[TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP – ESTOPPEL] foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court is modified by substituting, as the price

06 ROSENDO HERNAEZ V. MATEO HERNAEZ, ET AL.
November 13, 1915 | Trent, J. |
Doctrine: The holder of a prior equitable right has priority over the purchaser of a
subsequent estate without value, or with notice of the equitable right, but not as
against a subsequent purchaser for value and without notice.
of subrogation of the interest originally purchased by Jose Montelibano Uy-Cana,
the sum of P4,500, as set out in Exhibit 7, for the sum of P10,000, the consideration
expressed in Exhibit 10. As modified, the judgment appealed from is affirmed,
without costs. So ordered.

Facts:
● The Sps. Hernaez died, leaving several legitimate descendants.
● Domingo sold all his interest to his son Vicente.
○ Notwithstanding this, he sold his interest in his father’s estate
and 1/18 of mom’s to Alejandro Montelibano.
○ He sold another 4/18 to Jose Montelibano.
○ Both of these sales were made in connivance with Vicente.
● Jose then sold the share to Alejandro.
● Rosendo Hernaez, administrator, was notified of the said sale on Jan. 8,
1913. He then asks to be substituted as assignee of the interests of various
heirs of the estate which he had acquired by purchase. He then bought all
of Vicente’s shares.

Issue:
W/N Rosendo is estopped from seeking to subrogate himself in the rights acquired
by Montelibano in the estate.

Held:
YES.
● The rule is that the holder of a prior equitable right has priority over the
purchaser of a subsequent estate without value, or with notice of the
equitable right, but not as against a subsequent purchaser for value and
without notice.
● In this case, Rosendo is estopped from claiming the entire estates of his
father and mother because he had full knowledge of the prior sale to
Alejandro.
● He is only entitled to the remaining 13/18 shares of his mother’s estate
which remain unsold.
● Alejandro Montelibano is the rightful owner because he paid a valuable
consideration

Dispositive
It is urged that the prices in some of the deeds of sale by which Alejandro
Montelibano y Ramos purchased the interest of various heirs in the estates are
fictitious. This is a question of fact upon which both parties adduced evidence, and
we concur in the opinion of the trial court that there is no basis to the charge. For the