Professional Documents
Culture Documents
13216
FACTS: The Madrid brothers were the registered owners of Lot A situated in Isabela.
Said lot was subdivided into several lots. Rizal Madrid sold part of his share identified lot A-7 to Gamiao
and Dayag by virtue of a Deed of Sale, to which his brothers offered no objection as evidenced by
their Joint Affidavit .The deed of sale was not registered with the ORD of Isabela. However, Gamiao and
Dayag declared the property in their names on a Tax Declaration.
Gamiao and Dayag sold the subject southern half of lot to Teodoro dela Cruz, and the northern half to
Hernandez.Thereupon, Teodoro dela Cruz and Hernandez took possession of and cultivated the portions
of the property respectively sold to them (Later Restituto Hernandez donated the northern half to his
daughter. The children of Teodoro dela Cruz continued possession of the southern half after their
father’s death.)
In a Deed of Sale the Madrid brothers conveyed all their rights and interests over lot A-7 to Marquez
which the former confirmed. The deed of sale was registered with the ORD of Isabela.
Subsequently, Marquez subdivided lot A-7 into eight (8) lots. On the same date, Marquez and his
spouse, Mercedita Mariana, mortgaged 4 lots to the Consolidated Rural Bank, Inc. of Cagayan Valley
(hereafter, CRB) to secure a loan. These deeds of real estate mortgage were registered with the ORD.
As Marquez defaulted in the payment of his loan, CRB caused the foreclosure of the mortgages in its
favor and the lots were sold to it as the highest bidder.
The Heirs-now respondents filed a case for reconveyance and damages for the southern portion of Lot
No. 7036-A (hereafter, the subject property) against Marquez and CRB.
The RTC handed down a decision in favor of Marquez. The Heirs interposed an appeal with the CA,
which upheld the claim of the Heirs. Hence, the instant CRB petition.
ISSUE: WON Art. 1544 of the Civil Code (double sale) applicable in this case
HELD: NO.The petition is denied, and the decision as modified is affirmed. Like the lower court, the
appellate court resolved the present controversy by applying the rule on double sale provided in Article
1544 of the Civil Code. They, however, arrived at different conclusions. The RTC made CRB and the other
defendants win, while the Court of Appeals decided the case in favor of the Heirs.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code reads, thus:
ART. 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
possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is
good faith.
The provision is not applicable in the present case. It contemplates a case of double or multiple sales by
a single vendor. It cannot be invoked where the two different contracts of sale are made by two
different persons, one of them not being the owner of the property sold. And even if the sale was made
by the same person, if the second sale was made when such person was no longer the owner of the
property, because it had been acquired by the first purchaser in full dominion, the second purchaser
cannot acquire any right.
In the case at bar, the subject property was not transferred to several purchasers by a single vendor. In
the first deed of sale, the vendors were Gamiao and Dayag whose right to the subject property
originated from their acquisition thereof from Rizal Madrid with the conformity of all the other Madrid
brothers. On the other hand, the vendors in the other or later deed were the Madrid brothers but at
that time they were no longer the owners since they had long before disposed of the property in favor
of Gamiao and Dayag.
In a situation where not all the requisites are present which would warrant the application of Art. 1544,
the principle ofprior tempore, potior jure or simply “he who is first in time is preferred in right, should
apply.” The only essential requisite of this rule is priority in time; in other words, the only one who can
invoke this is the first vendee. Undisputedly, he is a purchaser in good faith because at the time he
bought the real property, there was still no sale to a second vendee. In the instant case, the sale to the
Heirs by Gamiao and Dayag, who first bought it from Rizal Madrid, was anterior to the sale by the
Madrid brothers to Marquez. The Heirs also had possessed the subject property first in time. Thus,
applying the principle, the Heirs, without a scintilla of doubt, have a superior right to the subject
property.
Moreover, it is an established principle that no one can give what one does not have¾nemo dat quod
non habet. Accordingly, one can sell only what one owns or is authorized to sell, and the buyer can
acquire no more than what the seller can transfer legally.53 In this case, since the Madrid brothers were
no longer the owners of the subject property at the time of the sale to Marquez, the latter did not
acquire any right to it.
Held:On 31 October 2001, the trial court rendered its decision: (i) quieting the title or ownership of the
subject land in favor of respondent; (ii) declaring the deed of sale between petitioner and spouses
Tecson invalid; (iii) ordering the registration of the subject land in favor of respondent; (iv) dismissing
respondent’s claim for damages against the Register of Deeds for insufficiency of evidence; (v)
dismissing Asuncion’s claim for damages against petitioner for lack of factual basis; and (vi) dismissing
petitioner’s counterclaim for lack of the required preponderance of evidence.
Facts: Gregorio Balacano was married to Lorenza Sumigcay and owned two parcels of land located in
Santiago City, Isabela. They had three children, namely, Domingo,Catalino and Alfredo. Gregorio, who
was the seriously ill, was admitted at the hospital for liver cirrhosis, and was confined therein until his
death on July 19, 1996. Lorenza died on December 1991. Prior to his death, Gregorio purportedly sold a
portion of Lot 1175-E and the whole Lot 1175-F to spouses Paragas for a total consideration of
P500,000. The spouses Paragas then sold a portion of Lot 1175-E to Catalino for P60,000. Domingo’s
children, herein respondents Dominic, Rodolfo, Nanette and Cyric, filed a complaint for the annulment
of the sale and partition against Catalino and spouses Paragas. They claimed that their grandfather
Gregorio could not have appeared before the notary public on July 22, 1996 at Santiago City because he
was confined at the Veterans Hospital in Quezon City and at the same time, seriously ill and dying.
Issue: WoN the deed of sale purportedly executed by the petitioners and the late Gregorio was null and
void
Held: Yes. The irregular and invalid notarization of the deed is a falsity that raises doubts on the
regularity of the transaction itself. While the deed was indeed signed on July 18, 1996, the deed states
otherwise, as it shows that the deed was executed on July 22, 1996 at Santiago City. Why such falsity
was committed, and the circumstances under which this falsity was committed, speaks of volume about
the regularity and the validity of the sale. Article 24 of the Civil Code tells us that in all contractual,
property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be
vigilant for his protection.Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concluded that Gregorios
consent to the sale of the lots was absent, making the contract null and void. Consequently, the spouses
Paragas could not have made a subsequent transfer of the property to CatalinoBalacano. Indeed, nemo
dat quod non habet. Nobody can dispose of that which does not belong to him.