G.R.  No.

 L-­‐8452                        August  2,  1916  
DEAN  C.  WORCESTER,  plaintiff-­‐appellee,    
MARTIN  OCAMPO  and  GERVASIO  OCAMPO  y  REYES,  defendants-­‐appellants.  
This  is  an  appeal  from  an  order  made  by  the  Honorables  Charles  H.  Smith  and  Norberto  Romualdez,  then  judges  of  the  
Court  of  Land  Registration,  directing  the  cancellation  of  certain  duplicates  of  certificates  of  title  issued  under  the  Torrens  
system   and   directing   the   registration   of   a   certain   deed   executed   by   the   sheriff   of   the   city   of   Manila   to   the   plaintiff  
herein.  Said  order  was  made  upon  the  2d  day  of  September,  1912.  
Said   order   was   based   upon   the   facts   contained   in   a   certain   communication   from   Joaquin   Jaramillo,   then   register   of  
deeds,  asking  the  judges  of  the  Court  of  Land  Registration  for  instructions  concerning  the  registration  of  a  deed  issued  
by  the  sheriff  of  the  city  of  Manila  to  Dean  C.  Worcester.  
The  facts  upon  which  the  present  appeal  is  based  are  not  disputed  and  are  best  stated  by  the  said  communication  itself.  
Said  communication  is  as  follows:  
By   virtue   of   an   execution   issued   out   of   the   Court   of   First   Instance   of   Manila   under   date   of   January   26,   1910,   in   case   No.  
6930,  entitled  Dean  C.  Worcester  vs.  Martin  Ocampo,  all  the  right,  title  and  interest  of  the  latter  in  two  parcels  of  land  
registered   in   his   name   under   certificates   of   title   Nos.   924   and   965,   book   4   of   the   registry,   were   levied   upon   for   the  
purpose   of   satisfying   a   judgment   of   P60,000,   a   notice   of   the   levy   in   said   case   having   been   entered   upon   the   back   of   said  
certificates  of  title  on  the  same  date,  to  wit:  January  26,  1910.  By  a  document  of  prior  date  to  said  attachment,  to  wit,  
January   11,   1909,   the   two   parcels   mentioned   were   sold   con   pacto   de   retracto   by   Martin   Ocampo   to   Gervasio   Ocampo   y  
Reyes,  for  the  period  of  four  years  from  said  date,  the  vendor  being  allowed  the  right  to  continue  occupying  the  said  
properties  by  paying  an  annual  rental  of  P150.  This  document  was  endorsed  on  the  back  of  said  certificates  of  title  on  
February  1,  1910.  By  another  writ  of  execution,  issued  on  March  26,  1910,  in  the  same  case  no.  6930,  all  the  right,  title  
and  interest  of  the  defendant,  Martin  Ocampo,  in  the  two  properties  which  had  been  levied  upon  ,were  sold  at  public  
auction  and  Dean  C.  Worcester,  as  the  highest  bidder,  purchased  the  same,  subject  to  the  right  of  redemption  which  the  
law  allows  to  judgment  debtors;  this  sale  was  also  noted  on  the  back  of  said  certificates  of  title  on  April  11,  1910.  
The  period  of  redemption  having  expired  without  the  judgment  debtor  having  exercised  his  right,  the  sheriff  of  Manila  
executed   in   favor   of   the   purchaser,   Worcester,   an   absolute   deed   of   sale   of   all   the   right,   title   and   interest   of   Martin  
Ocampo   in   the   two   parcels   above   mentioned,   which   had   been   sold   at   public   auction.   By   virtue   of   this   document   Kincaid  
and   Hartigan,   as   attorneys   for   Worcester,   now   seek   the   inscription   of   his   right   in   and   to   the   said   properties,   so   acquired  
by  him  at  public  auction,  which  inscription,  if  made,  will  necessarily  require  the  cancellation  of  those  certificates  and  the  
issuance  of  new  ones  in  favor  of  Dean  C.  Worcester.  
Moreover,   the   said   parcels   having   been   sold   con   pacto   de   retracto   to   Gervasio   Ocampo   y   Reyes,   as   above   set   forth,   the  
undersigned  is  at  a  loss  how  to  proceed  to  register  the  absolute  deed  of  sale  executed  by  the  Sheriff  of  Manila  in  favor  of  
Dean  C.  Worcester.  
Wherefore,  he  asks  the  assistance  of  this  court  in  deciding  the  same.  It  is  also  desired  to  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  
the  fact  that  the  duplicates  of  the  certificates  of  title  of  said  parcels  have  not  been  presented  in  this  office  and  that  the  
civil  status  of  Worcester  does  not  appear  in  the  deed.  
Very  respectfully,  
Register  of  Deeds,  Manila,  P.  I.  
The   decision   of   the   judges   of   the   Court   of   Land   Registration   was   based   solely   upon   the   facts   stated   in   said  
communication.   The   only   other   proof   submitted   to   said   judges   was   some   proof   relating   to   the   civil   status   of   Dean   C.  
After  a  full  hearing  accorded  to  all  of  the  interested  parties  and  a  consideration  of  the  facts  and  the  law  relating  thereto,  
the   Honorable   Charles   H.   Smith   and   the   Honorable   Norberto   Romualdez,   judges   of   the   Court   of   Land   Registration,  
rendered  a  decision,  the  important  parts  of  which  are  as  follows:  
The  question  presented  here  is  whether  or  not  an  absolute  deed  of  sale  executed  by  the  sheriff  of  Manila  to  Dean  C.  
Worcester  should  be  registered  in  his  name.  The  deed  was  made  pursuant  to  a  sale  at  public  auction  by  virtue  of  a  writ  
of   execution   issued   on   two   parcels   of   real   estate   registered   in   the   name   of   Martin   Ocampo   under   certificates   of   title  
Nos.  924  and  965,  book  4  of  the  registry,  and  issued  under  the  provisions  of  Act  No.  496.  
The  writ  of  execution  was  issued  by  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Manila,  on  January  26,  1910,  in  case  No.  6930,  entitled  
Dean   C.   Worcester   vs.   Martin   Ocampo,   the   notice   of   the   levy   made   by   virtue   of   said   order   of   execution   having   been  
endorsed  on  the  said  certificates  of  title  on  the  same  date,  to  wit,  January  26,  1910.  

 be  notice  to  all  persons  from  the  time  of  such  registering..   mortgage.  Licauco  (13  Phil.  under  a  pacto  de  retracto.  if  recorded.   as   can   be   seen   in   the   cases   of   Liong   Wong  Shih  vs.   except   a   will.   lease.  Rep.   decree.  Worcester.     Under  said  assignment  of  error  the  appellant  contends.  102).  in  other  words.   if   registered.   496.  the  final  levy  on  said  properties  in  favor   of  Dean  C.  that  is  to  say.   Vicente   Ilustre.     Sections  50  and  51  of  Act  No.   mortgage.  mortgages.   The  doubt  which  is  the  cause  of  the  present  consulta  arises  from  the  fact  that  the  parcels  of  land  above  mentioned  were   sold  on  January  11.   lease.  by  Martin  Ocampo  to  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes.   or   otherwise   deal   with   the   same   as   fully   as   if   it  had  not  been  registered.   Kincaid.   That  Martin  Ocampo  deliver  up  to  the  office  of  the  register  of  deeds  of  Manila  the  duplicates  of  the  certificates   of   title   Nos.  1910.   but   only   constituted   a   contract   between   the   parties   and   as   authority   for   the   register   of   deeds   to   make   the   corresponding   inscription).   Worcester  is  married  to  Nanon  L.  by  virtue  of  which  the  public  auction  was  conducted  and  the  sheriff  having  executed  the  deed   of  sale  in  favor  of  Worcester.  provide:     SEC.  it  been  the  final  levy.  The  act  of  registration  shall  be  the  operative  act  to  convey  and  affect  the  land.  51.   Dean   C.   Worcester.     2.  that  being  the   only  right  which  Martin  Ocampo  had  in  the  parcels  of  land  in  question  at  the  time  of  the  sheriff's  sale.   order.  January  26  of  said  year.   But   no   deed.  had  already  been  noted  which  notice  produced  all  the  effects  prescribed  in  section  51  of  Act  No..   Worcester.  that  the  only  right  which  the  plaintiff  purchased  was  the  right  of   repurchase  of  the  said  Martin  Ocampo.   and   he   is   hereby  ordered  so  to  do.  1910.   mortgage.   but   shall   operate  only  as  a  contract  between  the  parties  and  as  evidence  of  authority  to  the  clerk  or  register  of  deeds  to  make   registration.  filed.  In  that  contention   .  An   owner   of   registered   land   may   convey.  the  contention  of  the  appellant  is  that.  So  ordered.  354).   Hartigan   &   Lahesa.  as  shown  by  the  testimony  of  Kincaid.  be  given  to  the  Attorney-­‐General  of  the   Philippine   Islands.  Sunico  (8  Phil.  Martin  Ocampo.  who  was  a  witness  in  the  case.  the  said  document  of   sale  not  having  been  registered  until  the  1st  of  February.  and  in  all  cases  under  this   Act  the  registration  shall  be  made  in  the  office  of  register  of  deeds  for  the  province  or  provinces  or  city  where  the  land   lies.   attachment.   or   entry   affecting   registered   land  which  would  under  existing  laws.  Every   conveyance.   purporting   to   convey   or   affect   registered   land.  or  entering.   the   register   of   deeds   of   the   city   of   Manila.  and  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes.   and   under   Act   No.  except  from  the  moment  of  its  filing  or  registration.  or  entered  in  the  office  of  the  register  of  deeds.  1909.   or   entered   in   the   office   of   the   register   of   deeds   in   the   province   or  city   where  the  real  estate  to  which  such  instrument  relates  lies.  Worcester.  to  wit.  it  was  shown  on   the   hearing   of   this   case   that   the   said   duplicate   certificates   are   in   the   possession   of   Martin   Ocampo   and   that   Dean   C.   filing..     The   question   seem   clear   to   us.   lease.     From  the  decision  of  the  said  judges  the  attorney  for  the  said  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes  appealed  to  this  court  and  made   the  following  assignment  of  error:     In   ordering   the   cancellation   of   the   certificates   of   title   issued   to   Martin   Ocampo.   filed.  or  other  voluntary  instruments  like  those  now   in   use   and   sufficient   in   law   for   the   purpose   intended.     3.   bearing   the   corresponding   indorsement   of  the  sale  with  pacto  de  retro  to  the  appellant  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes  and  ordering  the  registration  of  the  absolute   deed   of   sale   executed   by   the   sheriff   of   Manila   in   favor   of   Dean   C.   shall   take   effect   as   a   conveyance   or   bind   the   land.   lien.   as   in   the   present   case.  and  Buzon  vs.   instrument.  the  only   interest  which  he  had  remaining  in  the  land  was  the  right  to  repurchase  the  same  within  the  period  mentioned  in  said   contract  and  that  therefore  the  only  interest  which  was  sold  by  the  sheriff  was  the  right  to  repurchase.  Green  (11  Phil.     SEC.  496.     As  to  the  statement  of  the  register  of  deeds  touching  on  the  fact  that  the  duplicates  of  the  certificates  of  title  referred  to   had  not  been  presented  in  his  office  and  that  the  civil  status  of  Worcester  did  not  appear  in  the  deed.   book   4   of   the   registry   referring   to   certain   other   properties   inscribed   in   his   name.  1910.  in  view  of  the  foregoing  it  is  decreed:     1.   the   deed   of   sale   con   pacto   de   retracto   executed   by   Martin   Ocampo   in   favor   of   Gervasio   Ocampo   produced   no   effect   whatsoever   as   a   deed   of   such   transfer   (nor   was   it   an   encumbrance   on   the   property.  Rep.   entering   the   corresponding  certificates  and  duplicate  certificate  thereof.'     Our   Supreme   Court   has   decided   cases   analogous   to   the   present   to   the   same   effect.     Wherefore.  He  may  use  forms  of  deeds.  it  is  evident  that  the  said  levy  and  sale  made  by  the  sheriff  takes  precedence  over  the  deed   of  sale  con  pacto  de  retracto  executed  by  Martin  Ocampo  in  favor  of  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes.  leases.   or   other   voluntary   instrument.  Tabigue  vs.  affect  the  real   estate   to   which   it   relates   shall.   Treating   of   property   registered   under   the   Torrens   system.  91).   496.   924   and   965.  by  the  mailing  of  a  certified  copy  of  same.  in  view  of  the  fact  that   Martin  Ocampo  had  sold  the  parcels  of  land  in  question  to  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes.   Worcester   and   the   entry   of   the   corresponding   certificates  and  duplicate  certificates  in  the  name  of  the  latter.  Rep.  50.   That  the  register  of  deeds  of  Manila  cancel  the  certificates  of  title  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph  and   register   the   absolute   deed   of   sale   executed   by   the   sheriff   of   Manila   in   favor   of   Dean   C.   charge.   That  notice  of  this  decision.  As   on  a  date  prior  to  the  first  day  of  February.  con  pacto  de  retracto.  from  the  first  day  of  February.

 From  said  provision  it  is  clear  then.   Martino.   Juliet   Pono   (Juliet).  by  ATTY.  Green  (11  Phil.  Respondents.   2011   Decision   of   the   Court   of   Appeals   (CA)   which   reversed   and   set   aside   the   July   20.  Rep.  1973.     Said   section   50   clearly   provides   that   when   registered   land   is   conveyed.  ESMERALDO  D.  But  no  deed.   or   entry   affecting   registered   land   which   would   under   existing   laws.  that  by  reason  of  the  fact   that  the  said  pacto  de  retracto  was  not  recorded.  Sunico  and  Peterson  (8  Phil.  .  Petitioners.  102).     And.  to  construct  a  house  thereon.  .   took   possession.   G.   mortgage   .  496.  .   .  then.   .  mortgage.     It  appears  that  Martino  Dandan  (Martino)  was  the  registered  owner  of  a  parcel  of  land  in  Kananga.R.     Said  section  50  (Act  No.   or   otherwise   dealth   with.   SPS.  affect  the  real  estate  to  which  it  relates  shall.   .  354).  .  if   registered.  496)  provides  that:     An  owner  of  registered  land  may  convey.   Ormoc   City   (RTC).  filing  or  entering.  mortgage  .  that  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes  acquired  his  right  subject  to  the  rights  of  the   plaintiff   herein.  Purificacion  sold  her18.   Leyte.  .  with  an  area   of  28.   but   shall   operate   only   as   a   contract   between   the   parties  and  as  evidence  of  authority  to  the  clerk  of  register  of  deeds  to  make  registration.  Martino  gave  Purificacion  the  owner’s  copy  of  OCT  No.  ever  conveyance  or  attachment  when  recorded.   .     MENDOZA..  granted  under  Homestead  Patent  No.  J.   P-­‐429   to   him.  Licauco  (13  Phil.  No  claim  is  made  by  the  appellant  that  there  were  any  rights  left  in  said   parcel  of  land  over  and  above  the  rights  of  the  plaintiff.   be   notice   to   all   persons   from   the   time   of   such   registering..   .   moreover.   2004   Decision   of   the   Regional   Trial   Court.   .     After   a   careful   examination   of   the   facts   and   of   the   law   applicable   thereto.   paid   its   taxes.  or  entering.   attachment.  P-­‐429.  SUMAYOD.  91).  Tabigue   vs.  or  entered  in  the  office  of  the  register  of  deeds.the  appellant  has  overlooked  the  provisions  of  sections  50  and  51  of  Act  No.  except  a  will.  Buzon  vs.   order.   .  etc.   Analogous  questions  were  presented  in  the  cases  of  Liong-­‐Wong-­‐Shih  vs.  MARIANITO  PONO  and  ESPERANZA   MERO-­‐PONO.  if  recorded.   or   entered   in   the   office   of   the   register   of   deeds.  .   Upon   execution   of   the   Deed   of   Absolute  Sale.  Rep.  V-­‐21513  on  November  11.     On   January   4.  shall  be   notice  to  all  persons  from  the  time  of  such  registering.   this   is   not   the   first   time   the   question   which   we   are   discussing   has   been   presented   to   this   court.   .   1960.   such  conveyance.   Marianito   registered   the   portion   he   bought   for   taxation   purposes..  .  So  ordered..  .  or  entered  in  the  office  of  the  register  of  deeds.   leased.  He  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  the   said  contract  of  conditional  sale  by  Martin  Ocampo  to  him  was  not  registered  or  noted  in  the  registry  until  several  days   after  the  attachment  upon  the  judgment  in  favor  of  Worcester  had  been  made  and  had  been  noted  in  the  registry  of   property.   it   cannot   be   enforced   against   the   land   until   after   the   rights  of  the  plaintiff  have  been  fully  satisfied.  mortgage.   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   no   error   was   committed  by  the  lower  court  in  its  judgment  and  order.  200173                              April  15.  mortgage.     .  filed.  P-­‐429.214  square  meters.  or  entered  in  the  office  of  the  register  of  deeds  until  after  the   plaintiff  had  secured  his  lien  by  attachment.   mortgaged..  Marianito  kept  OCT  No.  however.   a   case   involving  a  double  sale  of  a  parcel  of  land.  purporting  the  convey  or  affect   registered   land   shall   take   effect   as   a   conveyance   or   bind   the   land.  .  The  act  of  registration  shall  be   the  operative  act  to  convey  and  affect  the  land.   filed.  rep.  Rep.     Section  51  of  said  Act  (496)  provides  that:     Every   conveyance.  or  other  voluntary  instrument.  ELMER  PONO  and  JULIET  PONO.   sold   a   portion   of   the   subject   property   equivalent   to   18.   .   who   was   at   that   time   living   in   Kananga.     vs.  P-­‐429.  .  was  not  recorded  in   the  Registry  of  Deeds.  or  otherwise  deal  with  the  same  as  fully  as  if  it  had  not  been   registered.  filed.  SERGIO  C.  was  also  not  recorded  in   the  Registry  of  Deeds.  then  Gervasio  Ocampo  y  Reyes  cannot  plead   ignorance   of   the   existence   of   the   rights   acquired   by   Worcester   under   his   attachment   which   was   duly   recorded   in   the   office   of   the   register   of   deeds   several   days   before   there   was   any   attempt   to   record   or   file   or   register   the   pacto   de   retracto.   Branch   12.  No.  and  PURIFICACION  CERNA-­‐PONG  and  SPS.  VALLIDO  and  ARSENIA  M.  is  recorded   or  filed  or  entered  in  the  office  of  the  register  of  deeds.     On  May  4.  filing.  V  ALLIDO.   His   right   being   subject   to   the   rights   of   the   plaintiff.  shall  not  affect  or  convey  the  land  until  such  conveyance.  2013     SPS.  The  transfer.     If.  filed.   and   allowed   his   son   respondent   Elmer   Pono   (Elmer)   and   daughter-­‐in-­‐law.:     This   is   a   petition   for   review   on   certiorari   assailing   the   December   8.214   square   meters   to   respondent   Purificacion   Cerna   (Purificacion).214  square  meter  portion  of  the  subject  property  to  respondent  Marianito  Pono   (Marianito)   and   also   delivered   OCT   No.  Therefore  the  same  is  hereby  affirmed  with  costs.   .  however.  1953  and  covered  by  Original   Certificate  of  Title  (OCT)  No.  The  transfer.  etc.  etc.  Leyte.

 1960  sale  to  Purificacion.   Martino.  Leyte.  The  latter  explained  that  the  transaction  was  only  a  mortgage.  and  re-­‐settled  there.     Hence.   however.  he  no  longer  had  any   certificate  of  title  to  hand  over  to  Esmeraldo.  the  CA  concluded  that  because  the  sale  to  Purificacion  took  place  in   1960.  1990.  On  June  8.  Thus.  Branch  12  of  Ormoc  City.3  The  Court  accepts  that  as  it  was  merely  a  technical  issue.  P-­‐429  and  TCT  No.  The  RTC  concluded  that  because  the  petitioners  registered  the  sale  in  the  Register  of  Deeds.  It  wrote  that  where  the  land  sold  was  in  the  possession  of  a   person  other  than  the  vendor.  their  right  of  ownership  is  preferred  against  the  unregistered  claim   of  the  respondents.  Masarayao.     On  July  20.   it   is   admitted   that   Martino   is   the   grandfather   of   Esmeraldo.2  dated  December  8.  the  petition  was  granted  by  the   RTC.  this  Court  holds  that  the  petitioners  are  NOT  buyers  in  good   faith  as  they  failed  to  discharge  their  burden  of  proof.  they   had  a  better  right  over  the  respondents.  Cavite.  Kananga.  the  RTC  promulgated  a  decision1  favoring  the  petitioners.  the  CA  ruled  in  favor  of  the  respondents.  Leyte.  TP-­‐13294  was  thereafter  issued  in  the  name  of  the  petitioners.  1998.   He   stated   that   he   could   not   recall   having   delivered   the   said   owner’s   duplicate   copy   to   anybody  to  secure  payment  or  performance  of  any  legal  obligation.  Accordingly.  P-­‐429  to  Purificacion  in  1960.     It  is  undisputed  that  there  is  a  double  sale  and  that  the  respondents  are  the  first  buyers  while  the  petitioners  are  the   second   buyers.  Esmeraldo  registered  the  deed  of  sale  in  the  Registry  of  Deeds   and  Transfer  Certificate  of  Title  (TCT)  No.5  it   was  written:     .     Notably.     The  petitioners  argue  that  the  CA  erred  in  ruling  in  favor  of  the  respondents.   It.  2011.   The   respondents  indisputably  were  occupying  the  subject  land.     On  May  7.   The   burden   of   proving   good   faith   lies   with   the   second   buyer  (petitioners   herein)   which   is   not   discharged   by  simply  invoking  the  ordinary  presumption  of  good  faith.  OCT  No.  TP-­‐13294  did  not  bear  any  annotation  or  mark  of  any   lien  or  encumbrance.   As   an   heir.  These  facts  show  that  indeed   they  were  buyers  and  registrants  in  good  faith.  the  purchaser  must  go  beyond  the  certificate  of  title  and  make  inquiries  concerning  the   rights  of  the  actual  possessors.   petitioner   Esmeraldo   cannot   be   considered  as  a  third  party  to  the  prior  transaction  between  Martino  and  Purificacion.   recovery   of   possession   of   real   property   and   damages   against   the   respondents.  2004.  It  further  stated  that  mere  registration  of  the  sale  was  not  enough  as  good  faith  must   concur  with  the  registration.  Noveleta.  P-­‐429.   respondents   Elmer   and   Juliet   averred   that   their   occupation   of   the   property   was   upon   permission   of   Marianito.   which   he   claimed   was   lost.  this  petition.   The   petitioners   were   also   deemed   registrants   in   good   faith   because   at   the   time   of   the   registration  of  the  deed  of  sale.  Thus.  The  RTC  deemed  the  petitioners  as  buyers  in  good  faith  because  during  the  sale  on  June  4.  In  Pilapil  v.  the  respondents  had  a  better  right  to  the  property.  thirty  (30)  years  prior  to  Esmeraldo’s  acquisition  in  1990.   The   respondents   were   the   first   buyers   while   the   petitioners   were   the   second   buyers.   They   also   aver   that   they   had   no   knowledge   of   the   sale   between   Martino   and   Purificacion   on   July   4.  On  June  14.   In   their   Answer.  2004.  it  was  the  ruling  of  the  CA  that  the  respondents  were  deemed  to  have  filed  their  Appellant’s   Brief  within  the  reglementary  period.   the   petitioners   filed   before   the   RTC   a   complaint   for   quieting   of   title.     They  invoke  that  they  are  buyers  and  registrants  in  good  faith.  When  Esmeraldo  confronted  his  grandfather.  they  contend  that  the  Appellant’s   Brief  was  filed  beyond  the  30-­‐day  extension  period  granted  by  the  CA  and  that  the  findings  of  fact  of  the  RTC  were  no   longer  subject  to  review  and  should  not  have  been  disturbed  on  appeal.  Court  of  Appeals.  Martino  filed  a  petition  seeking  for  the  issuance  of  a  new  owner’s  duplicate  copy  of  OCT  No.  1999.  1997.  P-­‐429   was   clean   and   free   from   all   liens.     The  petition  is  without  merit.   held   that   the   petitioners   were   neither   buyers   nor   registrants   in   good   faith.  Cavite.     Subsequently.     In  the  assailed  Decision.  the  respondents  filed  their  Notice  of  Appeal  on  August  27.     Aggrieved.     The  core  issue  in  this  case  is  whether  the  petitioners  are  buyers  and  registrants  in  good  faith.  Cavite.  also  a  resident  of   Noveleta.  They  claim  that  the  title  of  the  land  was  clean  and  free   from   any   and   all   liens   and   encumbrances   from   the   time   of   the   sale   up   to   the   time   of   its   registration.  On  September  17.   1960   as   they   have   been   residents   of   Noveleta.  Martino  left  Kananga.4     After  an  assiduous  assessment  of  the  evidentiary  records.  Considering  that  Martino  had  delivered  OCT  No.  it  ruled  that  the  petitioners  failed  to  discharge  the  burden  of  proving  that  they  were   buyers  and  registrants  in  good  faith.     On  the  procedural  aspect.  he  took  as  gospel  truth  the  vehement  denial  of  his  grandfather  on   the  existence  of  the  sale.  about  the  July  4.  which  is  very  far  from  Brgy.  both  OCT  No.  petitioner  Esmeraldo  Vallido  (Esmeraldo).   They   included   a   historical   chronology   of   the   transactions   from  that  between  Martino  and  Purificacion  to  that  between  Purificacion  and  Marianito.  The  RTC  held  that  there  was  a  double  sale   under   Article   1544   of   the   Civil   Code.   1990.  The  CA  agreed  that  there   was   a   double   sale.  and  went  to  San  Rafael  III.  he  sold  the  whole  subject  property  to  his  grandson.  Primarily.Meanwhile.

  Should   he   find   out   that   the   land   he   intends   to  buy  is  occupied  by  anybody  else  other  than  the  seller  who.   Martino   declared   that   there   was   no   sale   but   only   a   mortgage.  And.10     When   confronted   by   Esmeraldo   on   the   alleged   previous   sale.   Rizal   to   respondent   Benita   T.  Yet.   to   investigate   or   inspect   the   land.  1993.  Second.   there   were   existing   permanent   improvements   on   the   land.  it  is  uncontroverted  that  the  respondents  were  occupying  the  land  since  January  4.  They  have  also  made  improvements  on  the  land  by  erecting  a  house  of  mixed   permanent   materials   thereon.  The  vendor's  heirs   are   his   privies.   Where   the   vendor   is   not   in   possession   of   the   property.  as  seller.   BENITA  T.   it   is   expected   from   the   purchaser   of   a   valued   piece   of   land   to   inquire   first   into   the   status   or   nature   of   possession  of  the  occupants.   The   second  buyer  who  has  actual  or  constructive  knowledge  of  the  prior  sale  cannot  be  a  registrant  in  good  faith.15   The   respondents.  Ownership  should  therefore  vest  in  the  respondents  because  they  were  first  in  possession  of   the  property  in  good  faith.  is  not  in  actual  possession.   .   Glaringly.  de  Leon  sold  three  parcels  of  land2  with  improvements  situated  in  Antipolo.   Martino   gave   conflicting   statements.   although   it   is   a   recognized   principle   that   a   person   dealing   on   a   registered   land   need   not   go   beyond   its   certificate  of  title.  cannot  be  relied  upon.13     The  Court  cannot  ascribe  good  faith  to  those  who  have  not  shown  any  diligence  in  protecting  their  rights.  the  petitioner  as  a  second   buyer   is   charged   with   constructive   knowledge   of   prior   dispositions   or   encumbrances   affecting   the   subject   property.   are   possessors  in  good  faith.   without   a   doubt.  when  confronted  by  Esmeraldo.:     On  March  10.  privies  are  not  third  persons.   As   these   properties   were   mortgaged   to   Real   Savings   and   Loan   Association.  No.  ONG.  they  cannot  lean  on  the  indefeasibility  of  their  TCT  in  view   of   the   doctrine   that   the   defense   of   indefeasibility   of   a   torrens   title   does   not   extend   to   transferees   who   take   the   certificate  of  title  in  bad  faith.6  Based  on  the  privity  between  petitioner  Esmeraldo  and  Martino.   These   circumstances   are   too   glaring   to   be   overlooked   and   should   have   prompted   the   petitioners.   Martino   did   not   have   the   owner’s   duplicate   copy   of   the   title.     As  the  petitioners  cannot  be  considered  buyers  in  good  faith.The  purpose  of  the  registration  is  to  give  notice  to  third  persons.  it  would  then  be   incumbent  upon  the  purchaser  to  verify  the  extent  of  the  occupant’s  possessory  rights.  Petitioner.  it  is  also  a  firmly  settled  rule  that  where  there  are  circumstances  which  would  put  a  party  on  guard   and   prompt   him   to   investigate   or   inspect   the   property   being   sold   to   him.  as  relayed  by  the  petitioners.   Ong.16       G.R.  during   the   sale   on   July   4.  1960  based  on  the  deed  of   sale  between  Martino  and  Puriticacion.     CORONA.   said  [PETITIONER]  does  hereby  sell."9     There   are   several   indicia   that   should   have   placed   the   petitioners   on   guard   and   prompted   them   to   investigate   or   inspect   the  property  being  sold  to  them.     vs.  transfer  and  convey  in  a  manner  absolute  and  irrevocable.   Third.  Martino  stated  that  he  mortgaged  the   land  with  Purificacion.  an  ocular  inspection  of  the  premises   involved   is   a   safeguard   that   a   cautious   and   prudent   purchaser   usually   takes.   He   stated   in   his   Petition   for   Issuance   of   New   Owner's   Duplicate   Copy   of   OTC12   that   he   could   not   recall   having   delivered   the   owner's   duplicate   copy   to   anybody   to   secure   payment  or  performance  of  any  obligation.  as  in  this  case.1   million).  The  claims  of  Martino.   petitioner   and   respondent   executed   a   notarized   deed   of   absolute   sale   with   assumption   of   mortgage3  stating:     x  x  x                      x  x  x                    x  x  x     That   for   and   in   consideration   of   the   sum   of   ONE   MILLION   ONE   HUNDRED   THOUSAND   PESOS   (P1.   the   respondents   were   in   actual   possession   of   the   land.   Fourth.  2010     RAYMUNDO  S.  J.   which   was   also   admitted   by   the   petitioners.   such   as   the   presence   of   occupants/tenants   thereon.11   The   petitioners   are   not   convincing.   failure   to   register   will   not   vitiate   or   annul   the   vendee's   right   of   ownership   conferred   by   such  unregistered  deed  of  sale.  Respondent.  unto  said  [RESPONDENT].  Martino.   Against   them.     The   non-­‐registration   of   the   deed   of   sale   between   Martino   and   Purificacion   is   immaterial   as   it   is   binding   on   the   petitioners  who  are  privies.  petitioner  Raymundo  S.  As  in  the  common  practice  in  the  real  estate  industry.   as   prospective   buyers.  did  not  have  possession  of  the  subject  property.     The   failure   of   a   prospective   buyer   to   take   such   precautionary   steps   would   mean   negligence   on   his   part   and   would   preclude   him   from   claiming   or   invoking   the   rights   of   a   "purchaser   in   good   faith.The   petitioners   took   the   declaration   of   Martino   as   gospel   truth   or   ex   cathedra.7     Moreover.   Philippine   currency.   Incorporated   (RSLAI).   1990.14     Lastly.  First.  the  receipt  whereof  is  hereby  acknowledged  from  [RESPONDENT]  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  [PETITIONER].  170405                              February  2."8   It   has   been   held   that   "the   registration   of  a  later  sale  must  be  done  in  good  faith  to  entitle  the  registrant  to  priority  in  ownership  over  the  vendee  in  an  earlier   sale.  DE  LEON.   the   prospective   vendees   are   obligated  to  investigate  the  rights  of  one  in  possession.

000   exemplary  damages.  respondent  undertook  repairs  and  made  improvements  on  the  properties.   respondent   appealed   to   the   Court   of   Appeals   (CA).   insisted   that   respondent   did   not   have   a   cause   of   action   against   him   and   consequently   prayed   for   the   dismissal   of   the   complaint.000  moral  damages.     In   a   decision   dated   August   27.  Consequently.     The  CA  found  that  the  March  10.   she   was   informed   that   petitioner   had   already   paid   the   amount   due   and   had   taken  back  the  certificates  of  title.     Because  respondent  was  a  licensed  real  estate  broker.000  attorney’s  fees  and  the  cost  of  suit.  he  made  a  counter-­‐claim  for  damages  as  respondent  filed  the  complaint  allegedly  with   gross  and  evident  bad  faith.  She  claimed  that   since  petitioner  had  previously  sold  the  properties  to  her  on  March  10.250  (or  the  amount  he  paid  to  RSLAI).  there  was  no  sale.10   Hence.  the  RTC  held  that  the  sale  was  never   perfected.   However.   it   declared   the   second   sale   void.     In   a   decision   dated   July   22.     Subsequently.9   the   CA   upheld   the   sale   to   respondent   and   nullified   the   sale   to   Viloria.   2005.   situated  in  [Barrio]  Mayamot.   was   ordered   to   deliver   the   certificates   of   titles   to   respondent   and   pay   her   P50.  [petitioner]  shall  execute  and  sign  a  deed  of  assumption  of  mortgage  in  favor  of  [respondent]  without  any   further  cost  whatsoever.   1999.  he  no  longer  had  the  right  to  sell  the  same   to  Viloria.     Petitioner.  declaration  of  nullity  of  the  second  sale  and   damages6  against  petitioner  and  Viloria  in  the  Regional  Trial  Court  (RTC)  of  Antipolo.000   moral   damages   and   P15.   that   is.  the  RTC  concluded  that  she  knew  that  the  validity  of  the  sale  was   subject   to   a   condition.   the   sale   was   not   perfected   and   he   could   freely   dispose   of  the  properties.his   heirs   and   assigns   that   certain   real   estate   together   with   the   buildings   and   other   improvements   existing   thereon.   Consequently.  Furthermore.   on   the   other   hand.   .   the   approval   by   RSLAI   of   respondent’s   assumption   of   mortgage.  Consequently.   1993   and   changed   the   locks.   It   likewise   ordered  respondent  to  reimburse  petitioner  P715.  1993.   on   the   other   hand.  Petitioner.  P20.500)  with  REAL  SAVINGS  AND  LOAN.     2.  Branch  74.  Rizal…  (emphasis  supplied)     x  x  x                      x  x  x                    x  x  x     Pursuant  to  this  deed.  Rizal.  Antipolo.   That   upon   full   payment   of   [respondent]   of   the   amount   of   FOUR   HUNDRED   FIFTEEN   THOUSAND   FIVE   HUNDRED   (P415.   rendering   the   keys   he   gave   her   useless.4  Cainta.     Respondent.     Respondent  persistently  contacted  petitioner  but  her  efforts  proved  futile.     Petitioner  insists  that  he  entered  into  a  contract  to  sell  since  the  validity  of  the  transaction  was  subject  to  a  suspensive   condition.  they  only  entered  into  a  contract  to  sell.500  as  partial  payment.  because  petitioner  no  longer  owned  the  properties   when   he   sold   them   to   Viloria.   the   condition   did   not   arise.   it   found   petitioner   liable   for   moral   and   exemplary  damages  for  fraudulently  depriving  respondent  of  the  properties.   That   [respondent]   shall   assume   payment   of   the   outstanding   loan   of   SIX   HUNDRED   EIGHTY   FOUR   THOUSAND   FIVE   HUNDRED  PESOS  (P684.   Respondent   thus   proceeded   to   RSLAI   to   inquire   about   the   credit   investigation.  respondent  gave  petitioner  P415.  respondent  filed  a  complaint  for  specific  performance.  the  condition  never  materialized.  petitioner  fraudulently  deprived  her  of  the  properties.  RSLAI  required  her  to  undergo   credit  investigation.  on  the  other  hand.   He   claimed   that   since   the   transaction   was   subject   to   a   condition   (i.  Petitioner.  Rizal  under  the  following  terms  and  conditions:     1.  1993.  Thus.     Petitioner   moved   for   reconsideration   but   it   was   denied   in   a   resolution   dated   November   11.  2003  contract  executed  by  the  parties  did  not  impose  any  condition  on  the  sale  and   held  that  the  parties  entered  into  a  contract  of  sale.  Inasmuch  as  respondent  did  apply   for   a   loan   from   RSLAI.  Since  RSLAI  did  not  allow  respondent  to  assume  petitioner’s  obligation.11  with  the  sole  issue  being  whether  the  parties  entered  into  a  contract  of  sale  or  a  contract  to  sell.   2005.  handed   the   keys   to   the   properties   and   wrote   a   letter   informing   RSLAI   of   the   sale   and   authorizing   it   to   accept   payment   from   respondent  and  release  the  certificates  of  title.     Thereafter.   Moreover.000).  respondent  learned  that  petitioner  again  sold  the  same  properties  to  one  Leona  Viloria  after  March  10.     On  June  18.   The   perfection   of   a   contract   of   sale   depended   on   RSLAI’s   approval   of   the   assumption   of   mortgage.e..8   asserting   that   the   court   a   quo   erred   in   dismissing   the   complaint.     Aggrieved.   that   RSLAI  approve  the  assumption  of  mortgage).   this   petition.  on  the  other  hand.   asserts   that   they   entered   into   a   contract   of   sale   as   petitioner   already   conveyed   full   ownership  of  the  subject  properties  upon  the  execution  of  the  deed.   Because   RSLAI   did   not   allow   respondent  to  assume  his  (petitioner’s)  obligation.7   the   RTC   dismissed   the   complaint   for   lack   of   cause   of   action   and   ordered   respondent  to  pay  petitioner  P100.5  Respondent  likewise  informed   RSLAI  of  her  agreement  with  petitioner  for  her  to  assume  petitioner’s  outstanding  loan.

  or  an  interest  in.     A  purchaser  in  good  faith  is  one  who  buys  the  property  of  another  without  notice  that  some  other  person  has  a  right  to.   Should  the  buyer  default  in  the  payment  of  the  purchase  price.  the  ownership  shall  pertain  to  the  person  who  in  good  faith  was  first  in  the  possession.   as   a   rule.  such  property  and  pays  a  full  and  fair  price  for  the  same  at  the  time  of  such  purchase.   the   said   terms   and   conditions   pertained  to  the  performance  of  the  contract.  For  this  reason.  In  this   connection.  first  to  respondent  and  then  to  Viloria  on  two  separate  occasions.   the   seller   conveys   ownership   of   the   property   to   the   buyer   upon   the   perfection   of   the   contract.  with  the  balance15  payable  directly  to   RSLAI  (on  behalf  of  petitioner)  within  a  reasonable  time.  not  the  perfection  thereof  nor  the  transfer  of  ownership.   in   the   absence   thereof.  a  contract  to  sell  is  subject  to  a  positive  suspensive  condition.  Article  1186  of  the  Civil  Code  provides:     Article  1186.   it   required   respondent  to  pay  P415.     Furthermore.12     On  the  other  hand.   We  modify  the  decision  of  the  CA.  the   seller  can  only  sue  for  damages.  the  said  condition  was  considered  fulfilled  as  petitioner  prevented  its  fulfillment   by  paying  his  outstanding  obligation  and  taking  back  the  certificates  of  title  without  even  notifying  respondent.  or  before  he  has   .     Should  there  be  no  inscription.  it  disqualifies  any  purchaser  in  bad  faith.500  in  cash  to  petitioner  upon  the  execution  of  the  deed.   the   execution   of   a   notarized   deed   of   sale   is   equivalent  to  the  delivery  of  a  thing  sold.   he   also   authorized   RSLAI   to   receive   payment   from   respondent   and   release   his   certificates   of   title   to   her.  the  second  sale  was  not  void  for  the  sole  reason  that  petitioner  had  previously  sold  the  same  properties  to   respondent.   Otherwise   stated.  Needless  to   say.     Contract  of  Sale  or  Contract  to  Sell?     The  RTC  and  the  CA  had  conflicting  interpretations  of  the  March  10.  Moreover.16  Nothing  in  said  instrument  implied  that  petitioner  reserved   ownership  of  the  properties  until  the  full  payment  of  the  purchase  price.   (emphasis   supplied)     This  provision  clearly  states  that  the  rules  on  double  or  multiple  sales  apply  only  to  purchasers  in  good  faith.  not  only  did   petitioner   turn   over   the   keys   to   the   properties   to   respondent.14   With   regard   to   the   manner   of   payment.  On  this  account.13     The  deed  executed  by  the  parties  (as  previously  quoted)  stated  that  petitioner  sold  the  properties  to  respondent  "in  a   manner   absolute   and   irrevocable"   for   a   sum   of   P1.  the  CA  erred.     Article  1544  of  the  Civil  Code  provides:     Article   1544.     Should   it   be   immovable   property.     Void  Sale  Or  Double  Sale?     Petitioner  sold  the  same  properties  to  two  buyers.1   million.   Article   1498   of   the   Civil   Code19   provides   that.20   However.  The  RTC  ruled  that  it  was  a  contract  to   sell  while  the  CA  held  that  it  was  a  contract  of  sale.  Clearly.  1993  deed.     This   case   involves   a   double   sale   as   the   disputed   properties   were   sold   validly   on   two   separate   occasions   by   the   same   seller  to  the  two  different  buyers  in  good  faith.   not   the   immediate   transfer   of   ownership   (upon   the   execution   of   the   notarized   contract)   from   petitioner   as   seller   to   respondent   as   buyer.   The   totality   of   petitioner’s   acts   clearly   indicates   that   he   had   unqualifiedly  delivered  and  transferred  ownership  of  the  properties  to  respondent.     In  this  instance.     In   a   contract   of   sale.18  In   this   regard.     Settled  is  the  rule  that  the  seller  is  obliged  to  transfer  title  over  the  properties  and  deliver  the  same  to  the  buyer.17  On  the  contrary.   If   the   same   thing   should   have   been   sold   to   different   vendees.   the   ownership   shall   belong   to   the   person   acquiring   it   who   in   good   faith   first   recorded   it  in  the  Registry  of  Property.   The   non-­‐payment   of   the   price   is   therefore   a   negative   resolutory   condition.  the  seller  may  either  sue  for  the  collection  thereof  or   have   the   contract   judicially   resolved   and   set   aside.   and.   the   ownership   shall   be   transferred   to   the   person  who  may  have  first  taken  possession  thereof  in  good  faith.  petitioner  executed  a  notarized  deed  of  absolute  sale  in  favor  of  respondent.  if  the  buyer  defaults  in  the  payment  thereof.  The  buyer  does  not  acquire  ownership   of  the  property  until  he  fully  pays  the  purchase  price.  it  was  a  contract  of  sale  the   parties  entered  into.  if  it  should  be  movable  property.   provided   there   is   good   faith.  The  condition  shall  be  deemed  fulfilled  when  the  obligor  voluntarily  prevents  its  fulfillment.  the  terms  and  conditions  of   the   deed   only   affected   the   manner   of   payment.   to   the   person   who   presents   the   oldest   title.   even   assuming   arguendo   that   the   agreement   of   the   parties   was   subject   to   the   condition   that   RSLAI   had   to   approve  the  assumption  of  mortgage.

 in  favor  of  the  Philippine  National  Bank  for   the  sum  of  P8.   1993.     MERCEDES  GUSTILO  and  her  husband  LEOPOLDO  JEREZA.   59748   are   hereby   AFFIRMED   with   MODIFICATION   insofar   as   respondent   Benita   T.  she  would  be  unjustly  enriched  at  the  expense  of  petitioner.   terms  and  conditions  of  the  contract  constitute  the  law  between  the  parties.     In  this  instance.   lack   of   notice  of  a  defect  in  the  title  of  the  seller  and  payment  in  full  of  the  fair  price  at  the  time  of  the  sale  or  prior  to  having   notice  of  any  defect  in  the  seller’s  title.  Moreover.   must   deliver   the   certificates  of  title  to  respondent.  L-­‐23386                December  12.  the  July  22.  ET  AL.  According  to  her   agreement  with  petitioner.   These   certificates  bear  a  memorandum  of  a  mortgage  executed  on  April  30.   719   and   720.         OSTRAND.   Ong   is   ordered   to   pay   petitioner   Raymundo   de   Leon   P684.  she  is   deemed  to  have  fully  complied  with  the  condition  of  the  payment  of  the  remainder  of  the  purchase  price."   Petitioner.   However.   on   the   part   of   the   buyer.  Antonia   .  petitioner  delivered  the  properties  to  respondent  when  he  executed  the  notarized  deed22  and  handed   over   to   respondent   the   keys   to   the   properties.  Moreover.  1940     MAURICIO  CRUZ.   For   this   reason.   1993   agreement.  opositora  y  apelante.  defendant-­‐appellant.  2005  decision  and  November  11.R.  the  sale  was  perfected  and  consummated  on  March  10.  the  said  condition  is  considered  fulfilled  pursuant  to  Article   1186  of  the  Civil  Code.     WHEREFORE.  of  determining  whether  respondent  was  a  purchaser  in  good  faith.  with  interest  at  8  per  cent  per  annum.   respondent   must   pay   petitioner   P684.  1918.000.R.  1918.  No.  the  one  who  took  prior  possession  of  the  properties  shall  be  the  lawful  owner  thereof.  therefore.   respondent   took   actual   possession   and   exercised   control   thereof  by  making  repairs  and  improvements  thereon.   Consequently.  she  was  released  from  the  said  obligation.     Respondent  purchased  the  properties.   respondent’s  obligation  to  pay  it  subsisted.     vs.21   The   law   requires.   while   the   condition   as   to   the   payment   of   the   balance   of   the   purchase   price   was   deemed   fulfilled.  For  purposes.500   representing   the   balance   of   the   purchase   price   as   provided   in   their   March   10.   JOSEFINA  SANDOVAL.  Otherwise.  Clearly.  plaintiffs.   under   Torrens   transfer   certificates   of   title   Nos.     G.notice   of   some   other   person’s   claim   or   interest   in   the   property.  Viloria  bought  the  properties  from  petitioner  after  the  latter  sold  them  to  respondent.     Since   respondent’s   obligation   to   assume   petitioner’s   outstanding   balance   with   RSLAI   became   impossible   without   her   fault.500.  1925     MERCEDES  GUSTILO.     Respondent  was  not  aware  of  any  interest  in  or  a  claim  on  the  properties  other  than  the  mortgage  to  RSLAI  which  she   undertook  to  assume.  Hence.   respondent   informed   RSLAI   of   the   sale   and   of   her   assumption   of   petitioner’s   obligation.  We  likewise  affirm  the  award  of  damages.  appellants.     Article  1544  of  the  Civil  Code  provides  that  when  neither  buyer  registered  the  sale  of  the  properties  with  the  registrar  of   deeds.   because   petitioner   surreptitiously   paid   his   outstanding   obligation   and   took   back   her   certificates   of   title.  respondent  became  the  lawful  owner  of  the  properties.  the  rules  on  double  sale  are  applicable.   petitioner   himself   rendered   respondent’s   obligation   to   assume   petitioner’s   indebtedness   to   RSLAI   impossible   to   perform.  2005  resolution  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  in  CA-­‐G.  the  deed  itself  provided  that  the   assumption   of   mortgage   "was   without   any   further   cost   whatsoever.   Occidental   Negros.  and  for  the  term  of  ten  years.:     It  appears  from  the  record  that  one  Antonia  Gustilo  was  originally  the  owner  of  the  Malago  or  Mercedes  plantation  in   the   municipality   of   Sarabia.     Nonetheless.   the   amount   stated   in   the   deed.  Moreover.     Therefore.R.  L-­‐46701                          June  17.     vs.   Respondent  was  therefore  a  purchaser  in  good  faith.     Was  respondent  a  purchaser  in  good  faith?  Yes.   on   the   other   hand.  because  petitioner  himself  willfully  prevented  the  condition   vis-­‐à-­‐vis  the  payment  of  the  remainder  of  the  purchase  price.  knowing  they  were  encumbered  only  by  the  mortgage  to  RSLAI.  No.   The   debtor   in   obligations   to   do   shall   be   released   when   the   prestation   become   legally   or   physically   impossible  without  the  fault  of  the  obligor.  solicitante-­‐apelado.   HERMINIO  MARAVILLA.  Thus.     Article  1266  of  the  Civil  Code  provides:     Article   1266.  respondent  had  the  obligation  to  assume  the  balance  of  petitioner’s  outstanding  obligation   to   RSLAI..     G.  On  August  3.  J.  CV  No.   This   is   because   the   provisions.

  that   subsequently   to   the   purchase   he   has   paid   to   the   Philippine   National   Bank   the   sum   of   P1.  Relying  on  the  lease  from  Antonia  Gustilo  to  Ardosa  and  his  own  sublease  from  the   latter.  representing  the  original  debt  of  P25.  a  cousin  of  the  defendant.  and  it  is  recited  therein  that  Ardosa  paid  the  rent  in  advance  for  the   whole  term  of  the  lease.000  and  for  the  costs.  the  defendant  by  false  statements  led  Mercedes  Gustilo  to  believe  that  he  would  nevertheless   respect   the   lease.  1922  (Exhibit  A).   alleges   that   at   the   time   of   his   purchase   of   the   plantation.   the   court   below   found   that   when   the   defendant   purchased   the   property   in   question   from   the   plaintiff   Mercedes  Gustilo.  By  Notarial  document  Exhibit  D.  the  defendant  had  no  right  to  terminate  the  lease  in  question  and  was  not  entitled  to  receive  any   sum   for   the   occupation   of   the   land   by   the   lessee.  or  a  total  sum  of  P7.   1922.   Montinola   refused   to   pay   rent   to   the   defendant.  the  defendant  assuming  the  debt  to  the   National   Bank.  Ardosa  subleased  the  plantation  to  the  plaintiff  Felix  Montinola  Celis  for  three  agricultural  years.   and   for   the   term   of   one   year   from   the   date   of   the   document.  Antonia  Gustilo  executed  a  deed  of  sale  for  the  property  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff  Mercedes  Gustilo.  The  court  further  found  that  the  defendant  had  failed  to  fulfill  his   obligations   under   the   contract   of   sale   and   declared   said   contract   rescinded.   the   plaintiff   Leopoldo  Jereza.  being  for  a  terms  of  more  than  six  years.  The  court  also  declared  that  the   lease.   and   in   December.000  with  interest.   The   term   of   the   sublease   was   subsequently.000.   They   therefore   ask   that   the   sale   be   declared   rescinded   through   the  fault  of  the  defendant  and  that  judgment  be  rendered  against  the  defendant  and  in  favor  of  the  plaintiffs  for  the   sum  of  P20.  The   lease  is  evidenced  by  a  notarial  document  Exhibit  G.  and  another  mortgage  was  on  January  4.253.   the   consideration   named   in   the   deed   being   P30.  and  for  the  further  sum  of  P573.   the   purchaser   assuming   the   mortgage   debt   to   the   Philippine   National  Bank  (Exhibit  1).000.000.  1922.   in   addition   thereto.  executed  in  Jose's  favor  for   P28.   Upon   the   facts   so   stated.  1920.19   on   the   mortgage   assumed   by   him   through   his   purchase   of   the   land.   Herminio   Maravilla.  the  defendant  had  failed  to  fulfill  his  obligations  under  the  contract  of  sale  and  declared  said  contract   rescinded.   that   if   he   had   such   knowledge.   the   plaintiffs   pray  that  judgment  be  rendered  declaring  that  the  defendant  has  no  right  to  the  crop  growing  on  the  hacienda  and  to   collect   rents   during   the   duration   of   the   term   of   the   lease   to   Ardosa.   and   that   in   this   belief   she   and   her   husband   executed   the   deed.  As  Antonia's  certificates  appear  to  have  been  issued  in  favor  of  Mercedes.   jointly   with   Mercedes   Gustilo   and   Vicente  Ardosa.   and   that   he   has   paid   the   sum   of   P573.     .   on   August   15.     On  August  8.   The   plaintiffs'   Mercedes  Gustilo  and  Leopoldo  Jereza  appeal  and  so  does  the  defendant.  in  favor  of  the  defendant  on  August  9.   A   deed   to   that   effect   was   thereupon   executed   by   Mercedes   Gustilo   and   her   husband.   The   plaintiffs'   claim   for   damages   was   disallowed.   the   plaintiffs   allege   that   at   the   time   of   his   purchase.  Antonia  and  Mercedes  Gustilo  executed  a  second  mortgage  on  the  same  property  in  favor  of   the   defendant   Herminio   Maravilla   for   the   sum   of   P25.   he   would   not   have   made   the   purchase.  was  registerable  and  ordered  that  it  be  entered  upon  the  certificates  of   title  and  upon  the  records  of  the  register  of  deeds.  by  way  of  cross-­‐complaint  and  counterclaim.74  for  back   taxes  paid.  the   plaintiffs   have   suffered   damages   in   the   sum   of   P20.000.   that   the   plaintiffs   fraudulently   concealed  from  him  the  existence   of   the   lease.     In  the  meantime  Felix  Montinola  remained  in  possession  of  the  plantation  by  virtue  of  his  sublease  and  in  a  letter  dated   September   21.   in   the   name   of   Jose   Maravilla.  he  had  full  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  the  property  had  been  leased  to  Vicente  Ardosa.  It  also  held  that  under  the  exceptions  established  in  article   1571  of  the  Civil  Code.  and  held  that  it  therefore  become  a  part  of  the  contract  of  sale.  as  well  as  of   the  terms  of  said  lease.  executed  on  the  10th  of  the  same   month.   and   that   it   be   ordered   that   said   lease  be  noted  on  the  transfer  certificate  of  title  issued  in  favor  of  the  defendant.74   in   back   taxes   on   the   land   which   should   have   been   paid   by   the   vendors.   He   therefore   asks   that   the   contract  of  sale  of  the  plantation  to  him  be  declare  rescinded  and  that  judgment  be  rendered  against  the  plaintiffs  for   the  sum  of  P1.     In   answer   to   the   defendants   cross-­‐complaint   and   counterclaim.   1921.Gustilo  leased  the  property  for  the  term  of  seven  years  to  the  plaintiff  Vicente  Ardosa  at  an  annual  rent  of  P1.  brought  the  present  action.  the  defendant  was  not  entitled  to  recover  any  sum   which  he  might  have  expended  in  consideration  of  the  sale.  holding  inasmuch  as  the  rescission  was  due  to  his  fault.   he   had   no   knowledge   of   the   existence   of   a   lease   on   the   property.   aver   that   though  in  the  deed  from  Mercedes  Gustilo  and  Leopoldo  Jereza  to  the  defendant  no  mention  was  made  of  the  lease  to   Ardosa  and  Montinola.000.000.   1922.   Upon  the  expiration  of  the  term.  1920.  and  that  he  assumed  the  payment  and   fulfillment  of  said  incumbrances  and  obligations.     On  November  24.     The  defendant  in  his  answer  denied  the  allegations  of  the  complaint  and.253.   the   defendant  was  fully  informed  of  all  incumbrances  on  the  Mercedes  plantation.     In   the   complaint   the   plaintiffs   is   substance   allege   the   facts   hereinbefore   set   forth   and.  or  until  June   30.  the  debt  secured  by  the  mortgage  was  paid  with  money  alleged  to  have  been  furnished   by  Jose  Maravilla.  that  he  has  not  complied  with  the  terms  and  conditions  under  which   the  sale  of  the  property  to  him  was  made.   by   a   private   document   or   "receipt"   extended   so  as  to  embrace  the  full  term  of  the  original  lease.     When   the   debt   secured   by   the   last   mortgage   fell   due.   the   defendant   notified   him   that   he   would   be   required   to   pay   12   per   cent   of   the   total   sugar   production  of  the  plantation  as  rent.   demanded   payment   which   Mercedes   Gustilo   was   unable   to   make   and   it   was   finally   agreed   between   the   parties   that   the   title   to   the   plantation  was  to  be  transferred  to  the  defendant  in  full  satisfaction  of  the  debt.   1921.  and  that  through  his  failure  to  comply  with  such  terms  and  conditions.   holding   that   inasmuch   as   the   rescission   was   due  to  his  fault.     Upon   trial.   that   it   be   further   declared   that   said   lease   is   an   incumbrance   upon   the   property   which   the   defendant   has   bound   himself   to   respect.19  for  payments  made  to  the  Philippine  National  Bank.

  without  prejudice  to  the  provisions  of  the  following  articles.   The   trial   court   erred   in   holding   that   the   contract   of   lease   at   bar   is   registerable.   The   fact   that   the   land   in   question   in   this   case   is   registered   land   while   the   land   in   the   Winkleman   case   was   unregistered.   The   trial   court   erred   in   holding   that   the   defendant   and   appellant   had   notice   at   the   time   of   making   the   purchase   that   the   land   was   leased   for   seven   years   to   Vicente   Ardosa   and   sublet   by   the   latter   to   the   plaintiff   Felix   Montinola   Celis.  the  entry  in  question  is  unnecessary  and  the  judgment  must  be  modified  accordingly.  leaves  no  doubt  whatever  upon  that  point.   The  trial  court  erred  in  holding  that  the  defendant  has  no  right  to  terminate  the  lease  in  question.  Neither  have  we   any   doubt   that   the   defendant   was   informed   as   the   terms   of   the   lease   and   of   the   fact   that   the   rent   had   been   paid   in   advance.  This  testimony.  There  is  not  much  force  in  this  argument.   1305).  but  without  any   right  on  the  part  of  the  latter  to  be  repaid  for  any  such  amount  as  he  may  have  spent  or  paid  by  reason  of  said  contract.   and   in   ordering   its   registration   in   the  register  of  property  and  its  notation  on  the  proper  transfer  certificate  of  title  as  an  incumbrance  upon  the  land.   The  trial  court  erred  in  ordering  that  the  amount  of  the  price  of  the  sale  of  12  per  cent  of  the  crop  placed  by   order  of  the  court  in  possession  of  Felix  Montinola  as  depositary  be  delivered  to  the  latter.The  appeal  of  Mercedes  Gustilo  and  Leopoldo  Jereza  relates  to  their  claim  for  damages  and  is  so  entirely  without  merit   as   to   require   no   discussion.     The  defendants  presents  the  following  assignments  of  error:     1.   required   to   establish   the   existence   of   encumbrances  not  appearing  on  the  certificate  of  title.   the   latter   coming   within   the   two   exceptions  or  provisos  of  article  1571  of  the  Civil  Code.  is  shown  not  only  by  the  testimony  of  Mercedes  Gustilo   and  Leopoldo  Jereza  but  is  also  corroborated  by  the  notary  before  whom  the  deed  was  acknowledged.  together  with  their  fruits.   and  that  the  defendant  having  made  the  purchase  with  knowledge  of  said  lease.   one   week   after   the   sale   of   the   plantation   to   the   defendant.net     The  first.   The   provision   applicable   to   the   present   case   is   found  in  article  1303  which  read  as  follows:     When  an  obligation  has  been  adjudged  void..  the  contracting  parties  shall  restore  to  each  other  the  things  which  have   been  the  subject-­‐matter  of  the  contract.     3.  second  and  fifth  assignments  of  error  have  reference  principally  to  questions  of  fact  upon  which  the  findings  of   the  court  below  are  fully  sustained  by  the  evidence.  one  Aquiles  M.  and  the  price  paid  therefore.     .   the   plaintiffs   are   also   for   this   reason  clearly  entitled  to  a  rescission.   the   defendant   was   bound   to   respect   the   lease   and   the   court   below   did   not   err   in   holding  that  said  lease  in  effect  became  a  part  of  the  contract  of  sale.000   executed   in   favor   of   Jose   Maravilla.  in   connection  with  the  circumstances  surrounding  the  case.  the  same  in  effect  became  a  part  of  the   contract  of  sale  to  him  of  the  plantation.  if  the  court  had  jurisdiction.   the   defendant-­‐appellant   argues   that   the   assignment   of   the   lease   by   Ardosa   to   Montinola  did  not  appear  in  a  notarial  instrument  and  that  therefore  the  trial  court  erred  in  ordering  that  the  lease  be   entered  upon  the  certificate  of  title.lawphi1.   does  not  affect  the  legal  principles  involved.     The  defendant's  fourth  assignment  of  error  is  well  taken.   the   plaintiff   alleging   that   the   note   and   the   corresponding   mortgage   had   been   assigned   to   him   by   Jose   Maravilla   on   August   16.     2.   but   inasmuch   as   the   term   of   the   lease  has  already  expired.  said  contract  was  rescinded  as  prayed  for  by  the  defendant.     5.  but  such  evidence  is  not  lacking  in  the  present  case.  That  the  defendant  at  the  time  of  purchasing  the  plantation  had  full   knowledge  of  the  fact  that  it  had  been  leased  to  Vicente  Ardosa.   604).  The  Land  Registration  Act  only  protects  the  holder  in  good  faith.  and  therefore   is   not   entitled   to   receive   any   amount   whatsoever   in   consideration   of   said   lease.     4.     Under   the   third   assignment   of   error.  In  this   connection   it   may   be   well   to   call   attention   to   the   fact   that   under   the   last   paragraph   of   section   112   of   the   Land   Registration   Act.   and   secured   by   the   mortgage   of   January   4.  together  with  interest.   Strong   and   convincing   evidence   is.   1922.   of   course.  The  trial  court  may  possibly  have  been  misled  by  paragraph  2   of  article  1306  of  the  Civil  Code.  but  in  addition  thereto  it  is  also  to  be  observed  that  while  the  present  action  was  pending  in  the   Court  of  First  Instance.   It   may   be   noted   that   the   defendant   has   never   had   possession   of   the   property   and   has   received  no  benefit  therefrom.   de   Winkleman   and   Winkleman   vs.  but  the  paragraph  applies  only  to  cases  where  "the  nullity  arises  from  illegality  of  the   consideration   or   the   purpose   of   the   contract"   (Civil   Code.   Veluz   (43   Phil.  Sajo.net     The  defendant's  failure  to  respect  the  Ardosa  lease  is  in  itself  a  sufficient  breach  of  the  terms  of  the  contract  of  sale  to   justify  its  rescission."  and   upon  that  ground  it  may  have  been  error  to  order  such  an  entry  in  the  present  proceedings.   The  trial  court  erred  in  holding  that  by  reason  of  the  defendant's  failure  to  perform  the  obligations  contracted   by  him  in  the  contract  of  sale  in  question.   petition   for   amendments   or   alterations   of   certificates   of   title   —   which   includes   the   entry   of   a   memorandum  —  must  be  "filed  and  entitled  in  the  original  case  in  which  the  degree  of  registration  was  entered.  the  judgment   itself   would   be   sufficient   warrant   for   the   entry   of   the   corresponding   memorandum.  and  cannot   be   used   as   a   shield   for   frauds.  a  near  relative  of  the  defendant.   art.  brought  an  action  against  Mercedes  and   Antonia   Gustilo   and   Leopoldo   Jereza   upon   a   promissory   note   for   P28.   This   being   established.   1922.     This   conclusion   is   in   harmony   with   our   decision   in   the   case   of   T.lawphi1.   In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  clearly  appears  that  sale  was  made  with  the  understanding  and  for  the  purpose  of  canceling   the   debt   evidenced   by   the   note   and   mortgage   upon   which   Sajo's   action   was   brought.

 22157.  a  final  deed  of  sale  was  executed  on  March  30.  Yangco.  No.  1920.  The  defendant-­‐appellant  shall  pay  the  costs   of  both  instances.  Perfecto  J.  Rizal.   This   is   the   same   property   that   the   defendant   bought   from   Nicolas   Rivera.  8540  covering  lot  No.  predecessor  in  interest  of  the  plaintiff?     .The  court  below  therefore  erred  in  holding  that  the  defendant  was  not  entitled  to  reimbursement  for  his  payment  to  the   National  Bank  and  for  taxes.  Salas  Rodriguez.130  square  meters.  predecessor  in   interest  of  the  defendant.   Victoriano  Hernandez.   1920.  1927  by  the  sheriff  in  favor   of  the  purchaser.  sold  a  total  area  of  16.  or  on  March  1.74   for   taxes   paid.R.   for   62.557.  Salas  died.   the  date  of  the  filing  of  the  defendant's  cross-­‐complaint  and  counterclaim.  and  later  sold  to  Mariano  P.   Nicolas   Rivera   repurchased.  Rafael  Villanueva   filed  with  the  sheriff  a  third  party  claim.  Nos.   designated   as   lot   No.19  for  payments  made  on  their  behalf  to  the  National  Bank  and  for   the   further   sum   of   P573.  all  rights  in  the  said  total  area  of  16.   for   79.  Salas  Rodriguez  as  well  as  the  auction  sale  held  on  March  30.  at  first  alone.  and  transfer  certificate  of  title  No.  40  hectares  of  these  three  lots.  lot  No.  12242  was  issued  the  following  day  in   the  latter's  name.  Perfecto  J.  the  40  hectares  bought  by  Nicolas  Rivera  from  Singson   Encarnacion   were   segregated.  but  as  the  judgment  creditor  gave  an  indemnity  bond.  563).  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Rizal  rendered  judgment.  27-­‐A  and  29-­‐A.900  square  meters  to   Rafael  Villanueva  by  deeds  which  had  never  been  registered.   MACARIA  KATIGBAK  VIUDA  DE  SALAS.  Salas  Rodriguez.  municipality  of  Caloocan.  1940     VICTORIANO  HERNANDEZ.:     Appeal  from  a  judgment  rendered  by  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Rizal.014   square   meters.  for  the  sum  of  P1.   respectively.  The  execution   lien  of  Perfecto  J.  1926.  L-­‐46840                          June  17.  10533  covering  lot  No.  designated  as  lots  Nos.   and   the   other   with   No.  28-­‐A.   one   with   lot   No.   10533.   in   due   form.  and.  ordering  the  defendant  to   segregate  from  lot  No.  Perfecto  J.     vs.  Rafael  Villanueva.   two   transfer   certificates   of   title   were   issued   in   favor   of   Nicolas   Rivera.  28.  And  there  having  been  no  redemption.   August   31.   22157  was  issued  by  the  Register  of  Deeds  of  Rizal  on  August  9.253.  1932.     MORAN.  the  provincial  sheriff  of  Rizal   levied   upon   the   properties   of   said   defendant.  in  pursuance  thereof.  said  officer  executed  the  corresponding  deed  in  favor  of  the  purchaser.   1922.  were  transferred  to  and  annotated  on  the  new  certificate  of  title  No.  In  all  other  respects.         G.  the  judgment  is  reversed.   The   levy   was   duly   recorded   in   the   office  of  the  Register  of  Deeds  and  noted  on  transfer  certificate  of  title  No.  now  defendant.  the   sheriff   proceeded   with   the   execution   and   sold   the   property   at   a   public   auction   at   which   the   judgment   creditor   himself   was   the   highest   bidder.   8540   and   8548   of   the   register   of   deeds   of   Rizal.  Salas  Rodriguez.     On  the  basis  of  the  foregoing  facts.R.   1922   and   September   1.  28  and  29  of   the  "Hacienda  Maysilo".   all   with   interest   at   the   rate   of   6   per   cent   per   annum   from   February   23.  1926.  33950  and  33969  which  in  turn  are  founded  on  the  ruling  laid   down  in  Lanci  vs.  located  at  Tuliahan..900  square   meters.  with  an  aggregate  area  of  234  hectares.  are  as  follows:     Vicente  Singson  Encarnacion  was.  the  registered  owner  of  lots  Nos.  8540.  covered  by  her  transfer  certificate  of  title  No.661  square  meters  and  174.  52  Phil.   Leuterio.  and   covered   by   Torrens   certificates   of   title   Nos.   in  pursuance  of  his  registered  right  to  that  effect.  1926.     It  is  hereby  ordered  that  the  defendant  have  and  recover  judgment  against  the  plaintiffs  Mercedes  Gustilo  and  Leopoldo   Jereza.  27.  a  writ  of  execution  was  issued  against  the  defendant.  September  24.   10535.  which  were  annotated  on  transfer   certificate  of  title  No.  in  turn.   1923.  against  Mariano  P.   1926.     The  question  is:  who  has  a  better  right  —  the  purchaser  at  the  execution  sale.  instituted  by  Perfecto  J.   28-­‐A.  J.  Leuterio   an  unsegregrated  portion  of  about  18  hectares  thereof.  declares  the  sale  of  the   plantation   by   the   plaintiffs   Mercedes   Gustilo   and   Leopoldo   Jereza   to   the   defendant   rescinded.   28-­‐A.     In  civil  case  No.   among   them.  On  March  30.   Later   Rafael   Villanueva   sold   to   the   herein   plaintiff.   a   parcel   of   land   containing   an   area   of   177.  jointly  and  severally.  the  judgment  appealed  from  is  affirmed  in  so  far  as  it  holds  that  the  defendant  was  bound  to   respect  the  lease  from  Antonia  Gustilo  to  Vicente  Ardosa  and  the  sublease  to  Felix  Montinola.  These  deeds  are  dated  September  21.  plaintiff-­‐appellee.  The  latter.   the   corresponding   deed   in   favor   of   the   herein   plaintiff.  and  by  virtue  of  a  partition  approved  by  the  probate  court.900  square  meters.4   square   meters.  a  portion  equivalent  to  16.  defendant-­‐appellant.   and   on   March   5.   The   judgment   is   predicated   on  the  decisions  rendered  by  this  Court  in  cases  (G.   and   to   execute.  and  later  with  others.  or  the  purchaser  in  the  private  sale.  Macaria  Katigbak  Vda.     Prior  to  the  execution  of  the  officer's  deed.  in  whose  favor  transfer  certificate  of  title  No.     The  facts  as  agreed  upon  by  parties  and  material  to  the  disposition  of  the  case.  respectively.  de  Salas.  So  ordered.  29-­‐A  was   adjudicated  to  his  widow.     For  the  reasons  stated.  2861  of  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Rizal.   and   awards   to   Felix   Montinola   the   sugar   produced   on   the   plantation   during   his   receivership   or   the   money   received   from   the   sale   of   such   sugar.

  496.  In  Vargas  vs.   his   knowledge   is   equivalent   to   registration   and   taints   his   purchase   with   bad   faith.  on  execution  sale..   Act   No.  Tancioco.   n   publica   subasta   en   cumplimiento   de   un   mandamiento   judicial  expedido  con  las  malidades  de  la  ley.  September  30.   46724.   The   purchase  made  by  Villanueva  took  place  prior  to  the  execution  sale.  If  the  levy  is   valid.   28-­‐A.   R.     Judgment  is  reversed.   therefore.  but  the  levy  and  the  execution  sale  of  the   property   were   noted   on   the   transfer   certificate   of   title   of   Nicolas   Rivera   without   the   latter's   objection.  Leuterio.R.   Court   of   Appeals.)   It   follows  that.  the  efficacy  and  conclusiveness  of  the  certificate  of  title  which  the  Torrens  system   seek  to  insure.  39..   vs.  23  C..  Motion  for  reconsideration  is  denied.   as   amended   by   Act   2011.  Imperial.  La  razon  es  obvia..  .  Bernardo.  la  Urbana  vs.   G.   G.   upon   its   face.  porque  la  pretendida  venta  no  fue  anotada  jamas  en  Registro  como  lo  fue  el  referido   embargo.  Barrera.  62  Phil.   and   except  for  this  observation.J.  is  that.  The  fact  that  this  third-­‐party  claim  was  presented  one  day  before  the  execution  sale.  Diaz.   the   purchaser   cannot   be   said   to   have   acted   in   bad   faith   in   making   the   purchase   and.   indicates   in   quest   for   any   hidden   defect   or   inchoate   right   that   may   subsequently   defeat   his   right   thereto.   2847.  registration  is   the  operative  act  that  gives  validity  to  the  transfer.  46724.  vs.   the   purchaser   acquires   such   right   interest   as   appear   on   the   certificate   of   title.  with  costs  against  plaintiff-­‐appellee.The   two   purchasers   derived   their   title   from   Mariano   P.  but  was  never  registered.).  .  there  being  a  certificate  of  title  issued  in  favor  of  Nicolas  Rivera  bearing  No.:     The  doctrine  in  Lanci  vs.  G.   el   terrebo   en   cuestion   estaba   cubierto   por   el   Certificado   de   Titulo   que   llevada   el   No.R.   pero.   por   haberselo   vendido   a   el.   como   un   acto   o   paso   preliminar   para   vender   el   referido   terreno.   R.  this  court  held:     La   contencion   del   recurrente   de   que   la   recurrida   no   era   compradora   de   buena   fe.   Gaz.   No.  defendant  has  a  better  right  than  the  plaintiff.  790.  or  creates  a  lien  on  the  land.   No.   .  En  dicho   certifiacdo   no   constaba   ningun   gravamen   excepto   el   embargo   que   se   habia   trabado   sobre   el   terreno   a   que   alude.   no   tiene   importancia.   el   recurrente   presento   al   Sheriff   Provincial   de   Negros   Occidental   un   escrito   de   terceria   para   reclamarlo   como   de   su   exclusiva   propiedad.J.  The  validity  of  the  levy   is  thus  unaffected  by  any  subsequent  knowledge  which  the  judgment  creditor  might  have  derived  from  the  third-­‐party   claim.  J.     In  the  present  case.  June  27.  1940.   por   haberselo   vendido   a   el   mismo   no   era   de   Sua   Tico.  concur.  they  deserve  no  attention  from  this  court.   In   such   case.  is   not  required  to  go  behind  the  registry  to  determine  the  conditions  of  the  property.  Garcia."  (Reynes  vs.   porque   al   comprar   en   publica   subasta   el   terreno   cuestionado   ya   sabia   que   el   mismo   no   era   de   Sua   Tico.   Reynes   vs.  48  Phil.     Avanceña.  when  the  property  sold  on  execution  is  registered  under  the  Torrens  systems.  35  Of.  1939.   subject   to   no   aliens   encumbrances   or   burdens   that   are   noted   thereon.  in  an  execution  sale  of  and   registered   under   the   Torrens   system.  and  a  purchaser.  Parsons  Hardware  Co.   46870.   title   and   interest   as   appear   on   the   certificate   of   title   issued   on   the   property.  would  entirely  be  futile  and  nugatory.  10533  on  lot  No.   Barrera.  is  immaterial.   Mariano   P.     The   only   reception   to   this   rule   is   where   the   purchaser   had   acknowledge..  Maravilla.  the  execution  sale  made  in  pursuance  thereof  is  also  validly  be  foreclosed  regardless  of  any  equities  that   may  have  arisen  after  its  Constitution.)   But   if   knowledge   of   any   lien   or   encumbrance   upon   the   property   is   acquired   after   the   levy.   Leuterio   alone   who.   .  .  supra:     .   prior   to   or   at   the   time   of   the   levy.  563).     It  is  a  well-­‐settled  rule  that.  the  third-­‐party  claim  was  filed  about  one  month  after  the  levy  was  recorded.  No  certificate  of  title  was  ever  issued  in  favor  of  Mariano  P.  sec.  (Gustilo  vs.   unaffected  by  any  prior  lien  or  encumbrance  not  noted  therein.  Yangco  (52  Phil.   Leuterio.   46141.)   The   purchaser   is   thus   "not   required   to   explore   farther   than   what   the   Torrens   title.   36   Of.  sec.   Camus.   habiendo   prestado   la   recurrida   Nieves   Tancioco  la  fianza  correspondiente.)  The  new  doctrine..   como   asi   lo   habia   expresando   en   su   escrito   de   terceria   presentado   un   dia   antes   de   la   venta.   and   in   the   notation   it   appeared   that   the   property   had   been   sold   by   Nicolas   Rivera   to   Mariano   P.     Expressions   of   dissatisfaction   made   by   the   appellee's   attorney   in   his   motion   for   reconsideration   are   uncalled   for.  el  Sheriff  hubo  de  estar  adelante  con  la  venta  resultado  que  ya  se  sabe.   No.  which  purports  to  give  effect  to  all  liens  and  encumbrances  existing  prior   to  the  execution  sale  of  a  property  registered  under  the  Torrens  system.   17088   de   la   Oficina   del   Registrador  de  titulos  de  Negros  Occidental  y  que  fue  expedido  a  nombre  de  Sua  Tico  el  dia  26  de  julio  de  1923.  If  the  rule  were  otherwise.     De  paso  debe  decirse  que  el  Tribunal  de  Apelaciuones  hallo  tambien  probado  el  hecho  de  que  un  dia  antes  de  ponerse   en   publica   subasta   el   terreno   de   que   se   viene   habaldo.  812.   such   lien   or   encumbrance  cannot  affect  his  title.   y   porque   esta   implicitamente   aclarada   y   resuelte   en   los   parrafos   anteriores.  442.   (Anderson   and   Co.  Laurel  and  Concepcion.   therefore.   vs.   .   Leuterio.   Cuando   dicha   recurrida  obtuvo  el  embargo  y  este  se  fecto  y  se  anoto  en  el  mismo  terreno  embargado  habia  sido  vendido  meses  antes   por  Sua  Tico.   who   in   turn   acquired   his   from   Nicolas   Rivera.  JJ.   Garcia.  as  it  was.     MORAN.     Upon  these  facts.   (see   Philippine  National   Bank   vs.  2847.  Such  purchaser  acquires  such  right.  No.   in   Rivera's   certificate   of   title.   G.  from  which  we  have  no  reason  to  depart.  even  if  such  liens  and  encumbrances  are  not   noted   in   the   certificate   of   title.  The  property  is  registered   under  the  Torrens  system.  on  the  property  in  question.  (Anderson  and  Co..   has   been   abandoned   by   this   court.   appeared   as   the   sole   owner   of   the   property   at   the   time   of   the  levy  and  execution  sale.  C..  Gaz.   It   was.   of   such   previous   lien   or   encumbrance.