Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 85082 February 25, 1991
SPOUSES PASTOR VALE! a"# V$RG$N$A VALE!, petitioners,
vs.
%ONORA&LE COURT OF APPEALS AN FEL$C$A V$ERNES, FRANC$SCO ANTE, AN
ANTON$O ANTE,respondents.
Sumulong Law Offices for petitioners.
Antonio A. Ante for respondents Ante.
Jose A. Rico for respondent Viernes.

GANCA'CO, J.:p
This is a case of double sale of real propert !here both vendees re"istered the sales !ith the
Re"ister of Deeds and each produced their respective o!ner#s duplicate cop of the certificate of title
to the propert.
Spouses Francisco $nte and Manuela $nte !ere the re"istered o!ners of a parcel of land located at
%&th $venue, Murph, 'ue(on )it, !ith an area of appro*i+atel ,%-..& s/uare +eters as
evidenced b Transfer )ertificate of Title 0T)T1 No. 232-4% issued b the Re"ister of Deeds of
'ue(on )it. Said spouses e*ecuted a special po!er of attorne in favor of their son, $ntonio $nte,
a la!er, authori(in" hi+ to e*ecute an docu+ent convein" b !a of +ort"a"e or sale a portion
or the !hole of said propert, to receive pa+ent and dispose of the sa+e as he +a dee+ fit and
proper under the pre+ises.
1
$ntonio $nte offered to sell the lot to 5liseo Viernes, !ho !as occupin" the sa+e !ith the
per+ission of $nte. Viernes, ho!ever, turned do!n the offer as he did not have +one. $ntonio $nte
then told Viernes that he !ill instead sell the propert to Pastor Valde( and Vir"inia Valde(.
2
$ntonio $nte had the said lot subdivided into 6ot $ !ith an area of %4& s/uare +eters and 6ot 7 !ith
an area or 83-..& s/uare +eters, each lot havin" its correspondin" technical description.
On 9une 2-, 2:4&, $ntonio $nte, as attorne in fact, e*ecuted a deed of sale of 6ot $ in favor of
spouses Pastor Valde( and Vir"inia Valde(, for and in consideration of the a+ount of P22%,&&&.&&
(
On Februar 2%, 2:4., in the sa+e capacit, $ntonio $nte sold to said Valde( spouses, 6ot 7 for the
a+ount of P284,&&&.&&.
)
The Valde( spouses de+anded fro+ $ntonio $nte the deliver of the o!ner#s duplicate cop of T)T
No. 232-4% coverin" said t!o 0%1 lots. $nte pro+ised the+ that he !ill deliver the title to the+ in a
fe! das.
In the +ean!hile petitioners started fencin" the !hole lot !ith ce+ent hollo! bloc;s in the presence
of spouses 5liseo and Felicidad Viernes. 5*cept for the "ate, it too; the+ t!o !ee;s to finish fencin"
the !hole lot. On said occasion the Viernes spouses !ere infor+ed b the Valde( spouses that the
!ere fencin" the sa+e as the purchased the land fro+ $ntonio $nte.
$s $nte failed to deliver the o!ner#s duplicate certificate of title de+anded b the Valde( spouses,
the latter filed their affidavit of adverse clai+ over the sub<ect lot !ith the Re"ister of Deeds of
'ue(on )it on Septe+ber ,, 2:4% as the vendees of the propert.
5
=pon in/uiries +ade, the Valde( spouses learned that $ntonio $nte had delivered the o!ner#s
duplicate certificate of title as a collateral to one Dr. )a+ilo >ar+a of Purdue Street., )ubao 'ue(on
)it to secure his rentals in arrears in the a+ount of P:,&&&.&&. On Septe+ber 28, 2:48, upon the
proddin" of the Valde( spouses, $ntonio $nte !rote to Dr. ? Mrs. >ar+a to re/uest the+ to entrust
the o!ner#s duplicate cop of the title of the /uestioned lot to the Valde( spouses !ith the assurance
that $nte !ill pa his indebtedness to the+.
*
The >ar+a spouses turned over to the Valde( spouses
the said o!ner#s duplicate certificate of title after said Valde( spouses paid for the obli"ation of
$ntonio $nte to the >ar+a spouses.
The Valde( spouses then proceeded to re"ister the t!o deeds of sale dated 9une 2-, 2:4& and
Februar 2%, 2:42
+
!ith the Re"ister of Deeds of 'ue(on )it b presentin" the o!ner#s duplicate
cop of the title. The !ere, ho!ever, infor+ed that the said o!ner#s duplicate certificate of title had
been declared null and void per order of 9ud"e Tutaan dated Nove+ber 2&, 2:4%. The also found
out that spouses Francisco and Manuela $nte earlier filed a petition for the issuance of a ne!
o!ner#s duplicate certificate of title and to declare null and void the lost o!ner#s duplicate certificate
of title.
The Valde( spouses also discovered that the Re"ister of Deeds cancelled T)T No. 232-4% and in
lieu thereof issued T)T No. %:844: in the na+e of Felicidad Viernes on the basis of a deed of
assi"n+ent of the sa+e propert dated Februar 2., 2:4% e*ecuted b $ntonio $nte in her favor.
@hen Vir"inia Valde( in/uired fro+ $ntonio $nte !h he e*ecuted the said deed of assi"n+ent
!hen he had previousl sold the sa+e lot to the+, $nte replied that the could sue hi+ in court.
Thus, the Valde(es filed their adverse clai+ over the lot covered b T)T No. %:844: in the na+e of
Felicidad Viernes. The filed the co+plaint in 7aran"a office of San Ro/ue, 'ue(on )it a"ainst
Felicidad Viernes but as no a+icable settle+ent !as reached, the Valde(es filed a co+plaint in the
Re"ional Trial )ourt of 'ue(on )it see;in" a+on" others, that the order dated Nove+ber 2&, 2:4%
of the )ourt of First Instance of 'ue(on )it authori(in" the issuance of a ne! o!ner#s duplicate
certificate of title in the na+e of Francisca $nte be declared null an voidA that the deed of
assi"n+ent dated Februar 2., 2:4% e*ecuted b $ntonio $nte in favor of Felicidad Viernes be
cancelled and revo;edA that T)T No. %:844: in the na+e of Felicidad Viernes in the Re"ister of
Deeds of 'ue(on )it be cancelled and declared null and voidA that the Re"ister of Deeds of
'ue(on )it be ordered to reinstate, revalidate and "ive full force and effect to the o!ner#s duplicate
cop of T)T No. 232-4% in the na+e of spouses Francisco and Manuela $nte and declare
petitioners as the true and la!ful o!ners of the propertA orderin" respondents Viernes and all
persons clai+in" ri"ht under the+ to vacate the propert, and to pa da+a"es and costs to
petitioners.
$fter trial on the +erits before !hich the $ntes !ere declared in default, a decision !as rendered b
the trial court on $pril :, 2:4,, the dispositive part of !hich reads as follo!sB
@C5R5FOR5, the co+plaint is dis+issed as a"ainst defendants Vierneses, and
defendants $ntes are hereb ordered to pa to plaintiff, as praed for in their
co+plaint, as follo!sB
Defendant $ntes are hereb ordered to pa actual da+a"es in the a+ount of
P%-&,&&&.&& to plaintiffs.
Defendants $ntes are hereb ordered to pa +oral and e*e+plar da+a"es in the
a+ount of P2-,&&&.&& and e*e+plar da+a"es in the a+ount of P-,&&&.&&.
Defendants $ntes, are hereb ordered to pa P-,&&&.&& for attorne#s fees.
SO ORD5R5D.
8
Not satisfied there!ith the Valde(es interposed an appeal therefro+ to the )ourt of $ppeals !herein
in due course a decision !as rendered on Septe+ber 2%, 2:44, affir+in" in toto the appealed
decision, !ith costs a"ainst the appellants.
Cence this petition for revie! on certiorari filed b the Valde(es !herein the follo!in" issues are
raisedB
2. @hether the Order dated Nove+ber 2&, 2:48 declarin" as null and void the
O!ner#s cop of Transfer )ertificate of Title No. 232-4% and orderin" the issuance of
a ne! O!ner#s cop of said title should be set aside havin" been secured
fraudulentl and in bad faith b Francisco $nte and $ntonio $nte !ho had alread
sold the propert to the spouses Pastor and Vir"inia Valde( and !ho ;ne! full !ell
that the said O!ner#s cop of said title has never been lost.
%. $s bet!een plaintiffDspouses Pastor and Vir"inia Valde(, petitioners in this case
and defendant Felicidad Viernes, one of the private respondents, !ho is entitled to
the sub<ect lotE
8. @ho is entitled to da+a"esE
9
The petition is i+pressed !ith +erit.
$rticle 2-33 of the )ivil )ode provides as follo!sB
$rt. 2-33. If the sa+e thin" should have been sold to different vendees, the
o!nership shall be transferred to the person !ho +a have first ta;en possession
thereof in "ood faith, if it should be +ovable propert.
Should it be i++ovable propert, the o!nership shall belon" to the person ac/uirin"
it !ho in "ood faith first recorded it in the Re"istr of Propert.
Should there be no inscription, the o!nership shall pertain to the person !ho in "ood
faith !as first in the possessionA and, in the absence thereof, to the person !ho
presents the oldest title, provided there is "ood faith.
Fro+ the aforesaid provision of the la!, it is clear that if +ovable propert is sold to different
vendees, the o!nership shall be transferred to the person !ho +a have first ta;en possession
thereof in "ood faith. Co!ever, should the sub<ect of the sale be i++ovable propert, the o!nership
shall vest in the person ac/uirin" it !ho in "ood faith first recorded it in the re"istr of propert.
Should none of the vendees inscribe the sale in the Re"istr of Propert, then the o!nership of the
sub<ect real propert shall pertain to the person !ho in "ood faith !as first in possessionA and, in the
absence thereof, to the person !ho presents the oldest title, provided there is "ood faith.
In this case, 6ot $ of the sub<ect propert !as sold to the petitioners b $ntonio $nte, as attorneDinD
fact, on 9une 2-, 2:4&, !hile 6ot 7 !as sold b the sa+e attorneDinDfact to petitioners on Februar
2%, 2:42.
10
Since the o!ner#s cop of T)T No. 232-4% !as not delivered in due ti+e to the
petitioners b $ntonio $nte despite his pro+ise to deliver the sa+e in a fe! das, petitioners
re"istered their notice of adverse clai+ over the said propert on Septe+ber ,, 2:4% !ith the
Re"ister of Deeds of 'ue(on )it !herein it !as dul annotated as follo!sB
P5D8&&3FTD232-4% G $ffidavit of $dverse )lai+ G
Filed under s!orn state+ent of Pastor Valde( ? Vir"inia ). Valde( clai+in" that the
are the vendees of the propert described herein, but the title !as not delivered
0Doc. %-8, Pa"e -2, 7;. I of the Not. Pub. of '. )it, Prudencio @. Valido1
Date of Instru+ent G $u"ust 2:, 2:4%
Date of Inscription G Sept. ,, 2:4%
11
Co!ever, earlier, that is on Februar 2., 2:4%, a Deed of $ssi"n+ent of the sa+e propert !as
e*ecuted b $ntonio $nte in favor of respondent Felicidad Viernes.
12
$nte filed a petition for the
issuance of another o!ner#s duplicate cop of T)T No. 232-4% !ith the then )ourt of First Instance
of 'ue(on )it on the "round that the o!ner#s duplicate cop had been lost. The petition !as
"ranted in an order dated Nove+ber 2&, 2:48 declarin" null and void the lost o!ner#s duplicate cop
of the title and orderin" the issuance of a ne! o!ner#s duplicate cop of the title in favor of the $ntes.
Said o!ner#s duplicate cop !as delivered b $nte to respondent Viernes !ho thereafter to"ether
!ith the Deed of $ssi"n+ent presented the sa+e to the Re"ister of Deeds of 'ue(on )it for
re"istration on Nove+ber 22, 2:4%. Thus, on the basis thereof, T)T No. 232-4% !as cancelled and
T)T No. %:844: !as issued in the na+e of respondent Felicidad Viernes.
Petitioners a"ain filed an adverse clai+ this ti+e on the propert covered b T)T No. %:844: in the
na+e of respondent Viernes.
Fro+ the fore"oin" set of facts there can be no /uestion that the sale of the sub<ect lot to petitioners
!as +ade lon" before the e*ecution of the Deed of $ssi"n+ent of said lot to respondent Viernes
and that petitioners annotated their adverse clai+ as vendees of the propert as earl as Septe+ber
,, 2:4% !ith the Re"ister of Deeds of 'ue(on )it. On the other hand the deed of $ssi"n+ent in
favor of Viernes of the said lot !as re"istered !ith the Re"ister of Deeds of 'ue(on )it onl on
Nove+ber 22, 2:4% !hereb a ne! title !as issued in the na+e of Viernes as above stated.
The rule is clear that a prior ri"ht is accorded to the vendee !ho first recorded his ri"ht in "ood faith
over an i++ovable propert.
1(
In this case, the petitioners ac/uired sub<ect lot in "ood faith and for
valuable consideration fro+ the $ntes and as such o!ners petitioners fenced the propert ta;in"
possession thereof. Thus, !hen petitioners annotated their adverse clai+ in the Re"ister of Deeds of
'ue(on )it the thereb established a superior ri"ht to the propert in /uestion as a"ainst
respondent Viernes.
1)
On the other hand, respondent Viernes cannot clai+ "ood faith in the purchase of the sub<ect lot and
the subse/uent re"istration of the Deed of $ssi"n+ent in her favor. 5ven before the petitioners
purchased the lot fro+ the $ntes respondent Viernes# husband !as first "iven the option to purchase
the sa+e b $ntonio $nte but he declined because he had no +one and so he !as infor+ed that it
!ould be sold to petitioners. $fter petitioners purchased the lot the i++ediatel fenced the sa+e
!ith the ;no!led"e and !ithout ob<ection of respondent Viernes and her husband and the !ere
infor+ed b the petitioners about their purchase of the sa+e. Moreover, !hen petitioners annotated
their adverse clai+ as vendees of the propert !ith the Re"ister of Deeds of 'ue(on )it, it !as
effectivel a notice to the !hole !orld includin" respondent Viernes.
Respondent $nte obviousl in collusion !ith respondent Viernes sold the sa+e propert to Viernes
!hich !as earlier sold to petitioners, b virtue of a subse/uent Deed of $ssi"n+ent. It !as
fraudulentl +ade to appear that the o!ner#s duplicate cop of T)T No. 232-4% !as lost throu"h a
petition filed !ith the trial court to nullif the said o!ner#s duplicate cop and for the issuance of
another o!ner#s duplicate cop.
=nfortunatel, such fraud !as un+as;ed as earl as 9ul 23, 2:42 !hen respondent Francisco $nte,
in )ivil )ase No. %:,2., filed an ur"ent +otion for the issuance of a subpoena and subpoena duces
tecum to re/uire Pa( >ar+a of 4 Purdue Street, )ubao, 'ue(on )it to produce before the court on
9ul 2,, 2:42 at %B&& o#cloc; p.+. at the scheduled preDtrial of the case, the o!ner#s duplicate cop
of T)T No. 232-4% issued b the Re"ister of Deeds in the na+e of the $ntes as the sa+e !as
entrusted to Pa( >ar+a as a realtor for the proposed sale of the propert !hich did not
+ateriali(e.
15
Respondent Viernes ad+itted in her ans!er dated 9anuar ., 2:43 that she ;ne! of
the filin" in court of said ur"ent +otion and that the branch cler; of court issued the
correspondin"subpoena.
1*
Thus, respondent $nte, as !ell as respondent Viernes, ;ne! that the
o!ner#s duplicate cop of certificate of title No. 232-4% !as never lost, conse/uentl the filin" of the
petition in court for the issuance of a ne! one !as attended !ith fraud and "ross +isrepresentation.
$s a +atter of fact, as hereinabove discussed, upon the ur"in" of petitioners, respondent $ntonio
$nte !rote to the >ar+a spouses to entrust the T)T to petitioners on Septe+ber 8&, 2:48
1+
and
!hen petitioners paid the standin" account of $nte to the >ar+as said o!ner#s duplicate cop !as
delivered b the >ar+as to the petitioners. The bad faith of respondents Viernes and $nte is
obvious.
Further, even !hile the notice of adverse clai+ of Septe+ber ,, 2:4% filed b the petitioners on T)T
No. 232-4% in the Re"ister of Deeds !as still e*istin" and had not been cancelled, on Nove+ber 22,
2:4% the Re"ister of Deeds nevertheless cancelled said T)T and issued a ne! title in favor of
respondent Viernes. The annotation !as not even carried over nor !as it ordered cancelled under
the ne! title issued to respondent Viernes. The Re"ister of Deeds andFor his subordinates
apparentl ielded to the fraudulent desi"n of respondents Viernes and $nte.
$n e*a+ination of the decision of the trial court dated $pril :, 2:4, sho!s that there are no findin"s
of facts to serve as basis for its conclusions.
18
Section 23, $rticle VIII of the )onstitution +andates
as follo!sB
No decision shall be rendered b an court !ithout e*pressin" therein clearly and
distinctly the factsand the la! on which it is based.
No petition for revie! or +otion for reconsideration of a decision shall be refused due
course or denied !ithout statin" the le"al basis therefor. 05+phasis supplied.1
Section 2, Rule 8, of the Rules of )ourt also provides clearl as follo!sB
Sec. 2. Rendition of judgments. $ll <ud"+ents deter+inin" the +erits of cases
shall be in !ritin" personall and directl prepared b the <ud"e, statin" clearl and
distinctl the facts and the la! on !hich it is based, si"ned b hi+, and filed !ith the
cler; of the court. 05+phasis supplied.1
That is the reason !h this )ourt, throu"h $d+inistrative )ircular No. 2 dated 9anuar %4, 2:44,
re+inded all <ud"es Hto +a;e co+plete findin"s of facts in their decisions, and scrutini(e closel the
le"al aspects of the case in the li"ht of the evidence presented. hey should a!oid the tendency to
generali"e and form conclusions without detailing the facts from which such conclusions are
deduced.H
Of course, !hen a petition for revie! or +otion for reconsideration of a decision of the court is
denied due course, or is other!ise denied, it is not necessar that such findin"s of facts be +ade.
Co!ever, the denial +ust state the le"al basis thereof.
In the present case, the threeDpa"ed decision of the trial court contained in the first t!o pa"es a
state+ent of the alle"ations of the pleadin"s of the parties and enu+erates the !itnesses presented
and the e*hibits +ar;ed durin" the trial. Thereafter, the trial court arrived at the follo!in" conclusionB
$fter considerin" the evidence on record, this )ourt finds that plaintiff have failed to prove
their case as a"ainst defendant Felicidad Viernes, but proved their case a"ainst defaulted
defendants $ntes. The )ourt finds that there is no sufficient proof of ;no!led"e or bad
faith on the part of defendant Vierneses, and on the basis of e*istin" <urisprudence, a
third person !ho in "ood faith purchases and re"isters a propert cannot be deprived of
his title as a"ainst plaintiff !ho had previousl purchased sa+e propert but failed to
re"ister the sa+e.
19
This is not !hat is conte+plated under the )onstitution and the Rules as a clear and distinct
state+ent of the facts on the basis of !hich the decision is rendered. The fore"oin" one para"raph
state+ent constitute a +ere conclusion of facts and of la! arrived at b the trial court !ithout statin"
the facts !hich serve as the basis thereof. Indeed the conclusion of fact therein that petitioners had
not re"istered the sale to the+ is traversed b the records !hich sho! on the contrar, petitioners
earlier re"istered the sale to the+. The court state+ent in the decision that a part has proven his
case !hile the other has not, is not the findin"s of facts conte+plated b the )onstitution and the
rules to be clearl and distinctl stated.
=nfortunatel, the appellate court overloo;ed this fatal defect in the appealed decision. It +erel
adopted the alle"ed findin"s of facts of the trial court. $lthou"h it +ade so+e findin"s on ho! the
deed of assi"n+ent in favor of respondent Viernes ca+e about, it is far fro+ co+plete and is hardl
a substantial co+pliance !ith the +andate aforestated.
$s it is no!, this )ourt has before it a challen"ed decision that failed to state clearl and distinctl
the facts on !hich it is predicated. This )ourt has said a"ain and a"ain that it is not a trier of facts
and that it relies, on the factual findin"s of the lo!er court and the appellate court !hich are
conclusive. 7ut as it is, in this case, the )ourt has to !ade throu"h the records and +a;e its o!n
findin"s of facts, rather than further dela the disposition of the case b re+andin" the records for
further proceedin"s.
Cence, the appealed decision should be struc; do!n.
@C5R5FOR5, the petition is >R$NT5D. The appealed decision of the appellate court dated
Septe+ber 2%, 2:44 is hereb S5T $SID5 and another <ud"+ent is hereb rendered declarin" the
order of the trial court dated Nove+ber 2&, 2:4% null and void and reinstatin" the o!ner#s duplicate
cop of T)T No. 232-4% in the possession of the petitionersA declarin" the petitioners to have the
superior ri"ht to the propert in /uestion and to be the true and la!ful o!ners of the sa+eA directin"
the Re"ister of Deeds of 'ue(on )it to cancel T)T No. %:844: in the na+e of respondent
Felicidad Viernes and to issue a ne! title in favor of petitioners spouses Pastor and Vir"inia Valde(
upon the presentation of the o!ner#s duplicate cop of T)T No. 232-4%A directin" respondent
Felicidad Viernes and other persons clai+in" ri"hts under her residin" in the pre+ises of the land in
/uestion to vacate the sa+e i++ediatel and to re+ove !hatever i+prove+ent she has placed in
the pre+isesA and orderin" private respondents to <ointl and severall pa the petitioners the
a+ounts of P2-,&&&.&& as +oral da+a"es, P-,&&&.&& e*e+plar da+a"es, and P%&,&&&.&& as
attorne#s fees. The doc;et fees for the a+ount of da+a"es and attorne#s fees a!arded to the
petitioners, if not et dul paid, shall constitute a prior lien in favor of the "overn+ent, before the
satisfaction of the <ud"+ent in favor of the petitioners. )osts a"ainst private respondents.
SO ORD5R5D.
#ar!asa$ %ru"$ &ri'o(A)uino and *edialdea$ JJ.$ concur.

Foo,"o,e-
2 5*hibit T.
% TSN, Dece+ber ,, 2:43, pa"e 2-.
8 5*hibit F.
3 5*hibit >.
- 5*hibit 7D2.
, 5*hibit M.
. 5*hibits F and >.
4 Pa"e ,4, rollo.
: Pa"es 2- to 2,, rollo.
2& 5*hibits F and >.
22 5*hibit 7D2.
2% 5*hibit ).
28 )arbonnel vs. )ourt of $ppeals, ,: S)R$ :: 02:.,1A $rticle 2-33, )ivil )ode.
23 )arbonnel vs. )ourt of $ppeals supra$ at 2&. to 2&4.
2- 5*hibit I.
2, 5*hibit 9.
2. 5*hibit N.
24 Pa"es ,, to ,4, rollo.
2: Pa"e ,4, rollo.
The 6a!phil Pro<ect D $rellano 6a! Foundation