Art.

1544

Cabonell vs.CA

Facts:

On January 27, 1955 Jose Poncio executed a private memorandum of a sale of land in favor of Rosario
Carbonell who assumed and paid the mortgage indebtedness of Poncio with Republic Savings Bank out
of the purchase price.

On January 31, 1955 Poncio told Carbonell that he could not proceed anymore with the sale because he
had already formalized the sale of the lot to Emma Infante.

On February 2, 1955 Poncio sold the same property for a higher price by executing a formal registrable
deed of sale in favor of Infante.

On February 5, 1955 Carbonell saw Infante erecting a wall around the lot with a gate.

On February 8, 1955 on the advice of a lawyer Carbonell registered her adverse claim as first buyer
entitled to the property.

On February 12, 1955 Infante registered her deed of sale, subsequently the transfer certificate title
annotated with the adverse claim of Carbonell was issued to her.

Issue:

Who is legally entitled to the property Carbonell or Infante?

Ruling:

Carbonell is legally entitled.

Under the 2nd paragraph good faith must characterize the act of anterior registration.

If there is no inscription what is decisive is prior possession.

If there is inscription, prior registration in good faith is a precondition to superior title.

Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyers rights except only
as provided in article 1544 where the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale ahead of
the first. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her form availing of her rights under the law,
among them, to register first her purchase as against the second buyer. But knowledge gained by the
second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale since such
knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith.
Article 1544

Dagupan Trading vs. Macam

Facts:

In 1955, while the application for the registration of the parcel of land under the Torren system was
pending, Sammy Maron and his siblings sold the property by virtue of two deeds of sale dated June 19
and September 21, 1955 in favor of Rustico Macam who took possession thereof and made substantial
improvements therein

A month later on October 14, 1955 an original certificate of title coveringthe land was issued in the
name of Maron free from all liens and encumberances.

The following year on August 4, 1956 levy was made upon the land in favor of Manila Trading and
Supply Company which was sold at a public auction to the judgement creditor

The corresponding notice of levy, certificate of sale and the Sheriff's certificate of final sale in favor of
the Manila Trading and Supply Co. were duly registered because nobody exercised the right of
redemption. Thereafter the property was subsequently sold to Dagupan Trading Company.

Issue:

Who has the better right as between appellant Dagupan Trading Company, on the one hand, and
appellee Rustico Macam, on the other, to the one-eighth share of Sammy Maron in the property
mentioned heretofore?

Ruling:

Macam has the better right.

Section 35 Rule 39 of Rules of Court

upon the execution and delivery of the final certificate of sale in favor of the purchaser of land sold in an
execution sale, such purchaser "shall be substituted to and acquire all the right, title, interest and claim
of the judgment debtor to the property as of the time of the levy."

If the property covered by the conflicting sale is were unregistered land, in favor of Macam. If the
property covered by the conflicting sale is registered land, in favor of Dagupan Trading Company.

Judgement creditor merely acquired right and interest of judgement debtor. Maron had no more
interest and claim on the property at the time of the levy which he had already conveyed for a
considerable time prior thereto to Macam fully and irretrievably.

Unregistered sale was not cancelled by subsequent issuance of Torrens title.