Você está na página 1de 2

CARUMBA v CA, BALBUENA, and BOAQUIÑA

Reyes, J.B.L.,, J.
G.R. No.L-27587. – February 18, 1970
FACTS
● April 12, 1955: By virtue of a “Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land with Covenants of Warranty”, Sps. Canuto sold
a parcel of land to Sps. Carumba for the sum of Php 350
 The deed of sale was never registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds
 The one who notarized the deed of sale, Mr. Vicente Malaya, was not even an authorized notary public
● Jan. 21, 1957: Santiago Balbuena filed a complaint for a sum of money against Amado Canuto and Nemesia
Ibasco before the Justice of the Peace Court of Iriga
● April 15, 1967: A decision was rendered in favor of Balbuena, and against Canuto
● Oct. 1, 1968: Ex-officio Sheriff Imperial issued a Definite Deed of Sale of the property in question in favor of
Balbuena, which was subsequently registered before the Registry of Deeds of Camarines Sur
● CFI declared Amado Carumba, Canuto’s brother-in-law, to be the owner of the subject property under a
consummated sale
 Found that Carumba had taken possession of the land after execution of the Definite Deed of Sale
 Held void the execution levy made by Sheriff Imperial pursuant to a judgment against Carumba’s
vendor, Canuto
 Nullified the sale in favor of Balbuena, the judgment creditor, Balbuena, who was ordered to pay
damages
● On appeal, the CA declared that, by virtue of a double sale of the subject land, Balbuena’s title was superior to
that of Carumba pursuant to Art. 1544 of the Civil Code
 Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be
transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good
faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in
the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there
is good faith.
 On the one hand, the execution sale had been properly registered in good faith, and on the other hand,
the sale to Carumba was not recorded
● Carumba filed a petition for certiorari with the SC to review the CA decision

ISSUES/HELD/RATIO:
1. W/N Balbuena’s title was superior to Carumba’s since the execution sale was registered in good faith
HELD: NO, Art. 1544 is of no application to the case at bar
● While under Article 1544, in the event of a double sale by the vendor of the same piece of land to different
vendees, registration in good faith prevails over possession, said article is of NO APPLICATION to the case at bar
● The purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff's execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor
 Said purchaser merely acquires the latter's interest in the property sold as of the time the property was
levied upon
 Rule 39, Sec. 35, par. 2 of the ROC: Upon the execution and delivery of said (final) deed the purchaser,
redemptioner, or his assignee shall be substituted to and acquire all the right, title, interest, and claim of
the judgment debtor to the property as of the time of the levy, except as against the judgment debtor
in possession, in which case the substitution shall be effective as of the time of the deed
● While the time of the levy does not clearly appear, it could not have been made prior to 15 April 1957, 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 executed two years before, on 12 April 1955
o While only embodied in a private document, the same, coupled with the fact that the buyer
(petitioner Carumba) had taken possession of the unregistered land sold, sufficed to vest
ownership on the said buyer
1
CONCLUSION: When the levy was made by the Sheriff, the judgment debtor Canuto no longer had dominical
interest nor any real right over the land that could pass to the purchaser at the execution
 Hence, Balbuena must yield the land to petitioner Carumba
 However, the rule is different in case of lands covered by Torrens titles
o Where the prior sale is neither recorded nor known to the execution purchaser prior to the levy,
but the land here in question is admittedly not registered under Act No. 496.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the Court of First Instance affirmed. Costs
against respondent Santiago Balbuena.

NOTES:
Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the
person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded
it in the Registry of Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession;
and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

Você também pode gostar