CARBONELL vs.

CA
FACTS:
Private respondent Poncio was the owner of a parcel of land in batanes, mortgaged
in favor of republic savings bank. Petitioner Carbonell and respondent Infante both
offered to buy the property from Poncio. Poncio, in his failure to pay the mortgaged,
agreed for the petitioner to buy the land excluding his house on the condition that
from the purchase price would come from the money to be paid to the bank.
Subsequently, Poncio had told Carbonell that the former can no longer pursue with
the sale for he had given the land to Infante. The said lot was fenced by Infante.
Informed that the sale in favor of respondent Infante had not yet been registered,
Atty. Garcia (carbonells counsel) prepared an adverse claim for petitioner, and
registered the same on February 8, 1955.
The deed of sale in favor of Infante was registered only on February 12, 1955. As a
consequence thereof, a Transfer Certificate of Title was issued to her but with the
annotation of the adverse claim of petitioner Carbonell.
Petitioner filed a complaint, praying that the sale between Poncio and Infante be
declared null and void.
ISSUE:
Who has the superior right over the property?
HELD:
The SC declared the first buyer Carbonell to have the superior right over the
property, relying on article 1544, to wit:
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 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. xxx
The second paragraph of said article directs that ownership of immovable property
should be recognized in favor of one who in good faith first recorded his right.
Good fait must characterize the act of anterior registration.
When CArbonell bought the lot from poncio, she was the only buyer thereof and the
title of poncio was still in his name solely encumbered by a bank mortgage duly
annotated thereon. Carbonell was not aware and she could not have been aware
of any sale to Infante as there was no such sale to Infante then. Under the
circumstances, the recording of Carbonells adverse claim should be deemed to
have been done in good faith and should emphasize Infantes bad faith when the

latter registered her deed of sale only 4 days after Catbonells registration of
adverse claim.