Hanopol v.

Pilapil
Facts:
 This is a case of double sale of the same parcel of unregistered land sold by
Siapo’s to two different people: Hanopol and Pilapil
 Hanopol acquired the land by means of private instrument in 1938.
 However, the vendors Siapo’s, still continued to be in the possession of the
land. So Hanopol filed a complaint against them in 1948.
 In 1945, the land was sold to Pilapil through a notarized deed of sale which
was registered in the registry of deeds by the same vendor.
 In 1958, Court of First Instance declared him the exclusive owner of the land
in question and ordering therein defendants to deliver possession.

Issue: Whether or not Hanopol has the better right over the land being the first
purchaser.

SC:
 Unlike the case of Vda. De Jomoc, being that the first purchaser has the
better right over the second, Supreme Court sided with Pilapil, being a
second purchaser in good faith.
 SC stated that:
 First, Pilapil derived his right to the land from the sale to him of the said
property on December 3, 1945, long before the filing of the complaint
against the vendors in 1948. He was not made a party in the case against the
Siapos, and there was not even a claim that he had knowledge of said
litigation.
 Second, under Art. 1544,
“If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be
transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it
should be movable property.
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.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith
was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest
title, provided there is good faith.”

 In the case at bar, there appears to be no clear evidence of Hanopol's

possession of the land in controversy.
 In fact, in his complaint against the vendors, Hanopol alleged that the Siapos
took possession of the same land under claim of ownership in 1945 and
continued and were in such possession at the time of the filing of the
complaint against them in 1948.
 Consequently, since the Siapos were in actual occupancy of the property
under claim of ownership, when they sold the said land to appellee Pilapil on
December 3, 1945, such possession was transmitted to the latter, at least
constructively, with the execution of the notarial deed of sale, if not actually
and physically as claimed by Pilapil in his answer filed in the present case.
 Thus, even on this score, Hanopol cannot have a better right than appellee
Pilapil who, according to the trial court, "was not shown to be a purchaser in
bad faith".