Monday, October 4, 2010

VILLARTA V. CA (May 29, 1987)

FACTS:
Respondent Rosalinda Cruz entrusted to petitioner Victoria Villarta seven pieces of jewelry on November
1968. On December of the same year, Villarta exchanges one jewelry to another and issued a post-dated
check in favor of Cruz. Cruz deposited the check but it was dishonored for lack of funds.
An estafa case was filed against Villarta but she argued that she can only be civilly liable because even
though the check bounced, she only gave it for a pre-existing obligation. She contends a person cannot
be imprisoned for non-payment of debt.
ISSUE:
WON the transaction is a sale or return
HELD:
The transaction is not a sale or return but a sale on approval or sale on acceptance.
When Cruz gave the jewelry to Villarta on November, the clear intention is to make the latter choose
which item she wanted to buy. There was no meeting of the minds yet at this point and hence, it cannot
be considered as delivery.
If ownership over the jewelry was not transmitted on that date, then it could have been transmitted only in
December 1968, the date when the check was issued. In which case, it was a "sale on approval" since
ownership passed to the buyer. Vallarta, only when she signified her approval or acceptance to the seller,
Cruz, and the price was agreed upon.
It is still criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the Revised
Penal Code, and not the non-payment of the debt.

ROSARIO CARBONELL, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT

OF APPEALS, JOSE PONCIO, EMMA INFANTE and RAMON
INFANTE, respondents.
G.R. No. L-29972 January 26, 1976
FACTS:
Petitioner Carbonell lives in an adjoining lot owned by Respondent Poncio, latters lot is
mortgaged in favor of Republic Savings Bank for P1,500.
Petitioner and another Respondent (Infante) offered to buy the land owned by Poncio. Which
Poncio, in his failure to pay the mortgaged agreed for the petitioner to buy the land including his
house for P9.50 per square meter on the condition that from the purchase price would come the
money to be paid to the bank.
Both parties settled the arrears of the mortgaged amounting P247.26. However, Petitioner only
have P200.00 as per respondents information that he only owes the same to the bank.
Respondent then withdrew the deficit amount and was reimbursed by Carbonell the following
day.
The parties executed a document stipulating that, Poncio may still occupy the land sold by him
to the petitioner and if after a year, he still cant find a place to move, that he shall pay rent in
favor of the petitioner.
Subsequently, Poncio had told Carbonell that the former can no longer pursue with the sale for
he had given the land to Infante, to which he cannot withdraw even if he goes to jail. The said lot
was fenced by Infante.
Atty. Jose Garcia advised her to present an adverse claim over the land in question with the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.
Poncio, admittedly sold the land to Infante when she improved her offer.
With the information that the land was not yet registered, Atty. Garcia in favor of the petitioner
prepared an adverse claim over the property. Whereby upon registration of the same by Infante,
the said adverse claim was noted in the Transfer Certificate of Title.
Petitioner filed a second complaint, alleging that the sale between Poncio and Infante be
declared null and void. Respondents allegation was that, Petitioners claim was unenforceable
for lack of written document.
Trial Court ruled that the second sale was null and void. However, after re-trial, Trial Court
reversed its decision ruling that the claim of the respondents were greater than that of the
petitioner.
CA ruled in favor of petitioner, alleging that it has a superior right over the respondent. After a
motion for reconsideration CA reversed its decision.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioner have the superior right over the property.
HELD:
YES.
Article 1544, New Civil Code, which is decisive of this case, recites:
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 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 (emphasis supplied).
When Carbonell bought the lot from Poncio on January 27, 1955, she was the only buyer
thereof and the title of Poncio was still in his name solely encumbered by bank mortgage duly
annotated thereon. Carbonell was not aware and she could not have been aware of any
sale of Infante as there was no such sale to Infante then. Hence, Carbonell's prior purchase of
the land was made in good faith. Her good faith subsisted and continued to exist when she
recorded her adverse claim four (4) days prior to the registration of Infantes's deed of sale.
Carbonell's good faith did not cease after Poncio told her on January 31, 1955 of his second
sale of the same lot to Infante. Because of that information, Carbonell wanted an audience with
Infante, which desire underscores Carbonell's good faith. With an aristocratic disdain unworthy
of the good breeding of a good Christian and good neighbor, Infante snubbed Carbonell like a
leper and refused to see her. So Carbonell did the next best thing to protect her right she
registered her adversed claim on February 8, 1955. Under the circumstances, this recording of
her adverse claim should be deemed to have been done in good faith and should emphasize
Infante's bad faith when she registered her deed of sale four (4) days later on February 12,
1955

Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley), Inc vs Court of Appeals

448 SCRA 347

January 17, 2005

Ponente: Tinga
Nature: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision and resolution of the Court
of Appeals
Facts:
The Madrid brothers were registered owners of Lot No. 7036-A in Isabela
per TCT No. T-8121. It was subdivided into several lots.
1ST SALE (August 15 1957)
Rizal Madrid sold part of his share to Gamiao and Dayag by virtue of a
deed of sale, to which his brothers offered no objection. The deed of sale was
not registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds, however, Gamiao and
Dayag declared the property in their names for taxation purposes.
Gamiao and Dayag sold the southern portion of the land to Teodoro
dela Cruz, and the northern portion was sold to Restituto Hernandez. These
buyers took possession of and cultivated the portions of the property
respectively sold to them.
2ND SALE (June 15 1976)
The Madrid brothers conveyed all their rights and interests to Pacifico
Marquez. The deed of sake was registered with the Office of the Register of
Deeds. Marquez subdivided the lot into 8. Lots 7036-A-7-A until 7036-A-7-D
were mortgaged to the Consolidated Rural Bank to secure a loan of
P100,000. Additionally, Marquez mortgaged Lot No. 7036-A-7-E to the Rural
Bank of Cauayan to secure a loan of P10,000. These deeds of real estate
mortgage were registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds.
Meanwhile, Marquez sold Lot No. 7036-A-7-G to Romeo Calixto.
Marquez defaulted in the payment of his loan and CRB caused the
foreclosure of the mortgages and the lots were sold to it as the highest
bidder.
The heirs of Teodoro dela Cruz filed a case for reconveyance and damages as
to the southern portion of the land, claiming to be null and void the issuance of
TCTs to Marquez; the foreclosure sale in favour of CRB; to mortgage to RBC; and
the sale to Calixto. Evangeline del Rosario, successor-in-interest of Hernandez,

filed a Complaint in Intervention wherein she claimed the northern portion of Lot
No. 7036-A-7.
Marquez argued that he was a buyer in good faith and for value. He argued
as well that being the first registrant, the sale in favour of him must prevail over
the sale to Gamiao and Dayag which shouldnt be binding upon him, that being
unregistered. CRB, on the other hand, insisted that they were mortgagees in good
faith and that they had the right to rely on the titles of Marquez.
The RTC ruled in favour of Marquez, finding nothing to show that Marquez
was aware of dela Cruz and del Rosarios claim of ownership and holding that it
was, indeed, Marquez, who first registered.
The CA, however, reversed the ruling of the RTC, holding that Marquez
failed to prove that he was a purchaser in good faith and noting that while
Marquez was the first registrant, there was no showing that the registration was
coupled with good faith. Marquez admitted having knowledge that there was
dispute over said property and that the Heirs of dela Cruz were also in possession
of the land.
As to the mortgages, the CA held that the banks merely relied on the
certificates o title and this failure to observe diligence in standard banking
procedure constitutes bad faith and on that basis, the mortgages were declared
null and void. CRB insisted that Marquez had the right over the said property
being the first registered owners. Hence, this petition.
Issue: WON Marquez, having registered first, has better right over the property
Held//Ratio:
No.
But first, important!! Applicability of 1544.
The RTC and the CA, albeit arriving at different conclusions, both relied on
the NCCs provision on double sale (1544) to resolve the case. However, the
Supreme Court held that such provision is not applicable in this case. 1544
contemplates a case of double sale by a single vendor. It is necessary that the
conveyance must have been made by a party who has an existing right in the thing
and the power to dispose of it. It cannot be invoked where the two different
contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them not being the
owner of the property sold.
In the case at bar, the subject property was not transferred to several
purchasers by a single vendor. In the first sale, the vendors were Gamiao and
Dayag whose right to the property originated from their acquisition thereof from

Rizal Madrid. In the second sale, the vendors were the Madrid brothers but at that
time they were no longer the owners since they had long disposed of the property.
In a situation where not all the requisites are present which would warrant
the application of 1544, the principle that he who is first in time is preferred in
right should apply. In the instant case, the sale by Gamiao and Dayag who first
bought it from Rizal Madrid was anterior to the sale to Marquez. The Heirs of dela
Cruz and Hernandez also had possession of the property first. Thus, applying the
principle, the Heirs have a superior right to the subject property. Morover, since
the Madrid brothers were no longer the owners of the lot at the time of the sale to
Marquez, Marquez did not acquire any right to it.
Assuming arguendo that 1544 applies, the claim of Marquez still cannot
prevail over the right of the Heirs since he was not a purchaser in good faith.