You are on page 1of 5

DE LEON vs. ONG (G.R. No.


February 2, 2010)

Petitioner Raymundo S. de Leon and respondent Benita Ong executed a deed
of absolute sale with assumption of mortgage over three parcels of land.
Respondent made partial payment, informed RSLAI to assume the loan,
underwent credit investigation, and undertook repairs and made
improvements on the properties. Subsequently, respondent learned that
petitioner again sold the same properties to one Leona Viloria, so she filed a
complaint for specific performance, declaration of nullity of the second sale
and damages claiming that since petitioner had previously sold the
properties to her on March 10, 1993, he no longer had the right to sell the
same to Viloria. Thus, petitioner fraudulently deprived her of the properties.
Petitioner claimed that since the transaction was subject to a condition (i.e.,
that RSLAI approve the assumption of mortgage), they only entered into a
contract to sell. Inasmuch as respondent did apply for a loan from RSLAI, the
condition did not arise. Consequently, the sale was not perfected and he
could freely dispose of the properties.
Issue: Whether or not there was double sale.
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.
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. Moreover,
Viloria bought the properties from petitioner after the latter sold them to
respondent. Respondent was therefore a purchaser in good faith.
The rules on double sale provide that when neither buyer registered the sale
of the properties, the one who took prior possession of the properties shall
be the lawful owner thereof. In this instance, petitioner delivered the
properties to respondent when he executed the notarized deed and handed
over to respondent the keys to the properties. For this reason, respondent
took actual possession and exercised control thereof by making repairs and
improvements thereon. Clearly, the sale was perfected and consummated on

March 10, 1993. Thus, respondent became the lawful owner of the

MARTINEZ vs CA (G.R. No. 123547. May 21, 2001)


Private respondents Godofredo De la Paz and his sister Manuela entered

into an oral contract with petitioner Rev. Fr. Dante Martinez for the sale of a
parcel of lot. After full payment, private respondents executed two
documents, however, private respondents never delivered the Deed of Sale.
Private respondents sold two lots to Spouses Veneracion including the lot
previously sold to petitioner. Veneracion never took actual possession of the
lots, but all titles were given to him and registered the same in his name.
Petitioner discovered that the lot had been sold to the spouses Veneracion,
so he demanded the execution of the deed of sale from De la Paz and
informed Veneracion that he was the owner of the property as he had
previously purchased the same.
Veneracion brought an action for ejectment, while petitioner caused a notice
of lis pendens to be recorded on the title. While the ejectment case was
pending, petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of sale with damages
against the Veneracions and De la Pazes.

Issue: Whether or not private respondents Veneracion are buyers in good


NO. The requirement of the law, where title to the property is recorded is
two-fold: acquisition in good faith and recording in good faith. To be entitled
to priority, the second purchaser must not only prove prior recording of his
title but that he acted in good faith, i.e., without knowledge or notice of a

prior sale to another. The presence of good faith should be ascertained from
the circumstances surrounding the purchase of the land.
This Court in several cases has ruled that a purchaser who is aware of
facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard cannot turn a blind
eye and later claim that he acted in good faith.
Private respondent Veneracion knew that there were already occupants on
the property as early as 1981. The fact that there are persons, other than the
vendors, in actual possession of the disputed lot should have put private
respondents on inquiry as to the nature of petitioners right over the
property. But he never talked to petitioner to verify the nature of his right. He
merely relied on the assurance of private respondent Godofredo De la Paz,
who was not even the owner of the lot in question, that he would take care of
the matter. This does not meet the standard of good faith.
The deed of sale executed by private respondents Godofredo and Manuela
De la Paz in favor of private respondents spouses Reynaldo and Susan
Veneracion is null and void.

PAYONGAYONG vs CA [G.R. No. 144576. May 28, 2004]

Eduardo Mendoza (Mendoza) was the registered owner of a parcel of land
which he mortgaged to the Meralco Employees Savings and Loan Association
(MESALA) which was duly annotated on the title. On July 11, 1987, Mendoza
executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage in favor of petitioners.
Without petitioners knowledge, he mortgaged the same property to MESALA
to secure another loan and later on sold the same property in favor of
respondents. Respondents caused the cancellation of Mendozas title and the
issuance of a title in their name.
Petitioners filed a complaint for annulment of deed of absolute sale and
transfer certificate of title with recovery of possession and damages against
spouses Mendoza, alleging that the spouses maliciously sold to respondents
the property which was priorly sold to them and that respondents acted in
bad faith in acquiring it, the latter having had knowledge of the existence of
the Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage.

Issue: WON the respondents are purchasers in good faith/ innocent

purchasers for value.
Yes. It is a well-established principle that a person dealing with registered
land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title and is
charged with notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the
Petitioners did not cause the cancellation of Mendozas title and procure one
in their names, nor that they had their claims annotated on the same title.
Thus, at the time of the sale of the property to respondents, only the
mortgages in favor of MESALA appeared on the annotations of
encumbrances on Mendozas title. That petitioners failure to register the sale
in their favor made it possible for the Mendozas to sell the same property to
Meanwhile, the respondents did not only rely upon Mendozas title, but
personally inspected the property and verified with the Registry of Deeds if
Mendoza was indeed the registered owner. Given this factual backdrop,
respondents did indeed purchase the property in good faith and accordingly
acquired valid and indefeasible title thereto.
There being double sale of an immovable property, the trial and appellate
courts thus correctly accorded preferential rights to respondents who had the
sale registered in their favor.