DOUBLE SALE FIRST POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH

G.R. No. L-2397

QUIMSON v ROSETE
TUASON, J.

Summarized by Ira Agting

Dionisio executed a deed of conveyance in favor of his daughter Tomasia. He later on

sold to Rosete, who took possession in a peaceful manner even after Dionisio died. Tomasia
and Rosete registered the property in their names on the same day, but Tomasia filed an hour
earlier. SC held that Tomasia is the owner because the execution of the deed of conveyance is
considered symbolic possession. Execution of the public instrument is equivalent to the delivery
of the realty sold and its possession by the vedee. Under these conditions the sale is
considered consummated and completely transfers to the vendee all of the thing. the vendee by
virtue of this sale has acquired everything and nothing, absolutely nothing, is left to the vendor.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Dionisio Quimson Vendor, sold land to Tomasia and Francisco
Francisco Rosete, Tomasia Quimson Both claiming ownership (Spoiler: Tomasia is the
owner)

FACTS (In Spanish! From another digest kasi ang labo ng Google translation)

The case involves s dispute over a parcel of land sold to two different persons:Tomasa Quimson
and Francisco Rosete.

The property originally belonged to Dionisio Quimson (deceased), who executed a deed of
conveyance in favor of his daughter Tomasa Quimson. However, he continued possession and
enjoyment of the property.

Dionisio also sold the land to Sps Magno Agustin and Paulina Manzano with an agreement to
repurchase within 6 years. Two years later, it was also sold to Francisco Rosete, with a pacto de
retro, within 5 years.

Dionisio repurchased the property from the Sps with the money that Rosete paid him for the
land.

Rosete excercised possession and enjoyment in a peaceful and quiet manner, even after the
death of Dionisio.

When Tomasia and Rosete sought the registration of the property and inscription of the deed of
sale, Tomasa arrived earlier (930am) than Rosete (1030am).

Tomasa filed a complaint with the Justice of Peace of San Marcelino Zambalez
CFI: Tomasa is the rightful owner
CA: Reversed

1
ISSUE:
Who owns the property, Tomasa Quimson or Francisco Rosete? - TOMASA QUIMSON

RATIO:
ART. 1473. 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 first recorded it in the registry.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall belong to the person

who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence of this,
to the person who represents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

Tomasa is the owner because it was sold to her by her father for P250 and upon the
execution of the public instrument, she gained symbolic possession of the property.
1. The findings that a deed of conveyance was made by Dionisio Quimson in favor of his
daughter could have no other meaning, in the absence of any qualifying statement, that
the land was sold by the father to his daughter.
Documents show that Tomasa paid P250 as consideration, acknowledged before the
notary public the notary public having executed the instruments of his own free will.

2. The possession mentioned in the article 1473 (for determining who has better right when
the same piece of land has been sold several times by the vendor ) includes not the
materials but also the symbolic possession, which is acquired by the execution of a
public instrument.
Florendo v Foz: When the sale is made by means of a public instrument, the
execution thereof is tantamount to conveyance of the subject matter. Such execution
by the vendor is per se a formal or symbolical conveyance of the property sold,
that is, the vendor in the instrument itself authorizes the purchaser to use the title of
ownership as proof that latter is thenceforth the owner of the property."
Sanchez v Roman: The proposition that 1473 refers to the materials possession and
excludes the symbolic does not seem to be founded upon a solid ground. Execution
of the public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the realty sold (art. 1462, Civil
Code) and its possession by the vedee (art. 438). Under these conditions the sale is
considered consummated and completely transfers to the vendee all of the thing. the
vendee by virtue of this sale has acquired everything and nothing, absolutely
nothing, is left to the vendor.

3. Re possession: If [the vendor] continues taking material possession of it, it is simply on

account of the vendee's tolerance and, in this sense, his possession is vendor's
possession.
Rosete's possession fell far short of having ripened into title by prescription when the
Tomasa commenced her action.

2 2