REBECCA LEVIN VS. JOAQUIN V.

BASS
(consolidated case)

Facts:
1. 1943 – Levin, widow, 65 y/o, illiterate & knew only how to sign her name –
owner of a lot with 2 houses (No. 326 & No. 328) located at San Rafael St.,
Manila
2. At the end of Dec. 1943 – respondent Bass called Levin at her house at No.
328 representing himself to be a real estate broker & asked if Levin wanted
to sell her lot & house at No. 326 adjoining her residence w/c was at that time
occupied & rented by Japanese civilians, officers & employees of Pacific
Mining & 2 rooms privately rented by Angelita Martinez --- Levin refused
several times to the offer until she gave in as Bass told her that with the
proceeds of the sale, Levin can purchase another property at Antonio Rivera
St. w/c she will be gaining a better profit for renting it out & w/o the fear that
the other house might just be appropriated by the Japanese & she’ll be
getting nothing in return
3. Levin w/ her houseboy went twice to Antonio Rivera St. to check the property
that Bass told her she will be purchasing from the proceeds of the sale on the
house & lot on No. 326 but they were not able to enter the 2 nd flr as Bass told
them that the owner is gone to Pampanga
4. Relying on the presentation of Bass, Levin accepted the offer
5. Levin, Dr. Manlapaz & Angelita Martinez were conversing at her house when
Bass came & ask her to sign several documents which accdg to Bass were
only Authority to Sell the property (no copy was left to Levin)
6. Jan. 6, 1944 – Bass handed Levin Php 10K saying that it was the partial
payment of the property w/c was sold to a Japanese & asked her to give him
the Torrens Title of the House & Lot --- w/c title was in the possession of
Agricultural & Industrial Bank due to a mortgage in the amount of Php 2k ---
2k was deducted from 10K & they went to the Bank to pay the debt & get the
title --- remaining 8k was also taken by Bass as purported initial payment for
the property at Antonio Rivera St. (w/ receipt but only 6k was in the receipt –
Levin did not realized the difference in the amount)
7. Bass – gave Levin the rentals on the building at Antonio Rivera St. in order for
Levin to believe that she already owned that property
8. Due to suspicions, Levin sought the help of Dr. Manlapaz regarding the
property until they found out that the documents Levin signed were:
a. Deed of Absolute sale to one Estaquio – Php 30K for No. 326 house &
lot --- w/c was later on sold to Bass for Php 65K
b. Deed of Sale to Bass – Php 65K for No. 328
9. The Title of Levin was then cancelled & issued a new one in the name of Bass
10.Bass mortgaged the property to Co Chin Leng to secure payment of PHP 70K
w/c was duly annotated in the title
 11.1944 – in consideration of PHP 200K, Bass sold the No. 328 property to Mintu
(PHP 90K paid upon execution of the document & PHP 10K will be paid upon
the cancellation or removal of the notice of lis pendens & the balance of PHP
100K to be paid to his bank after securing the release of the mortgage to Co
Chin Leng
12.Mintu – Deed of Sale & owner’s duplicate COT were presented to the RD for
registration (w/c later on accdg to the RD were lost or burned) together w/ full
payment of the fees

Issue:
W/N the entry in the day book of a deed of sale w/c was presented & filed at the RD
& full payment of the reg fees constitute a complete act of registration w/c operates
to convey & affect the land?

Held: YES!

1. Voluntary Registration (sale,lease,etc)

a. If the owner’s DC be not surrendered & presented or if no payment of
registration fees be made w/in 15 days, entry in the book of the deed
of sale does not operate to convey & affect the land sold
b. (attachment, levy, execution,lis pendens) --- day book is sufficient
notice to all persons of such adverse claim
2. Mintu – innocent purchaser for value – having done the required steps in the
registration, the sale in then presumed to be valid in both properties
3. Strict & literal interpretation of the law is required in order to do justice to the
innocent purchaser for value as in this case it was the RD who failed to issue
the new TCT in the name of Mintu which made him not an innocent purchaser
for value & a innocent holder of COT --- w/c should not be imputed against
Mintu
4. ‘As bet. Not innocent persons, one of whom must suffer the consequences of
a breach of trust, the one who made it possible by his act of confidence must
bear the loss’