Article 539

Carbonell vs CA, 69 SCRA 99

Carbonell v. CA cannot invoke to modify the provisions of the Code; Case is not a
precedent
The decision in the case of Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals (69 SCRA 99) cannot be invoked to
modify the clear provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines that a possessor in bad faith is
not entitled to reimbursement of useful expenses or to removal of useful improvements. In said
case, the lower courts found that respondents Infantes were possessors in good faith. On appeal,
the First Division of this Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and declared
petitioner Carbonell to have the superior right to the land in question. On the question of whether
or not respondents Infantes were possessors in good faith, four Members
ruled that they were not, but as a matter of equity allowed them to remove the useful
improvements they had introduced on the land. Justice Teehankee (now Chief Justice) concurred
on the same premise as the dissenting opinion of Justice Muoz Palma that both the conflicting
buyers of the real property in question, namely petitioner Carbonell as the first buyer and
respondents Infantes as the second buyer, may be deemed purchasers in good faith at the
respective dates of their purchase. Justice Muoz Palma dissented on the ground that since both
purchasers were undoubtedly in good faith, respondents Infantes prior registration of
the sale in good faith entitled them to the ownership of the land. Inasmuch as only four Members
concurred in ruling that respondents Infantes were possessors in bad faith and two Members
ruled that they were possessors in good faith, said decision does not establish a precedent.

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.