Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 132281. September 15, 2006.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
25
title in his favor, the seller who retains the title and ownership in
the meantime can validly transfer such title and ownership by
way of a second sale to another buyer, who, in case he succeeds in
registering said second sale before he acquired notice of the first
sale, can defeat the rights of the first buyer under Article 1544 of
the Civil Code.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
GARCIA, J.:
_______________
26
27
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
_______________
28
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
29
4
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.” (Words in brackets added.)
_______________
30
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
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.
To the two (2) courts below, the two (2) sales of the lot in
question—Lot No. 3-D-1—re: (1) the sale entered into on
May 9, 1979 between Josefina, through her attorney-in-
fact, Atty. Carlos Valdez, Jr., in favor of Lagon over the
4,094-square meter portion of the former Lot No. 3 which
portion covered the entire area of Lot No. 3-D-1, referred to
herein as the first sale; and (2) the sale of Lot No. 3-D-1
entered into between Josefina and Delfin on June 4, 1987,
hereinafter referred to as the second sale.
31
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
the rights of the first buyer under Article 1544 of the Civil
Code. 6
With our decision in Josefina L. Valdez and Carlos7
L. Valdez, Jr. v. Court of Appeals and Jose Lagon,
decided on September 24, 2004 and involving, among
others, Lot No. 3-D-1, the factual landscape of this case has
completely changed.
We quote the Court’s pertinent ruling in the aforesaid
case of Valdez:
_______________
32
ATTY. VALDEZ:
Q Mr. Lagon, you testified that according to you the
construction of the same, the PCIB Isulan was a
compliance of your obligation under your contract with
the Valdezes, do you recall having testified on that?
A Yes, Sir.
Q With in (sic) how many years, by the say (sic), were you
supposed to comply with that condition by putting up a
bank or a commercial building in that area?
A Supposed to be five years, Sir.
Q From when?
A According to the affidavit, from the time I purchased
the property up to or from May 9, 1979 to 1984, Sir.
x x x x x x x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
33
ranted the suspension of the five-year period agreed upon for the
construction of a fully operational commercial building, as well as
the transfer of the aforesaid bank to the property. This is so
because absent such Torrens title under the name of x x x
[Lagon], no building permit for the construction of the buildings
could be secured.
Considering all the foregoing, the failure of x x x [Lagon] to
cause the construction of the commercial building and the
transfer of the bank to the property sold under the deed of sale
executed between him and x x x Josefina was due to x x x
[Lagon’s] own fault.
There was no need for x x x Josefina to make a
notarized demand to x x x [Lagon] or file an action to
rescind the deed of absolute sale to enable her to recover
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
34
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
10/10/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 502
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016db41e47ca7ba85262003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12