Case Name MIRANDA v.

SPS MALLARI
Topic Obligations of the Seller
Case No. | Date G.R. no. 218343 | November 28, 2018
Ponente Caguioa, J
Sps Mallari were the highest bidders in an execution of sale of property belonging to Sps Reyes to
enforce a judgment debt obtained by the former spouses against the latter. Miranda was found to be in
possession of the property, having bought, but failed to register the property from Sps Reyes 7 years
before. Sps Mallari filed a suit for recovery of possession against Miranda.
Case Summary
The Court found that possession and ownership had already been transferred to Miranda and thus the
Sps Reyes had no more right to sell the property to Sps Mallari, and for this reason Miranda had
better right to the property.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby PARTLY GRANTED . The Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated September 26, 2014 and its Resolution dated May 19, 2015 in CA-G.R. CV No. 97437 are
Decision
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
If the judgment obligor no longer has any right, title or interest in the property levied upon,
then there can be no lien that may be created in favor of the judgment oblige by reason of the
Doctrine levy.

RELEVANT FACTS
1. March 3, 2004: Sps Mallari filed suit for recovery of possession against Jun Miranda.
2. In complaint, Sps alleged that sometime after causing the Certificate of Sale in their favor to be
annotated in TCT No. NT-266485 they conducted an inspection of the property and discovered that it
was in the possession of Miranda who claimed to be the owner thereof.
3. Sps Mallari claimed to be entitled to the ownership and possession of the property, and prayed that
Miranda be ordered to vacate and to surrender the possession thereof to them.
4. Miranda’s Claim:
a. Substantive
i. Denied all the material allegations of Sps Mallari
ii. Claimed he is the owner of the property, having bought the property from Sps Reyes
in 1996.
iii. Despite having bought the property, Miranda failed to cause the registration of the
sale as he lost the owner’s copy of the TCT
iv. Sps Reyes no longer had interest over the property at the time of the levy thus
Spouses Mallari acquired no right over the same
b. Procedural:
i. Sps Mallari have no cause of action since the said spouses are mere claimants in an
execution sale and no formal demand to vacate was made upon him
5. Miranda then filed a third-party complaint against Sps Reyes:
a. Maintaining that Sps Reyes as sellers, impliedly warranted his protection against eviction, he
prayed that said spouses be held liable for any and all damages he may incur should he be
deprived of the subject property
6. Domiciano Reyes’ Answer (Wife died):
a. Prayed for dismissal of the third-party complaint
b. First: Admitted he sold the property to Miranda
 c.Second: Claimed he is no longer liable to Miranda should the latter be ordered to surrender
the possession and ownership of the property to Sps Mallari as Miranda was grossly negligent
in that he did not cause the registration of the property in his name despite that the sps Reyes
surrendered to Miranda all the documents pertinent to the subject property that would have
enabled the latter to cause such registration
d. Third: Further claimed that he could not be blamed as regards the levy since prior thereto, he
already informed Sps Mallari that the same was no longer his.
e. Finally: He insisted that Miranda would not shift the blame on him and his wife.
7. Procedural:
a. RTC held against Miranda
i. Warranty against eviction does not apply because Sps Reyes, as vendors, had no
participation in the execution of the sale and that it was Miranda who failed to
safeguard his right over the property
b. CA affirmed RTC
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N the Court can 1. The narration of facts both in the RTC and CA decision reveals that the
pass upon the recovery of possession was sought by Sps Mallari from Miranda
ownership of the through an accion publiciana (because there are no averments of facts
property – YES that would support an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer
2. The issue in an Accion Publiciana is the “better right of possession” of
real property independently of title.
3. Unlike forcible entry and unlawful detainer, Accion Publiciana has no
express grant in the Rules that the court hearing an accion publiciana
can provisionally resolve the issue of ownership.
4. Despite the express grant in the rules, there is jurisprudence to support
the power of the court
5. Supapo v. Sps De Jesus:
a. This Court has held that the objective of the plaintiffs in accion
publiciana is to recover possession only, not ownership.
However, where the parties raise the issue of ownership, the
courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the
parties has the right to possess the property.
6. Since the resolution of the issue of ownership in an accion publiciana,
like forcible entry and unlawful detainer, is passed upon only to
determine the issue of possession, the defense of ownership raised by
the defendant (i.e., that he, and not the plaintiff, is the rightful owner)
will not trigger a collateral attack on the plaintiff's certificate of title.

W/N Miranda has a 1. Sps Mallari Claim:

better right of a. Claim they are entitled to possession of the subject
possession over the property, bring its rightful owners by virtue of a registered
property - YES execution of sale.
b. Anchor their right on their being the highest bidders in an
execution of sale of the subject property conducted in 2003
to enforce a judgment debt that they obtained against Sps
Reyes.
2. Miranda’s Claim:
a. He has superior right as an owner of the subject property by
virtue of an unregistered Deed of Absolute Sale dated 1996
and that he occupied the subject property in the concept of
owner and is the actual tiller thereof.
 Court Ruling:
1. Provisions:
a. Art 1458 provides that the ownership of a thing sold shall be
transferred to the vendee upon the actual or construction delivery
thereof.
b. Article 1475 provides that a contract of sale is a consensual one
because it is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds
upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the
price.
c. Article 1477 provides as to transfer of ownership, that the
ownership of the thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon
the actual or constructive delivery thereof.
d. Article 712 provides ownership and other real rights over property
are acquired and transmitted in consequence of certain contracts, by
tradition. However parties may stipulate that ownership in the thing
shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price under
Article 1478.
2. The deed of Absolute Sale between Sps Reyes and Miranda was executed in
March 1996 and possession was transferred to Miranda through constructive
delivery when the Deed of Absolute Sale, a public instrument, was executed
conformably to Article 1498 and through real delivery when actual
possession was turned over to Miranda pursuant to Article 1497 of the Civil
Code.
3. Pursuant to the rules above, Miranda acquired ownership of the subject
property when he took the actual physical or at least constructive possession
thereof.
4. Since the ownership of the subject property had been transferred to
Miranda , it ceased to be owner by Sps Reyes and could not therefore by
made answerable for any judgment rendered against him.
5. If the judgment obligor no longer has any right, title or interest in the
property levied upon, then there can be no lien that may be created in
favor of the judgment oblige by reason of the levy.
6. Court Cited Jurisprudence (listed below) but they stated the same thing
mentioned above.
In this case:
1. The levy made on the subject property could not have created any lien in
favor of Sps Mallari because their judgment debtors, Sps Reyes, had no
more right, title, or interest thereto or therein at the time of the levy as they
had sold the property to Miranda 7 years earlier.
2. Thus Miranda has the better right of possession.
3. The resolution of the issues of dismissal of third-party compaints and
reconsideration of the CA decision is rendered superfluous by the foregoing.
4. As for Miranda’s claim for damages, the petition has not alleged sufficient
factual basis to justify their award.

RULING

3. Sps Mallari Claim:

a. Claim they are entitled to possession of the subject property, bring its rightful owners
by virtue of a registered execution of sale.
 b. Anchor their right on their being the highest bidders in an execution of sale of the
subject property conducted in 2003 to enforce a judgment debt that they obtained
against Sps Reyes.
4. Miranda’s Claim:
a. He has superior right as an owner of the subject property by virtue of an unregistered
Deed of Absolute Sale dated 1996 and that he occupied the subject property in the
concept of owner and is the actual tiller thereof.
Court Ruling:
7. Provisions:
a. Art 1458 provides that the ownership of a thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon
the actual or construction delivery thereof.
b. Article 1475 provides that a contract of sale is a consensual one because it is perfected at the
moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and
upon the price.
c. Article 1477 provides as to transfer of ownership, that the ownership of the thing sold shall
be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or constructive delivery thereof.
d. Article 712 provides ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and
transmitted in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition. However parties may stipulate
that ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he has fully paid the price
under Article 1478.
8. The deed of Absolute Sale between Sps Reyes and Miranda was executed in March 1996 and
possession was transferred to Miranda through constructive delivery when the Deed of Absolute Sale,
a public instrument, was executed conformably to Article 1498 and through real delivery when actual
possession was turned over to Miranda pursuant to Article 1497 of the Civil Code.
9. Pursuant to the rules above, Miranda acquired ownership of the subject property when he took the
actual physical or at least constructive possession thereof.
10. Since the ownership of the subject property had been transferred to Miranda , it ceased to be owner by
Sps Reyes and could not therefore by made answerable for any judgment rendered against him.
11. If the judgment obligor no longer has any right, title or interest in the property levied upon, then there
can be no lien that may be created in favor of the judgment oblige by reason of the levy.
12. Court Cited Jurisprudence (listed below) but they stated the same thing mentioned above.
In this case:
5. The levy made on the subject property could not have created any lien in favor of Sps Mallari because
their judgment debtors, Sps Reyes, had no more right, title, or interest thereto or therein at the time of
the levy as they had sold the property to Miranda 7 years earlier.
6. Thus Miranda has the better right of possession.
7. The resolution of the issues of dismissal of third-party compaints and reconsideration of the CA
decision is rendered superfluous by the foregoing.
8. As for Miranda’s claim for damages, the petition has not alleged sufficient factual basis to justify their
award.