Quimson v. Rosete [G.R. No. L-2397. August 9, 1950.

]
TOPIC: Double Sales
DOCTRINE: Upon sale of real estate the execution of a notarial sale is a sufficient delivery of the
property sold. When the sale is made by means of public instrument, the execution thereof is
tantamount to conveyance of the subject matter.
FACTS: (written in spnaish)
The subject property land, originally belonged to the late Dionisio Quimson. He executed a deed
transferring the same in favor of his daughter Tomasa Quimson. However, he still remained to be in
possession and enjoyment of the property.
Later, the property was sold to the spouses Magno Agustin and Paulina Manzano on 3
May 1935, with right to repurchase within the term of six years.
Then, two years after, the same property was again sold to Francisco Rosete, also with pacto de retro
within five years.
Thereafter, he repurchased the property from Agustin and Manzano with money furnished to him by
Rosete. Since then, Rosete possessed the property in a peaceful manner even after the death of
Dionisio Quimson.
Tomasa Quimson filed with the Justice of Peace of San Marcelino, Zambales. In the registration of the
property and inscription of the deeds of sale, Tomasa Quimson arrived one hour earlier (9:30am) than
Francisco Rosete (10:30am) of the same day.
The Court of First instance of Zambales ruled in favor of Tomasa Quimson and Marcos Santos.
The Court of Appeals the reversed the decision and ruled in favor of Rosete.
ISSUE: Who owns the land now, Quimson or Rosete?
HELD: Quimson is the owner.
The findings of the RTC that there was indeed a sale by the father in favor of his daughter was not
reversed by the CA and stands as the fact of the case. Further, it was shown that consideration was
given in that sale, acknowledged before the notary public.
ART. 1462. The thing sold shall be deemed delivered, when it is placed in the control and
possession of the vendee.
When the sale is made by means of a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be
equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the said
instrument the contrary does not appear or may not be clearly inferred.
ART. 1473. 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 first
recorded it in the registry.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall belong to the person who in good faith was
first in the possession; and, in the absence of this, to the person who represents the oldest title,
provided there is good faith.