1. TUAZON vs. RAYMUNDO.

docx 1

LTD- Module 7 - by MBC

1. Julia TUAZON, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. Fausto RAYMUNDO, defendant-appellant.
G.R. No. 9372, 1914 December 15

FACTS:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendant for the possession of certain real property
described in a complaint and for the sum of P25 per month from the 12 th day of June
1913 until the property is returned, and for the sum of P6, the costs of the transfer of
the tenant’s personal property, and for the costs of the action.

Rodriguez and wife Gregoria Cruz possessed a certain real property and other
pieces of real estate which became the subject of a loan of P1,750.00 obtained from
Alfonso Debrunner. On March 3, 1913, Vicente and wife Gregoria sold the property to
plaintiff-appellee Julia Tuazon who paid said Alfonso P1,750.00 for their loan and
balance of P2,800.00 to Vicente and Gregoria.

Tuazon leased the property to Trinidad Maranga who held it in possession until she
was ousted by sheriff of Manila under an execution issued on a judgment in an action of
defendant-appellant Fausto Raymundo against Vicente and Gregoria.

Vicente and Gregoria had sold the same property to two different persons:

1. On May 1, 1911, to defendant Fausto Raymundo in a sale with the right to repurchase
(pacto de retro) for P400.00 with a period of redemption of one year but which Vicente
and Gregoria did not redeem. The sale with the right to purchase was not registered in
Registry of Property. An attempt to register was made only on June 9, 1913, but
registration was refused because the property had never been registered in the
vendors’ names.

2. On March 3, 1913, to plaintiff-appellee Julia Tuazon who registered the property as

required by law and property under a Torrens Title following Act No. 946.

ISSUE:
What effect does the prior unregistered transfer from Vicente and Gregoria to
Raymundo (defendant-appellant) have on the subsequent registered transfer made to
Tuazon (plaintiff-appallee) for value and in good faith?

HELD:
The provisions of Act No. 496 made the resolution of the question or issue very
simple. Section 50 of that Act provides in part: “But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other
voluntary instrument, except a will, purporting to convey or affect registered land,
1. TUAZON vs. RAYMUNDO.docx 2

shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as contract
between the parties and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds to
make registration. The Act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and
affect the land, and in all cares under this Act the registration shall be made in the office
of the Register of Deeds for the province(s) or city where the land lies.”

In accordance with this Section 50, no act of the parties themselves can transfer the
ownership of real estate under Torrens system. That is done by the act of registration of
the conveyance which the parties have made. It is clear, therefore, that the property in
question, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, was not transferred by the conveyance
from Vicente Rodriguez and Gregoria Baroto Cruz to the defendant in 1911. their
instrument amounted simply to a contract for conveyance which would become a
conveyance when it was registered in accordance with the requirements of Act No. 496.
Being nothing more than a contract for the sale of the land, it had no affect upon the
purchase made by the plaintiff in 1913, she having bought for value and in good faith
and her conveyance having duly registered as required by the law.

PRINCIPLES AND ANALYSIS:

1. Registration is the operative act to convey or affect registered land.

(reference: PD 1529, Section 51 and Act No. 496, Section 50)

Section 51 of PD 1529:

Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. -An owner of
registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same
in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases
or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease
or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect registered
land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a
contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to
make registration.

Act 496, Section 50:

Act 496, Section 50. An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease,
charge, or otherwise deal with the same as fully as if it had not been registered. He
may use forms of deeds, mortgages, leases, or other voluntary instruments like those
now in use and sufficient in law for the purpose intended. But no deed, mortgage,
lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will, purporting to convey or affect
registered land, shall take affect as conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only
as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register
of deeds to make registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to
1. TUAZON vs. RAYMUNDO.docx 3

convey affect the land, and in all cases under this Act the registration shall be made in
the office of register of deeds for the provinces or city where the land lies.

Cf. Tuazon vs. Raymundo

The sale of property from Vicente and Gregoria to defendant Raymundo was not
registered nor was entry made upon the Certificate of Title of said property of Vicente
and Gregoria. On the other hand, the sale to plaintiff Tuazon by the same spouses was
duly registered as required by the law. The act of registration is the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned.

Thus it did not affect the subsequent sale of the same property 2 years after to
plaintiff Tuazon.

2. Importance of Registration

Article 1544 of the Civil Code:

Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that “if the same immovable property is
sold to different vendees, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in
good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.”

Cf. Tuazon vs. Raymundo

Since the sale con pacto de retro to defendant Tuazon by same spouses Vicente and
Gregoria of the same property was not registered on May 1, 1913, then the duly
registered sale on March 3, 1913, to plaintiff Tuazon makes Tuazon the first who
registered it in good faith.