Gabriel v Mabanta

The case is a petition for review on certiorari, filed by Alejandro and Alfredo Gabriel regarding the
decision by the CA on case against Pablo Mabanta, et. al.

FACTS:

On September 1, 1980, spouses Mabanta sold two lots, mortgaged with the DBP last 1975, to Susana
Soriano with a right of repurchase. Failing to repurchase the lots, they were able to convince Alejandro
Gabriel to purchase said lots from Soriano in 1984. The vendee, who was cultivating the said lots, caused
the restructuring of the DBP loan, but only to find out that the mortgage was already cancelled because
it was already paid by spouses Benito and Pura Tan and their daughter is the one who bought one of the
lots from spouses Mabanta. The petitioners filed a case with the RTC seeking for specific performance
and making the sale to Tan’s daughter, null and void. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE SECOND SALE OF THE DISPUTED LOT VALID UNDER ARTICLE 1544 OF THE
CIVIL CODE.

HELD:

The petition is impressed with merit, making the second sale null and void. Article 1544 of the Civil Code
provides that the land shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in possession which is
unquestionably the petitioners. The facts of the case supports the view that the second buyer had
knowledge that petitioner previously bought the disputed lot from spouses Mabanta. Her claim that she
is a buyer in good faith is preposterous since what matters most is not whether or not the second buyer
was a buyer in good faith but whether or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith,
that is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold." Her actions to register the
property a month after the petitioner filed a case to the RTC indicates a character of bad faith. The
second buyer must satisfy the court that to be entitled to priority, she must have acted in good faith,
and without knowledge of the existence of another alienation by the vendor to the other.
 Uraca v CA

The case is a petition challenging the decision of the CA reversing the decision of the RTC on the case
filed by the petitioners against the Velezes, and later on to the Avenue Group.

Facts:

The Velezes, as proprietors of the building and lot in question, were leasing the said property to the
petitioners. The Velezes then wrote a letter to petitioners offering to sell the property for P1.05 million
within three days, with the petitioners accepting the letter within two days. Later on, the price was
increased to P1.4 million with petitioners counter-offering to pay with a down payment of P1 million
and the rest in installments. There is a dispute as to whether the Velezes through Carmen Ting has
accepted or not the counter-offer, but no payment was made and the property was subsequently sold
to the Avenue Group for P1.05 million, net of taxes and other charges, with a CT free of any annotation
and adverse claims or lis pendens. The CA ruled that the first sale to petitioners were valid and that the
second sale was merely a novation of the first agreed sale, which was not perfected as there was no
meeting of the minds regarding the price.

Issues:

I. Whether or not the first sale to petitioners continued to be valid and enforceable and

II. Whether or not the petitioners have better rights to the property by registering their notice of lis
pendens ahead of the Avenue Group’s registration of deed of sale.

Held:

The petition is meritorious, as novation is never presumed; Article 1231 provides that novation is one
way to extinguish an obligation, but an extinctive novation must be adequately settled that there must
be an explicit and a valid new obligation that clearly extinguishes or changes an old contract, which in
this case is lacking. Since the parties failed to enter into a new contract that could have extinguished
their previously perfected contract of sale by failing to agree on the price, then there can be no novation
of the latter. Thus, the first sale to petitioners remained valid and existing.

Regarding the second issue, the prior registration of the disputed property by the second buyer does not
by itself confer ownership or a better right over the property. Applying Article 1544 of the NCC,
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 registration with bad faith. In the subsequent registration of
Avenue Group, they had already an actual knowledge of the prior sale to the petitioners, thus failing to
meet the good faith criterion. It is important to always remember that the governing principle is primus
tempore, potior jure or first in time, stronger in right. Thus, the third paragraph of Art 1544 will apply,
where the petitioners and not the Avenue Group are entitled to ownership of the property because they
were first in actual possession, having been the property’s lessees and possessors for decades prior to
the sale.
 Fudot v Cattleya

The case is a petition that seeks to nullify the decision of the CA declaring respondent to have a better
right over a parcel of land.

Facts:

The respondents, sometime in 1992, checked the titles of nine lots they wanted to buy from spouses
Troadio and Asuncion Tecson, through their representatives. Finding no defects on the titles, the lots
were purchased through a Conditional Deed of Sale in November of 1992 and a Deed of Absolute Sale
on the same properties later on. The titles to six lots were issued, since all of the lots were previously
subjected to attachment pending on the RTC, although it was eventually cancelled by virtue of
compromise agreement. The respondent subsequently learned that the Register of Deeds had already
registered the deed of sale in favor of the petitioner, who accordingly presented for registration the
owner’s copy of the title together with the deed of sale purportedly executed by the spouses Tecsons in
favor of the petitioner on December 1986. The respondent filed a complaint before the RTC, where the
court ruled that the respondent had recorded in good faith the deed of sale ahead of the petitioner.
Asuncion Tecson also filed a complaint-in-intervention claiming that her signature on the deed was
forged, declaring the petitioner’s title void. CA subsequently dismissed the appeal made by the
petitioner.

Issues:

I. IS THE FIRST BUYER WHO WAS GIVEN THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE TCT TOGETHER WITH A
DEED OF SALE IN 1986 HAS A BETTER RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY. OR THE SECOND BUYER IN
1992 WITH ONLY A DEED OF SALE.
II. IS A BUYER OF REGISTERED LAND WHO DID NOT DEMAND OR REQUIRE THE DELIVERY OF
THE OWNER’S DUPLICATE TCT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH.
III. WHICH LAW SHALL GOVERN IN SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF REGISTERED LANDS,
ARTICLE 1455 OF CIVIL CODE OR P.D. 1529 OR TORRENS SYSTEM

Held:

The petition is bereft of merit. In the first place, there is no double sale to speak of. The court ruled that
the provision on double sale is not applicable where there is only one valid sale, the previous sale being
fraudulent because the sale to petitioner bears the forged signature of Asuncion. Furthermore, the act
of registration does not validate petitioner’s otherwise void contract, nor amounts to a declaration by
the state that the instrument is a valid and subsisting interest in the land, as it only operates as a notice
of the deed, contract, or instrument to others.

Even in the assumption of a double sale, the court held that the respondent was a buyer in good faith,
purchasing the lots without any notice of a previous sale. In fact, it went further to persuading the
previous parties involved in the attachment case to settle and eventually cancel the notice.

Regarding the question of what provision is applicable, it is held that the registration contemplated
under Art 1544 has been held to refer to registration under P.D. No. 1529. Here, the purchaser is not
required to explore further than the face of the Torrens title, except where the purchaser has actual
knowledge of a defect in the seller’s title or liens which as to him, is equivalent to registration.