Rosaroso vs.

Soria

Facts:

2 contracts of sale were executed regarding the same property belonging to Luis Rosaroso.

The 1st was made in favor of several of his children from his 1 st marriage, the 2nd in favor of Meridian Realty
Corportation.

The 2nd sale was executed by one of Luis’ children, Lucila, and her daughter on the strength of an SPA allegedly
issued by Luis.

Lucila, her daughter and and the latter’s husband and Meridian were respondents in this case.

The petitioners filed an action for the declaration of nullity of the documents as regards the 2 nd sale, alleging that
Luis was not of sound mind when the SPA was issued, and that the 2 nd sale was void as the property had already
been sold to them.

Respondents alleged that the petitioners were estopped from questioning the 2 nd sale in favor of Meridian because
they failed not only in effecting the necessary transfer of the title, but also in annotating their interests on the titles
of the questioned properties.

Meridian claimed that it had better right over the property being the 1 st to register in good faith under Art. 1544 of
the Civil Code.

Issues: 1. WON the 1st deed of sale in favor of petitioners is valid?

2. WON Meridian was in good faith and had better right to the subject property?

Held:

1. YES. The fact of the execution of the 1 st Deed of Sale was never questioned by the respondent, though they
claimed it to be simulated for lack of valid consideration.

Under the Rules of Court, it is presumed that there was sufficient consideration for a contract.

Even assuming that there was no actual delivery of the consideration, the seller would have no right to sell again
what he no longer owned.

The non-payment of the price does not revest the ownership of the thing sold to the seller, unless the contract was
duly rescinded.

2. NO. The requirement of Art. 1544, in case of double sale of an immovable property is two fold: acquisition in good
faith and registration in good faith.

Good faith must concur with the registration. If it would be shown that a buyer was in bad faith, the alleged
registration they have made amounted to no registration at all.

The buyer who has failed to know or discover that the land sold to him is in advrse possession of another is a buyer
in bad faith, where circumstances are present which should have placed the reasonable person in his guard and
inquire further, as in this case, when the subject property is in actual possession of a person other than the seller.