other hand, when
private respondents bought the sub6ect property, the same was already registered under the -orrens
@ystem. Ct is a well&Anown rule in this 6urisdiction that persons dealing with registered land have the legal
right to rely on the face of the -orrens Certificate of -itle and to dispense with the need to in7uire further,
e>cept when the party concerned has actual Anowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to maAe such in7uiry.
#0$
"id private respondents e>ercise the re7uired diligence in ascertaining the legal condition of the title
to the sub6ect property so as to be considered as innocent purchasers for value and in good faithK
3e answer in the affirmative.
Before private respondents bought the sub6ect property from 'uillermo Comayas, in7uiries were
made with the Registry of "eeds and the Bureau of 9ands regarding the status of the vendor=s title. )o
liens or encumbrances were found to have been annotated on the certificate of title. )either were private
respondents aware of any adverse claim or lien on the property other than the adverse claim of a certain
'eneva 'alupo to whom 'uillermo Comayas had mortgaged the sub6ect property. But, as already
mentioned, the claim of 'alupo was eventually settled and the adverse claim previously annotated on the
title cancelled. -hus, having made the necessary in7uiries, private respondents did not have to go beyond
the certificate of title. /therwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the -orrens Certificate of -itle
would be rendered futile and nugatory.
Considering therefore that private respondents e>ercised the diligence re7uired by law in
ascertaining the legal status of the -orrens title of 'uillermo Comayas over the sub6ect property and
found no flaws therein, they should be considered as innocent purchasers for value and in good faith.
%ccordingly, the appealed 6udgment of the appellate court upholding private respondents %lfredo and
%nnabelle 9umo as the true and rightful owners of the disputed property is affirmed.
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby "5)C5".
SO ORDERED.
NAAWAN COMMUNITY RURAL BANK INC v CA
FACTS: Comayas offered to sell to the Lumo Spouses a house and lot. The property
was already registered under the Torrens System that time and they made appropriate
inquiries with the RD; they found out that it was mortgaged for !"###" paid Comayas to
settle the mortgage" and the release of the ad$erse %laim was annotated in the title.
Thereafter" they e&e%uted an A'solute Deed of Sale o$er the su'(e%t property and
registered the same. )owe$er" it turns out that it was already pre$iously sold
to *aawan Community Rural+an,; it was then unregistered. The +an, fore%losed on
the property" pur%hased the same" and registered it under A%t --... Thus" the +an,
sought to e(e%t the spouses. )owe$er" the latter %ountered with an a%tion for quieting of
title.
/SS01: 2ho has a 'etter title" *aawan or Lumo spouses3
)1LD: L045 S50S1S; where a person %laims to ha$e superior property rights 'y
$irtue of a sheriff6s sale" the 'enefit of Art 78.. applies fa$ora'ly only if the property is
registered under the Torrens System9not under A%t --... Registration under the
Torrens System is the operati$e a%t that gi$es $alidity to the transfer and %reates lien
upon the land. The spouses a%quired their titles under the Torrens System and they
a%ted in good faith 'y e&er%ising due diligen%e; thus" they ha$e a 'etter right to the said
property.
G.R. No. L-2!" F#$%&a%' (", ()*
AMADO CARUMBA, petitioner,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANTIAGO BALBUENA and ANGELES BOA+UI,A a- D#.&/'
P%o01n21a3 S4#%155,respondents.
%uis 0. de %eon for petitioner.
&eno &. 1on2ales for respondents.

REYES, 6.B.L., J.:
%mado Carumba petitions this @upreme Court for a certiorari to review a decision of the Court of
%ppeals, rendered in its Case )o. :H;!+&R, that reversed the 6udgment in his favor rendered by the Court
of First Cnstance of Camarines @ur 8Civil Case +H+H<.
-he factual bacAground and history of these proceedings is thus stated by the Court of %ppeals 8pages &
,<1
/n %pril ,, !**, the spouses %mado Canuto and )emesia Cbasco, by virtue of a L"eed
of @ale of Unregistered 9and with Covenants of 3arrantyL 85>h. %<, sold a parcel of
land, partly residential and partly coconut land with a periphery 8area< of :*!.;! s7uare
meters, more or less, located in the barrio of @anto "omingo, Criga, Camarines @ur, to the
spouses %mado Carumba and Benita Canuto, for the sum of P:*;.;;. -he referred deed
of sale was never registered in the /ffice of the Register of "eeds of Camarines @ur, and
the )otary, .r. (icente .alaya, was not then an authoriGed notary public in the place, as
shown by 5>h. *. Besides, it has been e>pressly admitted by appellee that he is the
brother&in&law of %mado Canuto, the alleged vendor of the property sold to him. %mado
Canuto is the older brother of the wife of the herein appellee, %mado Carumba.
/n Danuary ,, !*7, a complaint 85>h. B< for a sum or money was filed by @antiago
Balbuena against %mado Canuto and )emesia Cbasco before the Dustice of the Peace
Court of Criga, Camarines @ur, Anown as Civil Case )o. :! and on %pril *, !H7, a
decision 85>h. C< was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. /n
/ctober , !H0, the ex-officio @heriff, Dusto (. Cmperial, of Camarines @ur, issued a
L"efinite "eed of @ale 85>h. "< of the property now in 7uestion in favor of @antiago
Balbuena, which instrument of sale was registered before the /ffice of the Register of
"eeds of Camarines @ur, on /ctober :, !*0. -he aforesaid property was declared for
ta>ation purposes 85>h. < in the name of @antiago Balbuena in !*0.
-he Court of First instance, finding that after e>ecution of the document Carumba had taAen possession of
the land, planting bananas, coffee and other vegetables thereon, declared him to be the owner of the
property under a consummated sale? held void the e>ecution levy made by the sheriff, pursuant to a
6udgment against CarumbaMs vendor, %mado Canuto? and nullified the sale in favor of the 6udgment
creditor, @antiago Balbuena. -he Court, therefore, declared Carumba the owner of the litigated property
and ordered Balbuena to pay P:;.;;, as damages, plus the costs.
-he Court of %ppeals, without altering the findings of fact made by the court of origin, declared that there
having been a double sale of the land sub6ect of the suit BalbuenaMs title was superior to that of his
adversary under %rticle *++ of the Civil Code of the Philippines, since the e>ecution sale had been
properly registered in good faith and the sale to Carumba was not recorded.
3e disagree. 3hile under the invoAed %rticle *++ registration in good faith prevails over possession in
the event of a double sale by the vendor of the same piece of land to different vendees, said article is of no
application to the case at bar, even if Balbuena, the later vendee, was ignorant of the prior sale made by
his 6udgment debtor in favor of petitioner Carumba. -he reason is that the purchaser of unregistered land
at a sheriffMs e>ecution sale only steps into the shoes of the 6udgment debtor, and merely ac7uires the
latterMs interest in the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon. -his is specifically
provided by section :* of Rule :! of the Revised Rules of Court, the second paragraph of said section
specifically providing that1
Upon the e>ecution and delivery of said 8final< deed the purchaser, redemptioner, or his
assignee shall be substituted to and ac3uire all the right, title, interest, and claim of the
judgment debtor to the property as of the time of the le*y, e>cept as against the 6udgment
debtor in possession, in which case the substitution shall be effective as of the time of the
deed ... 85mphasis supplied<
3hile the time of the levy does not clearly appear, it could not have been made prior to * %pril !*7,
when the decision against the former owners of the land was rendered in favor of Balbuena. But the deed
of sale in favor of Canuto had been e>ecuted two years before, on , %pril !**, and while only
embodied in a private document, the same, coupled with the fact that the buyer 8petitioner Carumba< had
taAen possession of the unregistered land sold, sufficed to vest ownership on the said buyer. 3hen the
levy was made by the @heriff, therefore, the 6udgment debtor no longer had dominical interest nor any
real right over the land that could pass to the purchaser at the e>ecution sale.
(
4ence, the latter must yield
the land to petitioner Carumba. -he rule is different in case of lands covered by -orrens titles, where the
prior sale is neither recorded nor Anown to the e>ecution purchaser prior to the levy?
2
but the land here in
7uestion is admittedly not registered under %ct )o. +!H.
345R5F/R5, the decision of the Court of %ppeals is reversed and that of the Court of First Cnstance
affirmed. Costs against respondent @antiago Balbuena.
Concepcion, C.4., .i2on, 5a-alintal, 6aldi*ar, Sanche2, Castro, /ernando, +eehan-ee, Barredo and
7illamor, 44., concur.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
.anila
FCR@- "C(C@C/)

G.R. No. "7872 Ma' 2*, ())(
RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
MANUELITO S. PALILEO, respondent.
&olando A. Calang for petitioner.
Sisenando 7illalu2, Sr. for respondent.

GANCAYCO, J.:p
Cf the same piece of land was sold to two different purchasers, to whom shall ownership belongK %rticle
*++ of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of an immovable property, ownership shall be
transferred1 8< to the person ac7uiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property?
8,< in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession? and 8:< in default thereof, to
the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. -here is no ambiguity regarding the
application of the law with respect to lands registered under the -orrens @ystem. @ection * of
Presidential "ecree )o. *,! 8amending @ection *; of %ct )o. +!H clearly provides that the act of
registration is the operative act to convey or affect registered lands insofar as third persons are concerned.
-hus, a person dealing with registered land is not re7uired to go behind the register to determine the
condition of the property. 4e is only charged with notice of the burdens on the property which are noted
on the face of the register or certificate of title.
(
Following this principle, this Court has time and again
held that a purchaser in good faith of registered land 8covered by a -orrens -itle< ac7uires a good title as
against all the transferees thereof whose right is not recorded in the registry of deeds at the time of the
sale.
2
-he 7uestion that has to be resolved in the instant petition is whether or not the rule provided in %rticle
*++ of the Civil Code as discussed above, is applicable to a parcel of unregistered land purchased at a
6udicial sale. -o be more specific, this Court is asAed to determine who, as between two buyers of
unregistered land, is the rightful ownerNthe first buyer in a prior sale that was unrecorded, or the second
buyer who purchased the land in an e>ecution sale whose transfer was registered in the Register of "eeds.
-he facts as found by the Court of %ppeals are as follows1
/n %pril :, !7;, defendant spouses 5nri7ue Castro and 4erminia R. Castro sold to
plaintiff&appellee .anuelito Palileo 8private respondent herein<, a parcel of unregistered
coconut land situated in Candiis, .ansayaw, .ainit, @urigao del )orte. -he sale is
evidenced by a notariGed "eed of %bsolute @ale 85>h. L5L<. -he deed was not registered
in the Registry of Property for unregistered lands in the province of @urigao del )orte.
@ince the e>ecution of the deed of sale, appellee .anuelito Palileo who was then
employed at 9ianga @urigao del @ur, e>ercised acts of ownership over the land through
his mother Rafaela Palileo, as administratri> or overseer. %ppellee has continuously paid
the real estate ta>es on said land from !7 until the present 85>hs. LCL to LC&7L,
inclusive<.
/n )ovember ,!, !7H, a 6udgment was rendered against defendant 5nri7ue -. Castro, in
Civil Case )o. ;;:+* by the then Court of First Cnstance of .anila, Branch JCJ, to
pay herein defendant&appellant Radiowealth Finance Company 8petitioner herein<, the
sum of P,,,:*;.:* with interest thereon at the rate of HO per annum from )ovember ,,
!7* until fully paid, and the further sum of P,,,:*.;: as attorneyMs fees, and to pay the
costs. Upon the finality of the 6udgment, a writ of e>ecution was issued. Pursuant to said
writ, defendant provincial @heriff .arietta 5. 5viota, through defendant "eputy
Provincial @heriff 9eopoldo Risma, levied upon and finally sold at public auction the
sub6ect land that defendant 5nri7ue Castro had sold to appellee .anuelito Palileo on
%pril :,!7;. % certificate of sale was e>ecuted by the Provincial @heriff in favor of
defendant& appellant Radiowealth Finance Company, being the only bidder. %fter the
period of redemption has 8sic< e>pired, a deed of final sale was also e>ecuted by the same
Provincial @heriff. Both the certificate of sale and the deed of final sale were registered
with the Registry of "eeds.
7
9earning of what happened to the land, private respondent .anuelito Palileo filed an action for 7uieting
of title over the same. %fter a trial on the merits, the court a 3uo rendered a decision in his favor. /n
appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed. 4ence, this petition for review on certiorari.
Cn its petition, Radiowealth Finance Company presents the following errors1
. -45 C/UR- /F %PP5%9@ 5RR5" C) )/- FC)"C)' -4%- -45 "55" /F
%B@/9U-5 @%95 85J4CBC- B< %995'5"9I 5J5CU-5" BI 5)RCPU5 C%@-R/
C) F%(/R /F %PP59955 .%)U59C-/ P%9C95/, 3%@ @C.U9%-5" /R
FCC-C-C/U@.
,. -45 C/UR- /F %PP5%9@ 5RR5" C) )/- FC)"C)' %PP59955 .%)U59C-/
P%9C95/ %@ %".C)C@-R%-/R /)9I /F -45 "C@PU-5" PR/P5R-I? %)"
:. -45 C/UR- /F %PP5%9@ 5RR5" C) )/- FC)"C)' "5F5)"%)-&
%PP599%)- R%"C/35%9-4 FC)%)C5 C/.P%)I /3)5R /F -45 "C@PU-5"
PR/P5R-I BI R5%@/) /F -45 C5R-CFCC%-5 /F @%95 %)" -45 "55" /F
FC)%9 @%95 34CC4 35R5 %99 R5'C@-5R5" C) -45 R5'C@-5R /F "55"@,
45)C5, @UP5RC/R -/ -4%- /F -45 "55" /F @%95 C) P/@@5@@C/) /F
.%)U59C-/ P%9C95/, F/R B5C)' )/- R5'C@-5R5".
8
%s regards the first and second assigned errors, suffice it to state that findings of fact of the Court of
%ppeals are conclusive on this Court and will not be disturbed unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
-he finding of the Court of %ppeals that the property in 7uestion was already sold to private respondent
by its previous owner before the e>ecution sale is evidenced by a deed of sale. @aid deed of sale is
notariGed and is presumed authentic. -here is no substantive proof to support petitionerMs allegation that
the document is fictitious or simulated. 3ith this in mind, 3e see no reason to re6ect the conclusion of the
Court of %ppeals that private respondent was not a mere administrator of the property. -hat he e>ercised
acts of ownership through his mother also remains undisputed.
'oing now to the third assigned error which deals with the main issue presented in the instant petition,
3e observe that the Court of %ppeals resolved the same in favor of private respondent due to the
following reason? what the Provincial @heriff levied upon and sold to petitioner is a parcel of land that
does not belong to 5nri7ue Castro, the 6udgment debtor, hence the e>ecution is contrary to the directive
contained in the writ of e>ecution which commanded that the lands and buildings belonging to 8nri3ue
Castro be sold to satisfy the e>ecution.
!
-here is no doubt that had the property in 7uestion been a registered land, this case would have been
decided in favor of petitioner since it was petitioner that had its claim first recorded in the Registry of
"eeds. For, as already mentioned earlier, it is the act of registration that operates to convey and affect
registered land. -herefore, a bona fide purchaser of a registered land at an e>ecution sale ac7uires a good
title as against a prior transferee, if such transfer was unrecorded.
4owever, it must be stressed that this case deals with a parcel of unregistered land and a different set of
rules applies. 3e affirm the decision of the Court of %ppeals.
Under %ct )o. ::++, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is Lwithout pre6udice to a
third party with a better rightL. -he afore7uoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean that the mere
registration of a sale in oneMs 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.
-he case of Carumba *s. Court of Appeals
9
is a case in point. Ct was held therein that %rticle *++ of the
Civil Code has no application to land not registered under %ct )o. +!H. 9iAe in the case at bar, Carumba
dealt with a double sale of the same unregistered land. -he first sale was made by the original owners and
was unrecorded while the second was an e>ecution sale that resulted from a complaint for a sum of
money filed against the said original owners. %pplying @ection :*, Rule :! of the Revised Rules of
Court,

this Court held that %rticle *++ of the Civil Code cannot be invoAed to benefit the purchaser at
the e>ecution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even if this second sale was registered.
Ct was e>plained that this is because the purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriffs e>ecution sale only
steps into the shoes of the 6udgment debtor, and merely ac7uires the latterMs interest in the property sold as
of the time the property was levied upon.
%pplying this principle, the Court of %ppeals correctly held that the e>ecution sale of the unregistered
land in favor of petitioner is of no effect because the land no longer belonged to the 6udgment debtor as of
the time of the said e>ecution sale.
345R5F/R5, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of %ppeals in C%&'.R. C( )o. ;700
is hereby %FFCR.5". )o costs.
@/ /R"5R5".
0ar*asa, Cru2, 1ri9o-A3uino and 5edialdea, 44., concur.
'.R. )o. 9&7++
WELGO DICHOSO, ET AL., plaintiffs&appellees,
vs.
LAURA RO:AS, ET AL., defendants,
CELSO BOR6A and NELIA ALANGUILAN, defendants&appellants.
6osimo .. +analega for plaintiffs-appellees.
5anuel A. Al*ero for defendant %aura A. &oxas.
Brion, Baldo, Cho2as and Alcantara for defendants-appellants.
DI;ON, J.:
%ppeal from the following decision of the Court of First Cnstance of 9aguna1
345R5F/R5, the Court renders 6udgment ordering the plaintiffs to deposit with the ClerA of this Court
for the account of defendant 9aura %. Ro>as the amount of P:,;.;; and, upon the deposit of the said
amount, defendant 9aura %. Ro>as is ordered to e>ecute a document transferring her rights, title and
interest in the land in controversy to plaintiffs 3elgo "ichoso and 5milia 4ernandeG within five 8*< days
from such deposit. Cn the event that 9aura %. Ro>as fails to e>ecute the document within the
aforementioned period, the same shall e>ecuted by the ClerA of Court in her behalf.
"efendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan are order to e>ecute a deed of re&sale of the land in
controversy and the improvements thereon in favor of plaintiffs 3elgo "ichoso and 5milia 4ernandeG
within five 8*< days after the document transfer has been e>ecuted by or on behalf of 9aura %. Ro>as. Cf
defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan fail to do so, the ClerA of Court shall e>ecute the document
in their behalf. %t any time after the e>ecution of the deed of re&sale, defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia
%languilan may withdraw from the PeopleMs BanA and -rust Company of @an Pablo City the amount of
P0*;.;; which had been deposited by plaintiff 3elgo "ichoso as repurchase price and the PeopleMs BanA
Q -ru Company is ordered to deliver the said amount to the aforementioned defendants.
-he Court considers defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan as possessors in good faith and are not
re7uired account for the fruits that they have received from the Can it controversy up to the time this
decision becomes final.
9aura %. Ro>as is ordered to return to defendants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan the amount of
P,H0+.;; which she received as additional purchase price for the land in controversy.
%ll defendants are 6ointly and severally ordered to pay the costs.
-he complaint alleged, in substance, that on "ecember :, !*+, 9aura %. Ro>as sold to appellants for
the sum of P0*;.;; a parcel of unregistered coconut land with an area of H,!H* s7uare meters and with
:!: coconut trees, situated in Barrio @an "iego, @an Pablo, 9aguna, sub6ect to the condition, inter alia,
that the vendor could repurchase it for the same amount within five years, but not earlier than three years,
from the date of the sale, which was evidenced by a public document attached to the complaint as %nne>
%? that from )ovember ,H, !** to Duly *, !*7, Ro>as had received from appellees several sums of
money amounting to P77;.;;, their agreement being that after "ecember :, !*7, Ro>as would sell the
same property, by absolute sale, to appellees for the total sum of P,,;;;.;;, the aforesaid sum of P77;.;;
to be considered as initial or advance payment on the purchase price? that out of the balance of P,,:;.;;,
appellees would use the sum of P0*;.;; to repurchase the property from appellants after "ecember :,
!*+ but within the five years stipulated for the e>ercise of Ro>asM right to repurchase? that on /ctober ,,,
!*7, pursuant to Ro>asM re7uest made on Duly ,:, !*7, appellees sent her a checA for the sum of
P:,;.;; Lin full payment of the P,,;;;.;; consideration for the deed of absolute saleL and thereafter they
informed appellants of their readiness to repurchase the property? that on )ovember ,!, !*7 Ro>as sent
them bacA the checA 6ust referred to with the re7uest that they endorse the same to appellants when they
made the repurchase, because it appeared that, aside from the P0*;.;; consideration of the pacto de
retro sale, Ro>as had received additional sums from appellants? that again, after "ecember :, !*7,
appellees made representations to appellants that they were ready to maAe the repurchase, as well as to
Ro>as for the latter to be ready to e>ecute the corresponding deed of absolute sale in their favor after they
had made the repurchase? that notwithstanding these demand and representations, Ro>as and appellants
had deliberately failed to e>ecute the corresponding deed of absolute sale and deed of resale already
mentioned.
/n Danuary 0, !*0 appellants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that appellees had
no cause of action against them because their contract was not them but with 9aura %. Ro>as. %fter due
hearing, lower court sustained the motion and dismissed the complaint because, according to the same,
Lthere e>ists no written contract of assignment of rights e>ecuted by 9aura %. Ro>as in favor of the herein
plaintiffs concerning property which said 9aura %. Ro>as sold to her co&defendants under a deed of pacto
de retro sale, and that the purpose of the present action is precisely to compel 9aura %. Ro>as to e>ecute
the corresponding deed of assignment.L
4owever, on Duly :, !*0, over appellantsM ob6ection, the lower court admitted the amended complaint
previously filed by appellees. -he principal amendment introduced consisted in the allegation that on Duly
*, !*7, for sum of P77;.;;, 9aura %. Ro>as had ceded to appellees her right to repurchase the property
from appellants? that on )ovember ,!, !*7, Ro>as had Lordered and author the said plaintiffs spouses to
repurchase the said parcel land from the defendants vendee&a&retro after the : years period, which would
terminate on "ecember :, !*7,L and that on "ecember :, !*7, appellees tendered to appellants the
re7uired sum with which to effect the repurchase, but that the latter refused to accept the same, thus
compelling appellees to consign the amount with the /ffice of ClerA, Court of First Cnstance of 9aguna.
Upon petition of appellants, the lower court on %ugust 0, !*0, ordered appellees to furnish, and the
latter furnished appellants, with a copy of the alleged deed of assignment dated Duly 0, !*0, referred to in
paragraph + of the amended complaint, which deed reads as follows1
-%9%@-%@C) )' @C)/ .%)1
-inangap Ao ngayong Dulio *, !*7 ang halagang Pit "ean at Pitong Pong 8P77;.;;< peso cuartang pang
Aasal yan sa mag& asawa ni 3elgo "ichoso at 5milia 4ernandeG, lang paunang bayad sa isang puesto
Aong lupa humigit Aumulang sa apat na raang tanim na niog.
%ng aming pinagAasondoan pag dating ng dalagang wang libong 8P,,;;;.;;< pesong pagAaAautang pate
tobos walong daan at limang pong 8P0*;.;;< peso sa pagAa pag na mabibiling muli o sanla< sa magasawa
ni Celso Bor6a )elia %languilan ay mag gagawaan ng documento o Aasulatan bilihang toloyan o bintarial
absoluta sa halagang dalawang libong 8P,,;;;.;;< peso na nasabe sa itaas nito.
%ng nasabing lupa ay naAatayo sa @alang lupa Aung tawagin Bo. @an "iego saAop ng Ciudad ng @an
Pablo. @a Aatonayan na hinde aAo sisira sa pinagusapan ay lumagda aAo ng pangalan at apellido na
Aaharap ang isang testigo.
89gda.< Cosme Punto 89gda.< 9aura %. Ro>as
% motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied by the lower court for the reason that the grounds
relied upon therein did not appear to be indubitable and their consideration was deferred until after trial
on the merits. -hereafter appellants filed their answer in which, after maAing specific denial of some facts
averred in the amended complaint, they alleged the following affirmative defenses1
. -hat the alleged transfer of right to repurchase supposedly e>ecuted by defendant 9aura %. Ro>as in
favor of plaintiffs herein is not in any manner a transfer of right to repurchase but at most a receipt of
indebtedness?
,. -hat even assuming although not admitting that there was a transfer of right to repurchase made by the
defendant 9aura %. Ro>as in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the property in 7uestion, yet said right to
repurchase could not be e>ercised by the plaintiffs considering that before "ecember :, !*7 arrived, the
period within which the repurchase might be made, said land in 7uestion had already become the absolute
and e>clusive property of the answering defendants herein.
:. -hat defendants spouses in the e>ercise of the rights of dominion over the property, had since
"ecember :, !*7 harvested and are harvesting the fruits to date? and paid the ta>es therefor? and had
attended to the disposition of the pro. proceeds therefrom?
+. -hat whatever alleged agreement may have been entered into between plaintiffs and defendant 9aura
Ro>as cannot in any way affect third persons liAe defendants spouses Celso Boria and )elia %languilan,
unless the same is in a public document?
*. -hat even assuming, although not admitting, that the Plaintiffs tendered into the answering defendants
the repurchase price of the land in 7uestion on or immediately after "ecember :, !+7, yet the
answering defendants have all the reasons and are 6ustified in refusing to accept the said repurchase price
considering that before said date of "ecember :, !*7, answering defendants were already the absolute
and e>clusive owners of the land in 7uestion, sub6ect to no other conditions.
%s counterclaim, appellants alleged in their answer following facts1
. -hat the answering defendants incorporate and part hereof paragraph of the plaintiffsM amended
complaint?
,. -hat before this case was filed, plaintiffs Anew f well that the property in 7uestion is already owned
absolute by answering defendants? and which therefore, cannot be sub6ect of repurchase anymore?
:. -hat plaintiff 3elgo "ichoso was the agent who responsible for the consummation of the sale with
right to purchase as a matter of fact he was the witness to the s document?
+. -hat a parcel of land abutting this parcel in 7uest was liAewise offered by plaintiff 3elgo "ichoso to
defend spouses who acceded to buy the same on the representation the former "ichoso that inasmuch as
answering defendant are now the owners of the land in 7uestion, this smaller if united with the bigger
piece of property here in 7uest would not only enhance agriculture but would afford t greater benefits as
to two parcels are ad6oining to each other.
*. "efendants spouses would not have bought the p property in 7uestion if not for the assurance of 3elgo
"ichoso t co& defendant would sooner or later sell same to them by of absolute sale?
H. -hat in filing this case, plaintiffs have acted w evident bad faith, considering that this case was only
intended to harass answering defendants who are his first cousins a therefore ore must be re7uired to pay
answering defendants amount of P*;;.;; as e>emplary damages?
7. -hat because of the unwarranted and un6ustified filing this case, the answering defendants suffered
damages in amount of P*;;.;; and will continue to suffer the same by of litigation e>penses? and at the
same time were compel to retain the services of counsel and are obliged to pay amount of P,;;;.;; in
the concept of attorneyMs fees,
/n @eptember !, !*0, appellees filed a reply in which they alleged, inter alia, that when they offered to
repurchase the property from appellants, on behalf of 9a %. Ro>as, appellants had not become absolute
and e>clusive owners of the property in 7uestion? that after the offer to repurchase made on "ecember :,
!*7, appellate became possessors in bad faith and were in duty bound to account for the fruits of the
property? that although the agreement between appellees, on the ore hand, a Ro>as, on the other, was not
contained in a public instrument appellants were bound by it because they Anew the agreement. %ppellees
also denied the facts alleged in the counterclaim.
/n %pril , !*!, appellees filed a supplementary complaint wherein, on the claim that after Duly ,:,
!*0 the price of coconuts had considerably gone up, they prayed that the 6udgment for damages they
sought in the amended complaint be increased in amount accordingly.
%fter trial upon the issues stated above, the lower court rendered the appealed 6udgment, from which the
Bor6a spouses appealed claiming that the court committed the following errors1
. Cn not finding defendant&appellants Celso Boria and )elia %languilan as the true, lawful and absolute
owners of the land in 7uestion, their title thereto being evidenced by public and private documents
coupled by possession in good faith and for value.
,. Cn not finding appellants Celso Bor6a and )elia %languilan possessors as absolute owners from
"ecember 0, !*7, the date of the e>ecution of the deed of absolute sale 85>h. L7L< in their favor.
:. Cn not giving weight to the deed of confirmation 85>h. L0L<, a public document e>ecuted to cure defects
in proof only.
+. Cn construing 5>hibit LCL 8a private document< as a document of sale and in e>tending its effects to third
parties 8appellants< who are total strangers to it.
*. Cn not sustaining the plea of res judicata by the defendant&appellants.
-he pertinent portions of the decision appealed from are the following1
Ct appears from the evidence that 9aura %. Ro>as had sold her rights to the land in controversy to two 8,<
different parties. -he first one was on Duly *, !*7, in favor of the plaintiffs 3elgo "ichoso and 5milia
4ernandeG 85>h. LCL<, and the second one allegedly on "ecember 0, !*7 in favor of defendants Celso
Bor6a and )elia %languilan 85>h. L7L<. -he principal 7uestion to be determined is which of these two
documents shall prevail. Both the documents in favor of the plaintiffs 5>h. LCL and that in favor of the
defendants 5>h. L7L are private documents same not having been acAnowledged before a )otary Public.
-he Court is of the opinion that the document in favor of the plaintiffs being of an earlier date than the
document in favor of the defendants shall prevail in accordance with the provisions of paragraph : of
%rticle *++ of the Civil Code of the Philippines which read as follows1
MCf the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred
to the person who may have first taAen possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable
property.
MShould 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,
pro*ided there is good faith. 85mphasis supplied<
3hile it may be true that the defendants were in possession of the land in controversy at the time
9aura %. Ro>as e>ecuted the deed of sale in favor of the plaintiffs, such possession was merely
that of a Lvendee a retroL and not as vendee in an absolute sale. Ct has also been held that with
reference to unregistered lands, an earlier instrument, be it a sale or a mortgage, shall prevail over
a later one, and the registration of any one of them is immaterial 8)isce vs. .ilo, '.R. )o. +,*+H,
Dan. !:H? )ota vs. Concepcion, *H Phil. 7,, cited in )oble6as, 9and -itles and "eeds, !** ed.,
p. ,;7<.
-he deed of confirmation of sale e>ecuted by 9aura %. Ro>as in favor of defendants Celso Bor6a
and )elia %languilan on @eptember *, !*0, 5>hibits L0L, cannot in any manner pre6udice the
rights of the plaintiffs because the said deed of confirmation was made more than nine 8!< months
after this case was filed. Cf the e>ecution of the said deed of confirmation. Ct also proves the 6oint
efforts of all the LCL e>ecuted by 9aura %. Ro>as in plaintiffsM favor.
Ct is obvious that, in deciding the case, the lower court failed to give due weight to the private document
5>hibit 7 8deed of absolute sale< e>ecuted by 9aura %. Ro>as in favor of appellants on "ecember 0, !*7
N in effect superseding the pacto de retro sale mentioned heretofore for a total consideration of
P,H0+.;;, of which the amount of P0*;.;; paid as consideration for the pacto de retro sale was
considered as a part. -here is no dispute at all as to the genuineness of this private deed of absolute sale
nor as to its e>ecution on "ecember 0, !*7. that is, five days prior to "ecember :, !*7, when.
according to appellees themselves, they made the first attempt to repurchase the property in 7uestion, and
on which occasion appellants refused to allow the repurchase Lbecause 9aura %. Ro>as was not with
themL, according to the lower court. %fter "ecember 0, !*7, appellantsM rights were no longer based on
the supersededpacto de retro sale but on the aforesaid deed of absolute sale N which was a perfectly
valid contract as between the parties. Cn plain words, after that date 9aura %. Ro>as no longer had any
right to repurchase the property.
Upon the other hand, appelleesM contention that appellants were aware of their agreement with 9aura %.
Ro>as has not been sufficiently substantiated. %ppelleesM own evidence shows that appellants became
aware of their claim to the property when they tried, for the first time, to e>ercise the right to repurchase
on "ecember 0, !*7 five days after the deed of absolute sale in favor of said appellants. %fter a careful
consideration of the issues and the evidence, we believe that the lower court also erred in considering
5>hibit C, e>ecuted on Duly *, !*7, as a deed of sale of the land in 7uestion in favor of appellees.
Cn the first place, the phraseology employed therein shows that the contract between the parties was a
mere promise to sell, on the part of Ro>as, because the latter merely promised to e>ecute a deed of
absolute sale upon appellees complaining payment to her of the total sum of P,,;;;.;;, of which the
P0*;.;; to be paid to appellants for the repurchase of the property would be an integral part. -his
repurchase had not yet been made on Duly *, !*7, when this 5>hibit C was e>ecuted. Cn the second place,
an that date all that Ro>as could possibly sell or convey in relation to the property in 7uestion was her
right to repurchase the same from appellants. Conse7uently, the best consideration that could be given to
the private document 5>hibit C is that it was an assignment by Ro>as to appellees of her right to
repurchase of which N according to the evidence N appellants had no Anowledge until "ecember :,
!*7 when appellees attempted to maAe the repurchase. @uch being its condition, it could not possibly
give rise to the case of one and the same property having been sold to two different purchasers. -he salt
N in favor of appellants was of the property itself, while the one in favor of appellees, if not a mere
promise to assign, was at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the same property. -he
provisions of paragraph :, %rticle *++ of the Civil Code of the Philippines do not, therefore, apply.
4aving arrived at the above conclusions, we are constrained to hold that, upon the facts of the case,
appellees are not entitled to the reliefs sought in their amended complaint and that whatever remedy they
have is e>clusively against 9aura %. Ro>as to recover from her, among other things, what they paid as
consideration for the e>ecution of the private document 5>hibit C.
345R5F/R5, the decision appealed from is reversed, with the result that this case is dismissed, with
costs, reserving to appellees, however, the right to file a separate action against 9aura %. Ro>as to enforce
whatever rights they may have against her in consonance with this decision.

Dichoso v. Roxas
GR No. L-17441 J!" #1$ 1%&' ( )CRA 7*1
FACTS:
Ro&as sold to Di %hoso and )ernande: a par%el of unregi stered %o%onut land"
su'(e%t to the %ondition that the $endor %oul d repur%hase the land withi n 8
years from the date of sale. Ro&as re%ei $ed from Di%hoso se$eral sums of money
as initial or ad$an%e payments" with the agreement that Ro&as would sell the same
property" 'y a'solute sale" to Di%hoso. 5ut of their remaining 'alan%e" they would use
!8# to repur%hase the property from +or(a and Alanguilan within the period stipulated.
Di%hoso informed +or(a of their readiness to repur%hase and sent Ro&as a
%he%,. Ro&as returned the %he%, wi th the request that they indorsed it to
+or(a and Alanguilan when they ma,e the repur%hase. Despite the repeated
demands and representations" Ro&as and +or(a had deli'erately failed to e&e%ute the
%orrespondi ng deed of a'solute sal e and deed of resal e.
;SS01: 2hether or not there was a dou'le sale.
)1LD: *o. The %ontra%t 'etween the petitioners and Ro&as was a mere promise to
sell 'e%ause Ro&as merely promised to e&e%ute a deed of a'solute sale upon Di%hoso6 s
%ompletion of payment. 5n the date that Ro&as %ould possi'ly sell sell or %on$ey in
relation to the property in question was her right to repur%hase the same from +or(a.
The pri$ate do%ument e&e%uted 'etween Ro&as and Di%hoso %an 'e %onsi dered as
an assignment 'y Ro&as to Dis%hoso of her right to repur%hase whi %h Ro&as
onl y had ,nowledge thereof when Di%hoso attempted to ma,e the repur%hase. Su%h
'eing its %ondition" it %ould not possi'l y gi $e ri se to the %ase of one and the
same property ha$ing 'een sold to two di fferent pur%hasers. The sale in fa$or of
+or(a was of the property itself" while the one in fa$or of Di%hoso" if not a mere promise
to assign" was at most an a%tual assignment of the right to repur%hase the same
property. Art. 78.." par. - of the CC do not apply
<G.R. No. (7"2*(. S#./#=$#% (2, 2***>
FRANCISCO BAYOCA, NONITO DICHOSO and SPOUSES PIO DICHOSO and DOLORES
DICHOSO and ERWIN BAYOCA, petitioners, vs. GAUDIOSO NOGALES %#.%#-#n/#d $'
HENRY NOGALES, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
GON;AGA-REYES, J.:
Before us is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule +* of the Rules of Court, assailing the
"ecember ,+, !!0 "ecision of the Court of %ppeals,
#$
which disposed as follows1
2C) -45 9C'4- /F %99 -45 F/R5'/C)', %ppellants= appeal is "C@.C@@5". -he "ecision
appealed from is %FFCR.5". 3ith costs against the %ppellants.
@/ /R"5R5".B
#,$
-he decretal portion of the decision of the trial court affirmed by the Court of %ppeals, reads1
2%CC/R"C)'9I, 6udgment is hereby rendered1
8< "eclaring the plaintiff the absolute owner and entitled to the peaceful possession of the land
in 7uestion described in Paragraph , of the %mended Complaint, and for the defendants to
refrain from disturbing the plaintiff in his peaceful possession thereof?
8,< /rdering defendants Francisco Bayoca and )onito "ichoso to remove their respective
houses from the premises in 7uestion within ten 8;< days after the "ecision becomes final
and e>ecutory?
8:< /rdering defendant 5rwin Bayoca to reconvey to the plaintiff -C- )o. -&,7,,;, and
defendant )onito "ichoso, who substituted defendants @pouses Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes
"omasig as party&defendants, to reconvey /C- )o. P&!0 to the plaintiff within fifteen
8*< days after the "ecision becomes final and e>ecutory, failing in which, the ClerA of
Court is ordered to e>ecute the "eed of Reconveyance in favor of the plaintiff?
8+< /rdering the defendants to proportionally reimburse plaintiff the produce of the property in
7uestion, at +;; Ailos of copra every +* days, or its e7uivalent in money, from !!,, until
they have surrendered or turned over the possession of the land in 7uestion to the plaintiff?
8*< /rdering the defendants 6ointly and severally to pay plaintiff the amount of P0,;;;.;; as
attorney=s fees, and the further sums of P:,;;;.;; as incidental litigation e>penses, and
8H< -o pay the costs.
@/ /R"5R5".B
#:$
%lso assailed by petitioners is the %pril 0, !!! Resolution of the Court of %ppeals, which denied
their .otion for Reconsideration.
#+$
Cn essence, the petition poses a challenge against the appellate court=s conclusion that the first sale of
a parcel of land to respondent 'audioso )ogales prevails over the second sale of the said property to
petitioners Francisco Bayoca, )onito "ichoso and spouses Pio and "olores "ichoso. %s such, there is no
dispute as to the following facts found by the Court of %ppeals1
23hen the @pouses Duan Canino and Brigida "omasig died intestate, before !+7, they were survived by
their legitimate children, namely, Preciosa Canino, married to 5milio "eocareGa, Consolacion Canino,
"olores Canino, Csidra Canino and -omas Canino who inherited, from their father, a parcel of land,
located in Prieto&"iaG, @orsogon covered by -a> "eclaration )o. !H*!, in an assessed value of P*;;.;;,
with the following boundary owners abutting the same1
)orth & (icente "ino?
3est & 'enaro .enor and Roman Bayle
5ast & Pedro (argas and Fely "etablan
@outh & Bartolome "omalaon
5ach of the heirs, therefore, had a pro indiviso share of the property, -omas Canino, being then still a
minor at 7 years of age, was under the care and custody of his sister, Preciosa Canino "eocareGa. @he
and her husband, 5milio "eocareGa, and -omas Canino stayed in the said property.
/n "ecember *, !+7, Preciosa Canino e>ecuted an &nno/a%1?#d @D##d o5 Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/' A1/4
R1B4/ o5 R#.&%24a-#C over a portion of the above property, with an area of *,;;; s7uare meters, in favor
of her sister&in&law, Dulia "eocareGa, the sister of her husband, 5milio "eocareGa, for the price of P,;;.;;
8ED41$1/ @KC<. Preciosa Canino reserved her right to repurchase the said property, within five 8*< years
from the e>ecution of the said deed."olores and .aria Canino affi>ed the imprints of their thumbmarAs
on the deed 8ED41$1/- @K-(C and @K-2C<. /n February ,, !+0, -omas Canino, who was then 7 years of
age and Preciosa Canino, who was then taAing care of her brother, e>ecuted an &nno/a%1?#d @D##d o5
Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/' A1/4 R1B4/ o5 R#.&%24a-#C covering a portion of said property, A1/4 an a%#a o5
!,77* -E&a%# =#/#%-, in favor of Dulia "eocareGa, for the price of PH;.;;, with a right to repurchase the
said lot for the said amount, within one 8< year from the e>ecution of said deed 8ED41$1/ @IC<. /n %ugust
,!, !+0, Preciosa Canino e>ecuted another unnotariGed 2D##d o5 Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/' A1/4 R1B4/ /o
R#.&%24a-#B over the entirety of the property, in favor of Dulia "eocareGa, for the price of P,7;.;;, with
a right to repurchase the said lot for the same price, within two 8,< years from the e>ecution
thereof.Consolacion Canino affi>ed her thumbmarA on said deed 8ED41$1/ @6-(C<. @ubse7uently, -a>
"eclaration )o. !H*! was cancelled by -a> "eclaration )o. 0!, under the name of Duan Canino.
/n Danuary :, !*, Preciosa Canino e>ecuted a no/a%1?#d @D##d o5 Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/' A1/4 R1B4/
/o R#.&%24a-#B over the entirety of the aforementioned property, in favor of Dulia "eocareGa, for the
price of P0;;.;;, with a right to repurchase the same, for the same amount, within one 8< year from the
e>ecution of said deed, 8ED41$1/ @HB<. -he parties covenanted, under said deed, that the property
described therein was unencumbered and to register the deed under %ct ::++. /n the basis of said deed,
-a> "eclaration )o. :+0! was issued over the property, under the name of Dulia "eocareGa. -he latter
allowed her brothers, %mbrosio "eocareGa, married to /lympia "ichoso, and 5milio "eocareGa, the
husband of Preciosa Canino, to occupy the said property. 4owever, Preciosa Canino failed to repurchase
the property. Cn the meantime, 'audioso )ogales, the %ppellee in the present recourse, ac7uired the
property abutting the property of Preciosa Canino and her siblings, on the east, and installed a tenant
thereon.
/n %pril ,!, !H0, Dulia "eocareGa e>ecuted an unnotariGed 2Co=.%o=1-# AB%##=#n/B, in the local
dialect, in favor of the %ppellee, whereby she sold to the %ppellee, for the price of P:,*;;.;;, the
aforesaid property she earlier purchased from Preciosa Canino, with an area of ,,;0; s7uare meters
8ED41$1/ @LC< with the following boundary owners abutting the property1
2)orth & (icente "ino
5ast & Feli> "etablan and Pedro (argas
8now 'audioso )ogales<
3est & 'enaro "onor and Roman Balle
8now 'audioso )ogales<
@outh & Bartolome "umalaon
8ED41$1/ @LC<
@he promised, in said deed, to have her brothers, %mbrosio and 5milio "eocareGa, and their families,
vacate the said property. /n the same day, Dulia "eocareGa e>ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/# Sa3# o5 R#a3/'
P%o.#%/'B in favor of the %ppellee over the aforesaid parcel of land for the price of P:,;;;.;; 8ED41$1/
@GC<. -he aforesaid deed was registered with the Register of "eeds on .ay :, !H0, 8ED41$1/ @G-
(C<. For a time, the %ppellee was abroad.4owever, when the %ppellee demanded that %mbrosio and
5milio "eocareGa and their families vacate the property, 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa "eocareGa
refused. -he %ppellee forthwith filed a complaint, sometime in !7*, with the Regional -rial Court of
@orgoson, against E=131o D#o2a%#?a, and 6&31a D#o2a%#?a 5o% @R#2o0#%' o5 Po--#--1onC of property
entitled 2Ga&d1o-o NoBa3#- 0#%-&- E=131o D#o2a%#?a, #/ a3.B C1013 Ca-# No. )!.B Cn hisA=#nd#d
Co=.3a1n/, the %ppellee impleaded Preciosa Canino, as party defendant, Dulia "eocareGa later filed a
cross&claim against Preciosa Canino over the property.
/n February 7, !0:, the Regional -rial Court promulgated a "ecision, 1n C1013 Ca-# No. )! in favor of
the %ppellee and against 5milio "eocareGa, et al., the decretal portion of which reads as follows1
2%CC/R"C)'9I, 6udgment is hereby rendered 8< ordering the defendants Dulia "eocareGa and the
spouses 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa Canino to deliver possession of the land to plaintiff 'audioso
)ogales? 8,< ordering the defendants spouses 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa Canino to pay the plaintiff
the sum of P,*;;.;; every +* days as actual damages from the filing of the second amended complaint
on )ovember ,, !7H until possession of the land is delivered to the plaintiff and to pay attorney=s fees
to the plaintiff in the sum of P*;;.;;.
Costs against the defendants spouses 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa Canino.
@/ /R"5R5".B FED41$1/ @BCG
5milio "eocareGa, et al., interposed an appeal, from the said "ecision, to this Court, which appeal, was
docAeted as C%&'.R. )/. *:*&C(. 4owever, the %ppellants therein belatedly paid the docAeting fee
for their appeal. /n .arch ,:, !00, this Court promulgated a R#-o3&/1on dismissing the appeal. -he
Resolution of this Court became final and e>ecutory on Dune ,, !00 8ED41$1/ @CC <.
%fter the remand of the records of said case to the Court a quo, a W%1/ o5 ED#2&/1on was issued by the
Court a quo, dated, February ,;, !!, 8ED41$1/ @DC<. 5milio "eocareGa and Preciosa "eocareGa vacated
the property. -he %ppellee, through 4enry )ogales, e>ecuted an 2%cAnowledgmentB acAnowledging
actual possession of the aforesaid parcel of land from the @heriff 8ED41$1/ @FC<. 4owever, the
%ppellee discovered that Francisco Bayoca, )onito "ichoso and the @pouses Pio "ichoso and "olores
"ichoso, the %ppellants in the present recourse, claimed ownership of portion of the said property. -he
%ppellant )onito "ichoso had constructed a nipa hut on a portion of the property. -he %ppellant
Francisco Bayoca liAewise constructed his house thereon.
Cn !*0, -omas Canino, who was then about twenty&eight years old, died intestate, without any issue. 4is
pro&indiviso share in the property was inherited, in e7ual shares, by his four 8+< surviving sisters, namely,
Preciosa Canino, Csabel Canino, Consolacion Canino and "olores Canino who, on Dune ,, !7 e>ecuted
a @D##d o5 Pa%/1/1on o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/'C, declaring that, although, under -a> "eclaration )o. !H*!, the
property covering an area of ,,;;; s7uare meters that, as early as !*;, they had verbally partitioned the
said property, with an area of ,!,H+* s7uare meters, into five 8*< parcels, namely Pa%2#3- @AC /o @EC and
ad6udicated unto each of them, 1n #E&a3 -4a%#- o5 !,*)* -E&a%# =#/#%-, the said parcels as follows1
2Parcel 2%B & Consolacion Canino?
Parcel 2BB & Csidra Canino?
Parcel 2CB & -omas Canino?
Parcel 2"B & Preciosa Canino?
Parcel 25B & "olores Canino?
8ED41$1/ @GC<
4owever, neither Dulia "eocareGa nor the %ppellee conformed to the 2D##d o5 Pa%/1/1onB.
Preciosa Canino and her siblings e>pressly declared, in said deed, that the property was declared for
ta>ation purposes under the name of Dulia "eocareGa under -a> "eclaration )o. :0!+ 8ED41$1/ @(9C<.
/n the basis of said deed, Csidra Canino declared 2Pa%2#3 BC, for ta>ation purposes, under her name, with
-a> "eclaration )o. H;!+ effective !7, 8ED41$1/ @2C<, which cancelled, in part, TaD D#23a%a/1on No.
78"), under the name of Dulia "eocareGa. /n Dune ,, !7, Csidra Canino e>ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/#
Sa3#B o0#% Pa%2#3 @DC, with an area of *,!,! s7uare meters, in favor of Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes "onor,
two 8,< of the %ppellants in the present recourse, for the price of P7*;.;; 8ED41$1/ @(C<. Csidra Canino
showed to the vendees a copy of the 2D##d o5 Pa%/1/1on o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/' FED41$1/ @9CG. -he vendees
declared the said property, under their names, for ta>ation purposes, under -a> "eclaration )o. ;*;7!
8ED41$1/ @7C< and paid the realty ta>es due thereon.
Cn the interim, a cadastral survey was conducted in Prieto "iaG. Pa%2#3 @AC, ad6udicated to Consolacion
Canino, under the 2"eed of PartitionB was identified, as Lo/ 99, with an area of more or less *,!,!
s7uare meters? Pa%2#3 B,ad6udicated to Csidra Canino, was identified as Lo/ 9*H Pa%2#3 @CC, ad6udicated
to -omas Canino, was identified as Lo/ 99"H Pa%2#3 @DC ad6udicated to Preciosa Canino, was identified
as Lo/ 99) but with an area of H,**; s7uare meters, covered by -a> "eclaration )o. :!H? and Pa%2#3 @EC,
ad6udicated to "olores Canino, was identified as 9ot HH7.
/n Duly H, !7, Csidra Canino, "olores Canino and Consolacion Canino, e>ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/#
Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/'B over a portion of 9ot HH0 earlier ad6udicated to -omas Canino, under the 2"eed
of Partition of Real PropertyB, with an area of :,:7+ s7uare meters, in favor of Preciosa Canino for the
price of P*;;.;; 8ED41$1/ @(7C<.
Cn the meantime, Pio "iochoso and 9ourdes "onor applied for the issuance of a 2F%## Pa/#n/B over 9ot
H7;, the property they purchased from Csidra Canino. /n Duly :, !7*, they were issued Free Patent )o.
(&:&;77;, over the property, on the basis of which /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. P&!0 was issued,
under their names, by the Register of "eeds 8ED41$1/ @8C<.
/n %pril 7, !7*, Preciosa Canino applied for and was issued F%## Pa/#n/ No. I-7*"2), over a portion
of 9ot HH0, with an area of ,,0;; s7uare meters. /n the basis of said Patent, /riginal Certificate of -itle
)o. P&,*+;, was issued under the name of Preciosa Canino, on %pril 7, !7*, by the Register of "eeds.
/n Dune ,;, !7!, Preciosa Canino e>ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/# Sa3#B, over 9ot HH!, with an area of
H,**; s7uare meters, in favor of the %ppellant 5rwin Bayoca, for the price of P+,;;;.;; 8ED41$1/
@"C<. /n the basis of said deed, -a> "eclaration )o. ;*:* was issued, under the name of 5rwin Bayoca,
over said property 8ED41$1/ @)C<.
/n Danuary 0, !0:, Consolacion Canino e>ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/# Sa3#C, o0#% Lo/ 9(B, with an
area of *,!,! s7uare meters, in favor of )onito "ichoso, one of the %ppellants in the present recourse,
and a son of the @pouses Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes "ichoso, for the price of P,:;;.;; 8ED41$1/ @!C<.
/n %ugust :, !07, "olores Canino e>ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/# Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/'B, over Lo/
99, with an area of 7,;!; s7uare meters, in favor of %ppellant Francisco Bayoca, for the price of P*,;;;
85>hibit 2+B<. /n thebasis of said deed, Francisco Bayoca declared the said property, for ta>ation
purposes, under his name 8ED41$1/ @(!C<.
/n /ctober :, !0!, Preciosa Canino e>ecuted a 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/# Sa3# o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/'B, over the
parcel of lot covered by /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. P&,*+;,, in favor of %ppellant 5rwin Bayoca,
the son of the %ppellant Francisco Bayoca, for the price of P*,;;;.;; 8ED41$1/ @(*C<. /n the basis of said
deed, /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. P&,*+;, was cancelled and -ransfer Certificate of -itle )o. ,7,,;
was issued under the name of %ppellant 5rwin Bayoca 8ED41$1/ @((C<. -he latter forthwith declared the
said property, under his name, for ta>ation purposes 8ED41$1/ @(2C<.
/n @eptember 0, !!,, the %ppellee filed a complaint against the %ppellants Francisco Bayoca, )onito
"ichoso and the @pouses Pio "ichoso and "olores "ichoso for 2A221on R#1n01nd12a/o%1a A1/4
Da=aB#-B, with the Regional -rial Court of @orsogon. /n February *, !!+, Pio "ichoso died and was
substituted by his son, the %ppellant )onito "ichoso. 3ith prior leave of Court, the %ppellees filed
an A=#nd#d Co=.3a1n/, impleading 9ourdes "ichoso and 5rwin Bayoca, as parties defendants, praying
that1
2345R5F/R5, it is most respectfully prayed of the 4onorable Court that pending hearing on the merits
issue a writ of preliminary in6unction, or in the alternative, to appoint a receiver in the premises in
7uestion so that the produce be deposited in court to be disposed of after the termination of this case, and
that after due hearing, 6udgment issue1
8a< .aAing the in6unction permanent?
8b< "eclaring plaintiff the absolute owner of the land in 7uestion and entitled to the peaceful possession
thereof?
8c< /rdering the defendants to vacate the premises within ; days after the decision has become final, and
to perpetually refrain from disturbing plaintiff in his peaceful possession thereof?
8d< /rdering the defendants to pay plaintiff whatever produce they may have gathered from the land in
7uestion until they have vacated or turned over the possession to the plaintiff?
8e< /rdering defendants 5rwin Bayoca, Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes "ichoso to reconvey -ransfer
Certificate of -itle )o. -&,7,,; and /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. P&!0 to the plaintiff, and should
the said defendants refuse to reconvey the said certificates of title, the ClerA of Court be ordered to
e>ecute the deed of reconveyance in favor of the plaintiff within * days the decision becomes final and
e>ecutory?
8f< /rdering defendants 6ointly and severally to pay plaintiff the amount of P,,;;;.;; as attorney=s fees,
plus P*;;.;; for every appearance of his lawyer in court, P:,;;;.;; as incidental litigation e>penses, and
to pay the costs.
Plaintiff further prays for such other relief 6ust and e7uitable in the premises.B 8a/ .aB#- (*8-(*!,
R#2o%d-<
-he %ppellee alleged, in his complaint, that he purchased the said property, with an area of ,,;;; s7uare
meters, from Dulia "eocareGa, under the deed, ED41$1/ @GC, and thus ac7uired ownership thereof and that
the %ppellants respectively purchased portions of said property, in bad faith and through fraud, the
%ppellants Anowing of the pendency of C1013 Ca-# No. )!, before the Regional -rial Court, involving
the said property. -he %ppellee further alleged that the 2D##d o5 Pa%/1/1on o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/'B as well as
the deeds of sale e>ecuted by Preciosa Canino, Consolacion Canino, Csidra Canino and "olores Canino in
favor of the %ppellants respectively, and Free Patent )os. (&:&;77; and (&:;0,! in favor of the @pouses
Pio "ichoso and 9ourdes "ichoso and Preciosa Canino, respectively, were fraudulent and that the said
Free Patent and /riginal Certificates of -itle P&,*+;, and P&!0 issued on the basis thereof and
derivative titles therefrom were null and void. -he %ppellants, in their %nswer to the complaint,
alleged, inter alia that Preciosa Canino and her siblings ac7uired 6ust title over the property when they
e>ecuted their 2D##d o5 Pa%/1/1/1on o5 R#a3 P%o.#%/'B and conveyed titles to the vendees, the %ppellants
in the present recourse, as buyers in good faith.B
#*$
%s mentioned at the outset, after hearing, the trial court ruled against herein petitioners Francisco
Bayoca, )onito "ichoso, 5rwin Bayoca, and spouses Pio and "olores "ichoso. -he trial court found and
declared, under its "ecision dated .arch ,, !!H, that 'audioso )ogales had ac7uired ownership over
the property on the basis of the 2Co=.%o=1-# AB%##=#n/B 8ED41$1/ @IC< and the 2D##d o5 A$-o3&/#
Sa3#B, 8ED41$1/ @GC< e>ecuted by Dulia "eocareGa, who had previously ac7uired ownership over the said
property on the basis of the deeds, 8ED41$1/- @HC, @IC, @6C and @KC< as confirmed by the trial court
under its "ecision, ED41$1/ @GC. 4ence, the sales of portions of said property by Preciosa Canino, who
was no longer the owner thereof, to herein petitioners were null and void. -he trial court declared further
that petitioners were purchasers in bad faith.
/n appeal, the Court of %ppeals affirmed in toto the R-C ruling. 4ence, this recourse to this Court.
Cn their .emorandum, petitioners raise the following issues1
#H$
2345-45R /R )/- -45 P5-C-C/)5R@ C9%C. /F /3)5R@4CP BI (CR-U5 /F -45CR
R5@P5C-C(5 -C-95 C@@U5" %)"E/R R5'C@-R%-C/) 3C99 PR5(%C9 /(5R -4%- /F
R5@P/)"5)-K
345-45R /R )/- -45 R5'C/)%9 -RC%9 C/UR- 4%@ DURC@"CC-C/) -/ -RI -45 @%.5
C%@5 345) -45 @%.5 9%)" @UBD5C- /F -45 C%@5 C@ % PUB9CC 9%)"KB
-he petition lacAs merit.
Cn fine, the main issue is who has the superior right to the parcel of land sold to different buyers at
different times by its former owners.
-here is no 7uestion from the records that respondent )ogales was the first to buy the sub6ect
property from Dulia "eocareGa, who in turn bought the same from the Canino brothers and
sisters. Petitioners, however, rely on the fact that they were the first to register the sales of the different
portions of the property, resulting in the issuance of new titles in their names. Petitioners insist that they
have a better right over respondent )ogales considering the following circumstances1 8< Pio and 9ourdes
"ichoso were issued Free Patent )o. (&:&;77; over 9ot H7;, the property they purchased from Csidra
Canino on the basis of which /riginal Certificate of -itle )o. P&!0 was issued under their names by
the Register of "eeds? 8,< 5rwin Bayoca ac7uired the property covered by /C- )o. P&,*+;, covering a
portion of 9ot HH0 from Preciosa Canino, on the basis of which -C- )o. ,7,,; was issued in his
name. %s far as )onito "ichoso and Francisco Bayoca are concerned they declared the properties they
ac7uired, respectively, from Consolacion Canino and "olores Canino, for ta>ation purposes. Petitioners
also assail the conclusion of the Court of %ppeals that they were purchasers in bad faith of the sub6ect
lots.
%rticle *++ of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales,
as follows1
#7$
2%rt. *++. Cf the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be
transferred to the person who may have first taAen possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property.
@hould it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person ac7uiring it who in good faith
first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
@hould 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.
Following the above&7uoted law, in the double sales of immovables, ownership is transferred in the
order hereunder stated to &
8a< the first registrant in good faith?
8b< the first in possession in good faith? and
8c< the buyer who presents the oldest title in good faith.
#0$
Based on the foregoing, to merit protection under %rticle *++, second paragraph, of the Civil Code,
the second buyer must act in good faith in registering the deed.
#!$
-hus, it has been held that in cases of
double sale of immovables, what finds relevance and materiality is not whether or not the second buyer
was a buyer in good faith but whether or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith,
that is, without Anowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold.
#;$
'ood faith on petitioners= part, as the second buyers of the sub6ect property, was not found by the
appellate court, thus its decision adverse to them. -he Court of appeals ratiocinated thus1
2%ppellants= insistence that they were purchasers in good faith is an e>ercise in futility. 3hat, to our
mind, is decisive of the issue of who, between the %ppellee, on the one hand, and the %ppellants, on the
other, is the owner of the property is %rticle *++ of the )ew Civil Code > > >1
> > > > > > > > >.
%fter all, the Regional -rial Court of @orsogon had already decreed, under its "ecision 85>hibit 2BB<
which the appellants did not assail, that the %ppellee was the owner of the property under the 2"eed of
%bsolute @aleB 8ED41$1/ @GC< e>ecuted, by Dulia "eocareGa, in his favor.
-he evidence on record shows that, on Danuary :, !*, Preciosa Canino and her siblings sold the
property in favor of Dulia "eocareGa under the 2D##d o5 Sa3# A1/4 R1B4/ /o R#.&%24a-#C FED41$1/ @HCG,
the culmination of the deeds of sale with right to repurchase FED41$1/- @IC, @6C and @KC<. the latter, in
turn, sold the said property to the %ppellee under the 2"eed of %bsolute @aleB, on %pril ,!, !H0,
8ED41$1/ @GC<, Dulia "eocareGa obliging herself to cause the eviction of her brothers, %mbrosio and
5milio "eocareGa and their families from the property, who were at the time in possession of the property
by her and %ppellee=s tolerance 8ED41$1/ @LC<. -he appellee had the said@D##d o5 A$-o3&/# Sa3#B
8ED41$1/ @GC< registered with the Registry of "eeds and entered in the Registry Records as 5ntry )o.
+7;*,, page *, (olume + of the Registry Record under %ct ::++ 8ED41$1/ @G-(C<. -he registration of
the deed, under %ct ::++, constitutes constructive notice of said sale to the whole world1
2Registration, however, by the first buyer under %ct ::++ can have the effect of constructive notice to the
second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer in good faith 8see %rts. 7;0&7;!, civil Code? see also
Revilla vs. 'alindeG, ;7 Phil. +0;? -aguba vs. Peralta, :, @CR% 7;;<.LB 8S.o&-#- Hono%1o San/1aBo
0#%-&- Co&%/ o5 A..#a3-, #/ a3., 28 SCRA 779, a/ .aB# 789G
/n the other hand, the sales of portions of the property to the %ppellants, by Preciosa Canino and her
siblings, occurred during the period from Dune ,, !7 to /ctober :, !0! or long after the %ppellee
had purchased the property 8ED41$1/- @(C, @(7C, @"C, @!C, @(8C, and @(*C<. Cnscrutably, too the sale to
the %ppellee was registered with the Registry of properties much earlier than the registration, if any, of
the sales to the %ppellants and that the %ppellee tooA possession of the said property much earlier than the
%ppellants considering that the @D##d o5 Sa3#C 8ED41$1/ @GC< is a public deed. Ct bears stressing that
possession, under %rticle *++ of the )ew Civil Code,includes symbolic possession1
23e are of the opinion that the possession mentioned in article +7: 8for determining who has better right
when the same piece of land has been sold several times by the same vendor< includes not only the
material but also thesymbolic possession, which is ac7uired by the e>ecution of public
instrument.B FNa%21-a San24#? 0#%-&- RoE&# Ra=o-, 8* P413. 9(8, a/ .aB# 9(, &nd#%-2o%1nB
-&..31#dG.C
(erily, there is absence of prior registration in good faith by petitioners of the second sale in their
favor. %s stated in the Santiago case, registration by the first buyer under %ct )o. ::++ can have the
effect of constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer,
#$
/n account of
the undisputed fact of registration under %ct )o. ::++ by respondent )ogales as the first buyer,
necessarily, there is absent good faith in the registration of the sale by the petitioners 5rwin Bayoca and
the spouses Pio and 9ourdes "ichoso for which they had been issued certificates of title in their names. Ct
follows that their title to the land cannot be upheld. %s for petitioners Francisco Bayoca and )onito
"ichoso, they failed to register the portions of the property sold to them, and merely rely on the fact that
they declared the same in their name for ta>ation purposes. @uffice it to state that such fact, does not, by
itself, constitute evidence of ownership,
#,$
and cannot liAewise prevail over the title of respondent
)ogales.
5nlightening in this regard is the following commentary1
2-he governing principle is prius tempore, potior jure 8first in time, stronger in right<. Rnowledge by the
first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer=s rights e>cept when the second buyer first
registers in good faith the second sale 8Oli*ares *s. 1on2ales, *! @CR% ::<. Conversely, Anowledge
gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, since such
Anowledge taints his registration with bad faith 8see also Astorga *s. Court of Appeals, '.R. )o. *0*:;,
,H "ecember !0+<. Cn Cru2 *s. Caba9a 8'.R. )o. *H,:,, ,, Dune !0+? ,! @CR% H*H<, it was held that
it is essential, to merit the protection of %rt. *++, second paragraph, that the second realty buyer must act
in good faith in registering his deed of sale< citing Carbonell *s. Court of Appeals, H! @CR%
!!, Crisostomo *s. CA, '.R. !*0+:, ;, @eptember !!,<.
> > > > > > > > >.
Registration of the second buyer under %ct ::++, providing for the registration of all instruments on land
neither covered by the @panish .ortgage 9aw nor the -orrens @ystem 8%ct +!H<, cannot improve his
standing since %ct ::++ itself e>presses that registration thereunder would not pre6udice prior rights in
good faith 8see Carumba vs. Court of %ppeals, : @CR% **0<. Registration, however, by the first buyer
under %ct ::++ can have the effect of constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as
such buyer in good faith 8see %rts. 7;0&7;!, Civil Code? see also Revilla vs. 'alindeG, ;7 Phil. +0;?
-aguba vs. Peralta, :, @CR% 7;;<. > > >.B
#:$
Ct is worth mentioning that while the certificates of title in the names of 5rwin Bayoca and the
spouses Pio and 9ourdes "ichoso are indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world,
including the government itself, they do not create or vest title. -hey merely confirm or record title
already e>isting and vested. -hey cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be
used as a shield for the commission of fraud? neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the e>pense
of others.
#+$
-he -orrens @ystem is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the
certificate of registration but it cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the
registered land.
#*$
9astly, petitioners= argument that the sub6ect property is a public agricultural land over which the
Regional -rial Court has no 6urisdiction over is clearly untenable. -he prior grant of a free patent in favor
of petitioners 5rwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio and "olores "ichoso removed or segregated the property
sub6ect thereof from the mass of the public domain.
#H$
@o too, respondent )ogales had already registered
the entire property under %ct. )o. ::++. Cndeed, registration with the Register of "eeds of a parcel of land
divests the government of title to the land.
#7$
3e also find that petitioners, who raised this issue only
before this Court, are now estopped from claiming that the sub6ect property is a public agricultural land,
considering that petitioners have actively participated in the proceedings before the lower and appellate
courts with their principal defense consisting of the certificates of titles in their names. 3hile it is a rule
that 6urisdictional 7uestions may be raised at any time, an e>ception arises where estoppel has
supervened,
#0$
as in the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby "5)C5" and the assailed "5CC@C/) of the Court of
%ppeals is %FFCR.5". Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
5elo, ;Chairman<, 7itug, =anganiban, and =urisima, 44., concur.
Ba"oca vs. No+a!,s
FACTS:
)ere in issue is the superiority of right to a par%el of land sold to different 'uyers at
different times 'y its former owners. A%%ording to the re%ords" respondent *ogales was
the first to 'uy the su'(e%t property from <ulia Deo%are:a" who in turn 'ought the same
from the Canino si'lings. etitioners" howe$er" relied on the fa%t that they were the first
to register the sales of the different portions of the property resulting in the issuan%e
of new titles in their names. And as far as petitioners Fran%is%o and *onito are
%on%erned" they de%lared the properties they a%quired respe%ti$ely for ta&ation
purposes.

Art. 78.. of the Ci$il Code go$erns the preferential rights of $endees in %ases of
multiple sales. 0nder the se%ond paragraph of said law" ownership of an immo$a'le
property shall 'elong to the person a%quiring it who in good faith first re%orded it in the
Registry of roperty. The undisputed fa%t is that respondent *ogales had the Deed of
A'solute Sale e&e%uted in his fa$or registered with the Registry of Deeds under A%t *o.
--.. long 'efore the sale of portions of the property to petitioners. This %onstitutes
%onstru%ti$e noti%e of the sale to the whole world and hen%e" %an defeat the right of the
se%ond 'uyer in good faith. Thus" the Court ruled in fa$or of respondent *ogales.
;ssue: 2=* there is a dou'le sale3
)eld:
7. C;>;L LA2; S1C;AL C5*TRACTS; SAL1S; D550+L1 SAL1; R0L1 ;*
CAS15F 40LT;L1 SAL1S 5F ;445>A+L1 R51RT?.
Arti%le 78.. of the Ci$il Code go$erns the preferential rights of $endees in %ases
of multiple sales. . . @;An the dou'le sales of immo$a'les" ownership is transferred
in the order hereunder stated to BaC the first registrant in good faith; B'C the first in
possession in good faith; and B%C the 'uyer who presents the oldest title in good
faith. +ased on the foregoing" to merit prote%tion under Arti%le 78.." se%ond
paragraph" of the Ci$il Code" the se%ond 'uyer must a%t in good faith in
registering the deed. Thus" it has 'een held that in %ases of dou'le sale of
immo$a'les" what finds rele$an%e and materiality is not whether or not the
se%ond 'uyer was a 'uyer in good faith 'ut whether or not said se%ond 'uyer
register su%h se%ond sale in good faith" that is" without ,nowledge of any defe%t
in the title of the property sold.
D. R1E;STRAT;5* +? F;RST +0?1R 0*D1R ACT *5. --..CA* )A>1 T)1
1FF1CT 5F C5*STR0CT;>1 *5T;C1 T5 T)1 S1C5*D+0?1R.
@AAs stated in the Santiago %ase" registration 'y the first 'uyer under A%t
*o.--.. %an ha$e the effe%t of %onstru%ti$e noti%e to the se%ond 'uyer that %an
defeat his right as su%h 'uyer. 5n a%%ount of the undisputed fa%t of registration
under A%t *o. --.. 'y respondent *ogales as the first 'uyer" ne%essarily" there
is a'sent good faith in the registration of the sale 'y the petitioners 1rwin +ayo%a
and the spouses io and Lourdes Di%hoso for whi%h they had 'een issued
%ertifi%ates of title in their names. ;t follows that their title to the land %annot 'e
upheld. As for petitioners Fran%is%o +ayo%a and *onito Di%hoso" they failed to
register the portions of the property sold to them" and merely rely on the fa%t that
they de%lared the same in their name for ta&ation purposes. Suffi%e it tostate that
su%h fa%t" does not" 'y itself" %onstitute e$iden%e of ownership" and %annot
li,ewise pre$ail o$er the title of respondent *ogales.
-. C1RT;F;CAT1S 5F T;TL1; F0*CT;5*.
@2Ahile the %ertifi%ates of title in the names of 1rwin +ayo%a and the spouses io
and Lourdes Di%hoso are indefeasi'le" unassaila'le and 'inding against the
whole world" in%luding the go$ernment itself" they do not %reate or $est title. They
merely %onfirm or re%ord title already e&isting and $ested. They %annot 'e used
to prote%t a usurper from the true owner" nor %an they 'e used as a shield for the
%ommission of fraud; neither do they permit one to enri%h himself at the e&pense
of others. The Torrens System is intended to guarantee the integrity and
%on%lusi$eness of the %ertifi%ate of registration 'ut it %annot 'e used for the
perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the registered land.
.. R141D;AL LA2; R1E;5*AL TR;AL C50RT; <0R;SD;CT;5*; 2)1*
R51RT? D;>1ST1D FR54 0+L;C D54A;*./
@AetitionerFs argument that the su'(e%t property is a pu'li% agri%ultural land o$er
whi%h the Regional Trial Court has no (urisdi%tion o$er is %learly untena'le. The
prior grant of a free patent in fa$or of petitioners 1rwin +ayo%a and the spouses
io and Dolores Di%hoso remo$ed or segregated the property su'(e%t thereof
from the mass of the pu'li% domain. So too" respondent *ogales had already
registered the entire property under A%t *o. --...;ndeed" registration with the
Register of Deeds of a par%el of land di$ests the go$ernment of title to the land.
8. A1AL; <0R;SD;CT;5*AL ;SS01S 4A? +1 RA;S1D A*?T;41
1GC1T2)1* 1ST51L )AS S01R>1*1D.
etitioners" who raised @theA issue @of (urisdi%tionA only 'efore this Court" are now
estopped from %laiming that the su'(e%t property is a pu'li% agri%ultural land"
%onsidering that petitioners ha$e a%ti$ely parti%ipated in the pro%eedings 'efore
the lower and appellate %ourts with their prin%ipal defense %onsisting of the
%ertifi%ates of titles in their names. 2hile it is a rule that (urisdi%tional questions
may 'e raised at any time" an e&%eption arises where estoppel has super$ened"
as in the instant %ase.