You are on page 1of 1

Consolidated Rural Bank vs.

CA
Facts: The Madrid brothers were the registered owners of a lot situated in San
Mateo, Isabela.
The lot was then subdivided into several more. One of the brothers sold
part of his share to Gamiao and Dayag by virtue of a Deed of Sale to which the o
ther brothers did not object. The deed was not registered but Gamiao and Dayag d
eclared the property for taxation purposes. The two sold the lot, the northern p
art to a certain Teodoro dela Cruz and the southern part to a Restituto Hernande
z. The latter then donated his part to his daughter while the former s children co
ntinued their possession of the lot.
Meanwhile, the Madrid brothers, in a deed of sale, conveyed all their ri
ghts and interests over the subject lot to Pacifico Marquez. The deed was subseq
uently registered. He then subdivided the lot into eight parts, four of which he
mortgaged to petitioner bank. The mortgage was then registered.
However Marquez defaulted in payment which caused the foreclosure of the
mortgaged properties and the lots were sold to it as the highest bidder.
The Heirs-now respondents filed a case for reconveyance and damages for the sou
thern portion of the subject property against Marquez and CRB.
The RTC handed down a decision in favor of Marquez. The Heirs interposed an appe
al with the CA, which upheld the claim of the Heirs. Hence, the instant CRB peti
tion.
Issue: w/n there is a double sale
Held: The provision of Art 1544 is not applicable in the present case. It cont
emplates a case of double or multiple sales by a single vendor. More specificall
y, it covers a situation where a single vendor sold one and the same immovable p
roperty to two or more buyers. According to a noted civil law author, it is nece
ssary that the conveyance must have been made by a party who has an existing rig
ht in the thing and the power to dispose of it. It cannot be invoked where the t
wo different contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them no
t being the owner of the property sold. And even if the sale was made by the sam
e person, if the second sale was made when such person was no longer the owner o
f the property, because it had been acquired by the first purchaser in full domi
nion, the second purchaser cannot acquire any right.
In the case at bar, the subject property was not transferred to several purchase
rs by a single vendor. In the first deed of sale, the vendors were Gamiao and Da
yag whose right to the subject property originated from their acquisition thereo
f from Rizal Madrid with the conformity of all the other Madrid brothers in 1957
, followed by their declaration of the property in its entirety for taxation pur
poses in their names. On the other hand, the vendors in the other or later deed
were the Madrid brothers but at that time they were no longer the owners since t
hey had long before disposed of the property in favor of Gamiao and Dayag.