You are on page 1of 3



Dionisia Alorsabes owned a three hectare land in Dao, Capiz, denominated as

Lot 3603. In 1934, she sold a portion of the lot to Juanito Fuentes while the
remainder was inherited by her children Paz Dela Cruz, Rosela Dela Cruz, and
Consorcia Arroja (an adopted child), and a grandson, Francisco Abas, in
representation of his deceased mother Margarita Dela Cruz.

These four heirs executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale dated

February 4, 1964 wherein Consorcia sold her share with an area of 6,694
square meters to spouses Balleriano Mayuga.

On April 1, 1977, Paz also sold her share to Honorato de los Santos.

Later, another document entitled Extra-Judicial Partition with Deed of Sale

dated November 2, 1972 was uncovered wherein the heirs of Dionisia
purportedly adjudicated Lot 3603 among themselves and sold their shares to

On January 9, 1978, Francisco executed a Deed of Sale over Lot 3603 in favor
of Teodulfo Sigaya. Thus, the title over Lot 3603 was cancelled and a new one
was issued in the name of Teodulfo, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners

On October 14, 1986, the petitioners, who are the widow and children of
Teodulfo, filed Civil Case Nos. V-5325, V-5326, V-5327 and V-5328 for
recovery of possession and damages against Diomer Mayuga, Honorato de
los Santos, Sps. Jose Viva and Rosela Dela Cruz-Viva, and Renato Distor,

Respondents in their answers with counterclaim averred that: the Deed of

Sale executed by Francisco in favor of Teodulfo and the title thereon are null
and void for being based on a fictitious Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale;
Rosela Dela Cruz-Viva and Paz Dela Cruz, who are illiterates, were
fraudulently made to sign as vendees in the Extra-Judicial Settlement with
Sale dated 1972, when Francisco represented that they were merely signing
as witnesses to the sale of Francisco of his share to Teodulfo.

Issue: W/N petitioners are entitled to be awarded ownership based on rule on

double sale of real property
Held: No. Apart from the fact that Teodulfo is not a purchaser in good faith, the law
on double sales as provided in Art. 1544 of the Civil Code contemplates a situation
where a single vendor sold one and the same immovable property to two or more
buyers. For the rule to apply, it is necessary that the conveyance must have been
made by a party who has an existing right in the thing and the power to dispose it.
The rule 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 In this
case, respondents derive their right over their respective portions either through

inheritance or sale from Dionisia while petitioners' invoke their right from the sale of
the land from Francisco. Clearly, the law on double sales does not apply here.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court
of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Ulep vs CA
Principal petitioners SAMUEL ULEP, now deceased and substituted by his
heirs, and VALENTINA ULEP are brother-and-sister. Together with their siblings,
namely, Atinedoro Ulep and Rosita Ulep, they are children of the late Valentin Ulep.
During his lifetime, the father Valentin Ulep owned a parcel of land, identified
as Lot 840 with an area of 3,270 square meters, located at Asingan, Pangasinan.
Sometime in 1950, the older Ulep sold the one-half (1/2) eastern portion of
Lot 840, comprising an area of 1,635 square meters, to respondent Maxima
Rodico, while the remaining one-half (1/2) western portion with the same area, to
his son Atinedoro Ulep married to Beatriz Ulep, and to his other daughter Valentina
On June 5, 1952, all the transferees of Lot 840, namely, Maxima Rodico (for
the eastern portion) and Atinedoro Ulep and Valentina Ulep (for the western
portion), were jointly issued in their names Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12525.
On June 18, 1971, Atinedoro Ulep, his wife Beatriz and sister Valentina Ulep
sold the one-half (1/2) portion of the area sold to them by their father to their
brotherSamuel Ulep and the latter's wife, Susana Repogia-Ulep. The portion sold
to Samuel and Susana has an area of 817.5 square meters. The document of sale
was registered with the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan on February
20, 1973. HaTSDA
Later, an area of 507.5 square meters of the western portion of Lot 840
was sold by the spouses Atinedoro Ulep and Beatriz Ulep to respondent Warlito
Paringit and the latter's spouse Encarnacion Gante, who were then issued TCT
No. 12688 on September 23, 1975.
Evidently, all the foregoing transactions were done and effected without an actual
ground partition or formal subdivision of Lot 840.
In June 1977, respondent Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) begun constructing its
chapel on Lot 840. In the process, INC encroached portions thereof allegedly
pertaining to petitioners and blocked their pathways.
This prompted Samuel Ulep and sister Rosita Ulep to make inquiries with the Office
of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan.
Issue: W/N the respondent has the rights of ownership based on the rule of double
sale of real property
Held: Yes. Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides the statutory solution:
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 the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who
presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

Per records, the sale of the disputed 620 square-meter portion of Lot 840 to
respondent INC was made on December 21, 1954 and registered with the Registry
of Deeds of Pangasinan on January 5, 1955. In fact, INC was issued a title over the
same portion on September 23, 1975. On the other hand, the conveyance to the
spouses Samuel Ulep and Susana Repogia-Ulep happened on January 18,
1971 and the spouses registered their document of conveyance only on February
22, 1973.14
Clearly, not only was respondent INC the first buyer of the disputed area. It was also
the first to register the sale in its favor long before petitioners Samuel's and
Susana's intrusion as second buyers. Although Samuel and Susana thereafter
registered the sale made to them, they did so only after 18 years from the time INC
caused the registration of its own document of sale.
Petitioners' allegation of forgery relative to the deed of sale executed on December
21, 1954 by the spouses Atinedoro Ulep, his wife Beatriz and sister Valentina Ulep
over the 620 square-meter portion of Lot 840 cannot be sustained. As a rule, forgery
cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence, the burden for which lies on the party alleging it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision and resolution of the
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED in toto.