FUDOT v. CATTLEYA LAND, INC.

G.R. No. 171008, September 13, 2007

TINGA, J.:

SUMMARY: Cattleya land purchased 9 lots to spouses Tecsons through Deed of

Conditional Sale and subsequently, Deed of Absolute Sale. Both Deed of
Conditional and absolute sale were registered in Register of Deeds but the latter
refused due to existing notice of attachment. The attachment was eventually
canceled by compromise agreement.
Petitioner Fudot presented for registration of the property. Register of Deeds
registered the property in favor of petitioner.
ISSUE: Whether or not Fudot has a better right as the first buyer of the subject
property in accordance with Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale.
RULING: The sale between Fudot and Spouses Tecson is void. No double sale due
to forgery of signature of Asuncion. Respondent Cattleya Land, who recorded first
in the Register of Deeds without knowledge of the previous sale,
DOCTRINE: ARTICLE 1544 - 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.

FACTS:
In July 1992, respondent-Cattleya Land, Inc. asked someone to check, on its
behalf, the titles of nine (9) lots, the subject land included, which it intended to buy from
the spouses Troadio and Asuncion Tecson. Finding no defect, the respondent
purchased the nine lots to Tecsons through a Deed of Conditional Sale in November
1992 and subsequently, a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same properties in August
1993. The Deed of Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale were registered with
the Register of Deeds. However, the Register of Deeds, refused to actually annotate the
deed of sale on the titles because of the existing notice of attachment in connection with
Civil Case No. 3399 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. The attachment
was eventually cancelled by virtue of a compromise agreement between the Tecsons
and their attaching creditor which was brokered by respondent.
On January 1995, petitioner-Fudot presented for registration before the Register
of Deeds the owner’s copy of the title of the subject property, together with the deed of
sale purportedly executed by the Tecsons in favor of petitioner on 19 December 1986.
Cattleya Land, Inc, sent a letter of protest/opposition to Fudot’s application having
learned that the Register of Deeds had already registered the deed of sale in favor of
Fudot and issued a new title in her name.
On May 1995, Cattleya Land, Inc. filed its Complaint for Quieting Of Tile &/Or
Recovery Of Ownership, Cancellation Of Title With Damages before RTC of Tagbiliran
City. On June 1995, Asuncion Tecson filed a complaint-in-intervention, claiming that she
never signed any deed of sale covering any part of their conjugal property in favor of
petitioner. She averred that her signature was forged. However, Fudot alleged that the
spouses Tecson had sold to her the subject property for P20,000.00 and delivered the
owner’s copy of the title to her. She claims that she subsequently presented the said
title to the Register of Deeds but the latter refused to register the same because the
property was still under attachment.
Petitioner insists that the applicable law in this case is P.D. No. 1529, a special law
dealing precisely with the registration of registered lands or any subsequent sale
thereof, and not Article 1544 of the Civil Code which deals with immovable property not
covered by the Torrens System.
Trial Court: Sale between Spouses Tecson and petitioner is invalid due to forged
signature of Asuncion.
Court of Appeals: affirmed. CA also noted the petitioner’s failure to attend the
taking of the oral deposition and to give written interrogatories. Deed of sale is void for
lack of marital consent.

ISSUE: Whether or not Fudot has a better right as the first buyer of the subject property
in accordance with Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale.

RULING:
No. The sale between Fudot and Sps. Tecson was null and void because
Asuncion’s signature was forged in the deed. Art. 1544 of the Civil Code applies only to
a situation where the same property is validly sold to different vendees. In this case,
there is only one sale to advert to, that between the spouses Tecson and respondent-
Cattleya Land Inc. Thus, there is no double sale.
The trial court declared that the sale between the spouses Tecson and petitioner is
invalid, as it bears the forged signature of Asuncion. Said finding is based on the
unrebutted testimony of Asuncion and the trial court's visual analysis and comparison of
the signatures in her Complaint-in-Intervention and the purported deed of sale. This
finding was upheld by the Court of Appeals, as it ruled that the purported sale in
petitioner's favor is null and void, taking into account Asuncion's unrefuted deposition. In
particular, the Court of Appeals noted petitioner's failure to attend the taking of the oral
deposition and to give written interrogatories. In short, she did not take the necessary
steps to rebut Asuncion's definitive assertion.

The court affirmed the decision of trial court and CA.

Under Article 166 of the Civil Code, which was still in effect in 1986, the husband cannot
generally alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without
wife’s consent.
Also, according to the rules as to preference of ownership when there is a double sales
in case of real property, the first registrant in good faith is preferred, if none, the first
possessor in good faith and if none, the person with the oldest title in good faith.