You are on page 1of 5

DOUBLE SALE and the buyer had relied in good faith on the clear -Nuguid not in bad faith.

title of the registered owner.

Carbonell vs CA 1) The OCT covering the entire property was clean
Olivares vs Gonzales and free from any annotation of an encumbrance.
- Carbonell was not aware — and she could not Thus, the petitioners could not have known of the
have been aware — of any sale of Infante as there -However, the equities of the case are with the prior sale to Juliana Salazar as, precisely, it was not
was no such sale to Infante then. Hence, Carbonell's Olivareses. The first sale with pacto de retro by the registered. The general rule is that if the property
prior purchase of the land was made in good faith. Tuvillas to Tumabini was unregistered; in contrast, sold is registered land, the purchaser in good faith
Her good faith subsisted and continued to exist the sale in favor of the Olivareses was duly has a right to rely on the certificate of title and is
when she recorded her adverse claim four (4) days recorded. under no duty to go behind it to look for flaws.
prior to the registration of Infantes's deed of
sale. Caram vs Laureta 2) Nuguid did not rely solely upon the certificate of
title. They personally inspected the subject
--Exhibit A (private document) effectively transferred -Since Caram was a registrant in bad faith, the
property. They found the same to be occupied by
the possession of the lot to the vendee Carbonell situation is as if there was no registration at all.
two houses. Neither of the occupants professed
by constitutum possessorium: thereunder the ownership over the portions of land they were
The question to be determined now is, who was first
vendor Poncio continued to retain physical occupying. The spouses Guevarra (respondent), in
in possession in good faith? Laureta.
possession of the lot as tenant of the vendee. particular, made no mention of the prior
Cruz vs Cabana unregistered sale to Juliana Salazar.
Dagupan Trading vs Maron
1) Cruz not in good faith in registering land. (was Radiowealth Finance vs Palileo
-(Note: unregistered land) what should determine
informed by Register of prior sale)
the issue are the provisions of the last paragraph of - Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments
Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the 2) Sps Legaspi, registered the deed of absolute affecting unregistered lands is "without prejudice to
effect that upon the execution and delivery of the sale ahead of Cruz a third party with a better right.”
final certificate of sale in favor of the purchaser of
land sold in an execution sale, such purchaser 3) Sps have been in possession of the land. - First sale: unrecorded >Second sale: (execution
"shall be substituted to and acquire all the right, title, sale – registered)
interest and claim of the judgment debtor to the Valdez vs. CA
property as of the time of the levy." -purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriffs
-adverse claim of Valdez was annotated earlier execution sale only steps into the shoes of the
-that he had none (no more interest): for a that the Deed of Assignment to Viernes. judgment debtor, and merely acquires the latter's
considerable time prior to the levy, his interest had interest in the property sold as of the time the
- The rule is clear that a prior right is accorded to
already been conveyed. property was levied upon. (no more interest:
the vendee who first recorded his right in good
already sold property)
David vs Bandin faith over an immovable property.
Tanedo vs CA
-petitioners bought the property when it was still Nuguid vs CA
unregistered land. The defense of having First Sale: to Ricardo (not registered)
-first sale to Juliana Salazar was not registered while
purchased the property in good faith may be
the sale to the Nuguid was registered. Guevarras Second Sale: brothers/sisters Tanedo (registered)
availed of only where registered land is involved
contend the registration was in bad faith.
-which of these two deeds should be given effect is CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES Lo vs KJS
the registration of the sale.
-as in any other contract of sale, the vendor or
Sps Tomas vs Espenilla assignor is bound by certain warranties. More
Moles vs CA specifically, the first paragraph of Article 1628 of the
-knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first Civil Code provides:
sale defeats his rights even if he is first to -a certification (written) to the effect that the
register, since such knowledge taints his linotype machine bought by petitioner was in A-1 The vendor in good faith shall be responsible for the
registration with bad faith. condition was issued by Diolosa in favor of Moles. existence and legality of the credit at the time of
the sale, unless xxx
-a buyer of real property in the possession of -considered EXPRESS warranty (not merely dealer’s
persons other than the seller must be wary and talk) From the above provision, petitioner, as vendor or
should investigate the rights of those in assignor, is bound to warrant the existence and
possession. Without such inquiry, the buyer can -The present case involves one with and express legality of the credit at the time of the sale or
hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith and warranty. Consequently, the general rule on assignment.
cannot have any right over the property. rescission of contract, which is four years shall
apply. Indeed, by warranting the existence of the credit,
Summary: petitioner should be deemed to have ensured the
-complaint filed w/in a year performance thereof in case the same is later found
>What can be recorded? to be inexistent. He should be held liable to pay to
Note: apparently contradicts Engg vs CA > written
respondent the amount of his indebtedness.
1) ADVERSE CLAIM contract- 10 yrs

>Land is REGISTERED: first who recorded in GF Catungal vs Rodriguez

Engg Machinery vs CA
>Land is UNREGISTERED: not necessarily one who Payment of balance of purchase price is
first recorded. ONE WHO HAS BETTER RIGHT -complaint filed in the trial court reveals that the
CONDITIONED on acquisition of right of way. Held:
original action is NOT really for enforcement of the
not condition on perfection of contract but only on
(in execution sale (2nd sale) of MORTGAGED land: warranties against hidden defects, but one for
obligation to pay.
first sale is upheld EVEN IF NOT RECORDED breach of the contract itself.
Remedy (in case of nonfulfillment):
>Defense of acquisition in GOOD FAITH applies Contract here (with EXPRESS warranty is written)
only to REGISTERED LAND. hence complaint filed w/in prescriptive period 1545: 1) rescind: not to proceed in sale and
demand return of downpayment or 2) waive
>Registration in BAD FAITH IS NO REGISTRATION Prescriptive periods: (Accdg to Sir)
condition and proceed w/ sale (despite lack of road
1) Implied Warranty – 6 mos. access)
2) Express Warranty
NOT written – 4 yrs (rescission in general)
WRITTEN contract – 10 yrs
Under the old Civil Code, the ownership was of the sale and that thereafter the 30-day period
consolidated in the vendee a retro by operation of started running and ultimately expired.
REDEMPTION law. Accordingly, upon the failure of Valentin
Gallano, as the vendor a retro, to redeem the Lao vs CA
Ramos vs CA
property subject of the pacto de retro sale within the
-agreement between the Better Homes Realty and
-pacto de retro sale held equitable mortgage period agreed upon, the vendee a retro, Alfonso
N. Domingo Realty & Housing Corporation (Lao),
Flores, became the absolute owner of the subject
manifestly one of equitable mortgage.
-the two deeds (of sale) were executed by reason property.
of the loan extended by Oscar Ramos to private 1) possession of the property remained with
Adelaida Ramos and that the purchase price stated Note: 1607 (registration of consolidation of title)
Manuel Lao who was the beneficial owner of the
therein was the amount of the loan itself. does not impair ownership/title.
property, before, during and after the alleged sale.

-to create the presumption enunciated by Article -title is automatically vested to vendee subject only
2) the option given to Manuel Lao to purchase the
1602, the existence of one circumstance is to resolutory condition: redemption within stipulated
property in controversy had been extended twice.
enough. The said article expressly provides therefor period.
(These extensions clearly represent the extension of
"in any of the following cases”xxx time to pay the loan given to Manuel Lao upon his
Alonzo vs IAC
failure to pay said loan on its maturity.) Mr. Lao was
-there was no written notice given by the vendors even granted an additional loan of P20,000.00.
De Leon vs Salvador to their co-heirs. But, Alonzos occupied the lands
sold and the co-heirs lived on same lot. Hence, there 3) Lao and his brother were in such "dire need of
(No full text) was actual notice. money" that they mortgaged their townhouse units
(compelling them to sign the document purporting to
-alleged gross inadequacy of price is not material -the right of redemption was invoked be a sale after they were told that the same was just
when the law gives the owner the right to redeem as not days but years (13 yrs) after the sales were for "formality."
when a sale is made at public auction, upon the made in 1963 and 1964.
theory that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the Lanuza vs De Leon
owner to effect redemption. -(co-heirs were aware of sale) By requiring written
proof of such notice, we would be closing our eyes Held: equitable mortgage
to the obvious truth in favor of their palpably false
1) gross inadequacy of the price – (prop sold new
claim of ignorance, thus exalting the letter of the law
Flores vs So house of strong materials + TV + ref + =P3,000)
over its purpose. The purpose is clear enough: to
make sure that the redemptioners are duly notified. 2) non-transmission of ownership to the vendees
-The pacto de retro sale between Gallano and
Flores was executed when the Civil Code of Spain Deed states that only after Lanuza fails to pay within
Now, when did the 30-day period of redemption
was still in effect. It is provided in Article 1509 3 mos. would the prop automatically pass.
thereof that if the vendor does not comply with the
-This stipulation is contrary to the nature of a
provisions of Article 1518, (i.e. to return the price, While we do not here declare that this period started
true pacto de retro sale under which a vendee
plus expenses) the vendee shall from the dates of such sales in 1963 and 1964, we
acquires ownership of the thing sold immediately
acquire irrevocably the ownership of the thing do say that sometime between those years and
upon execution of the sale, subject only to the
sold. 1976, when the first complaint for redemption
vendor's right of redemption.
was filed, the other co-heirs were actually informed
3) delay in the filing of the petition for “Conventional redemption xxx with the obligation to about the sale, its terms and conditions, as well as
consolidation. (the period of redemption expired on comply with the provisions of article 1616 and other its efficacy and status.
July 12, 1961 and yet this action was not brought stipulations which may have been agreed
until October 19, 1962) upon.” Note: Alonzo case was made an exception due to its
peculiar circumstances
-All the while, the Lanuzas remained in possession Hence, must comply with x x x the other
of the properties they were supposed to have sold stipulations (i.e. 30% per annum money equivalent)
and they remained in possession even long after of the Memorandum of Agreement/Dacion en
Ectuban vs. CA
they had lost their right of redemption. Pago it freely entered into with respondent.
(no full text)

-notice to prospective redemptioner of the sale by a

Capulong vs. CA Primary Structures vs. Valencia
co-owner may be given EITHER by the vendor or
-equitable mortgage even if the option to -Art. 1621 of the Civil Code expresses that the right by the vendee, citing the case of De Conejero vs.
repurchase is not reserved in the deed of sale of redemption it grants to an adjoining owner of the CA, 16 SCRA 775, where a copy of deed of sale
property conveyed may be defeated if it can be was presented.
-the deed of sale and the document embodying the shown that the buyer or grantee does not own any
option to buy were prepared, signed, and notarized other rural land. (no evidence that buyers are not
on the same day owners of rural land) Hence, right of redemption was LEASE
-the deed of absolute sale and the document giving
Guzman, Bocaling vs. Bonevie
the right to repurchase were, in fact, only one -there was a statement in the deed of sale to the
transaction of sale pacto de retro which must be effect that the vendors have complied with the -Contract of Lease specifically stated that Bonevies
construed as an equitable mortgage. required written notice. Primary Structures was not could exercise the right of first priority, "all things
a party to the deed of sale Valencia and Mendoza and conditions being equal." The Court reads this
-Capulong remained in actual physical possession
and has had no hand in the preparation and mean that there should be identity of the terms
of the land and enjoyed the fruits thereof confirms
execution of the deed of sale. It could not thus be and conditions to be offered to the Bonnevies
the real intention of the parties to secure the
considered a binding equivalent of the obligatory and all other prospective buyers, with the
payment of the loans with the land as security.
written notice prescribed by the Code. Bonnevies to enjoy the right of first priority.

-No written notice of sale hence, period of [ The selling price qouted to the Bonnevies was
Solid Homes, Inc. vs CA redemption had yet to commence the right to P600,000.00, to be fully paid in cash less only the
redeem was sought to be exercised. mortgage lien of P100,000.00. On the other hand,
Redemption price + all cost of money equivalent to the selling price offered to and accepted by the
30% per annum, registration fees, real estate and -The written notice of sale is mandatory. This
Guzman was only P400,000.00 and only
documentary stamp taxes and other incidental Court has long established the rule that P137,500.00 was paid in cash while the balance of
expenses notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner,
P272,500.00 was to be paid "when the property
the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the (was) cleared of tenants or occupants ]
-Art 1616 NOT restrictive or exclusive selling co-owner in order to remove all uncertainties

-1616 should be construed together with Art. 1601:

-Only if the Bonnevies failed to exercise their right can the non-payment of the rent for the month of Legar Mgt. vs. CA
of first priority could Reynoso lawfully sell the subject August, 1985 be a ground for termination of the
property to others, and at that only under the same lease without a demand to pay and to vacate. -lease agreements with no specified period, but in
terms and conditions offered to the Bonnevies. which rentals are paid monthly, are considered to
be on a month-to-month basis. xxx They are for a
Hence, sale to Guzman may be rescinded. definite period and expire after the last day of
United Realty vs. CA any given thirty-day period, upon proper demand
and notice by the lessor, to vacate. xxx
-two contracts of lease show that its period is from
Yek Seg Co vs. CA month to month and that the lease may be -lease over the subject property was on a month-to-
terminated when either party gives a 5 days notice month basis, and that there was proper notice of
-the rental in this case was paid monthly and the in writing. non-renewal of contract and demand for vacation
term had not been expressly agreed upon, the
lease was understood under Article 1687 to be -such a stipulation between the parties -therefore, the verbal lease agreement entered into
terminable from month to month. At the time the demonstrates that the agreement of lease is for a has been validly terminated.
petitioner was asked to vacate the leased definite period and not for an indefinite period
premises, the lease contract had already expired
and therefore, could no longer be extended -Since the lease agreement is for a definite period
it follows that petitioner has a right to judicially
-even if such contract had not yet expired, its eject private respondent from the premises as an
extension would still be subject to the sound exception to the general rule provided for in
discretion of the court. Section 4 of P.D. No. 20 which provides as follows:

-petitioner had already enjoyed a de facto extension Except when the lease is for a definite period, the
for several years due to the pendency of appeals. provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines insofar as they refer to
dwelling unit or land on which another's dwelling is
located shall be suspended until otherwise
Yap vs. Cruz
provided; x x x
-When the Yap and the landlord executed a new
1) a greater portion of two apartments is not used
contract of lease, the lease of Dr. Cruz was still valid
by Father Torralba (lessee) as his residence but
and subsisting.
for a Buddhist Temple. (P.D. No. 20 and B.P. No.
-the lease of Cruz is on a month-to-month basis 25 which cover only dwelling units)
and may be terminated at the end of any month
2) During pendency of appeal, Father Torralba died
after proper notice or demand to vacate has been,
thus lease agreements were effectively terminated
-lack of proper notice or demand to vacate upon
by his death.
the Cruz is clearly evident. In the absence of such
notice, the lease of private respondent continues to
be in force and can not be deemed to have expired
as of the end of the month automatically. Neither