DOUBLE SALES
property
Ten Forty Realty v Cruz
FACTS - Ten Forty Realty filed a complaint of ejectment
against Marina Cruz who has allegedly occupied the
residential lot in Olongapo City, which they bought from
Barbara Galino, by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale. It
appears that Barbara sold the same lot to Marina who
immediately occupied the land. Ten Forty is saying the
occupation by Marina was merely tolerated by them.
Marina’s defense:
(1) Ten Forty, being a corporation, is not qualified to own
the property which is a public land.
(2) Barbara Galino did not sell her property to Ten Forty
but merely obtained a loan.
(3) Ten Forty never occupied the property before she did.
Barbara Galino was in possession at the time of the sale,
and vacated the lot in favor of Marina.
(4) She was the one who caused the cancellation of the
tax declaration in the name of Barbara and a new one
was issued in her name.
(5) Ten Forty only obtained its tax declaration 7 months
after she did. –
MTCC ruled in favor of Ten Forty and ordered Marina to
vacate. –
RTC reversed. The RTC ruled as follows:
1) respondent’s entry into the property was not by mere
tolerance of petitioner, but by virtue of a Waiver and
Transfer of Possessory Rights and Deed of Sale in her
favor;
2) the execution of the Deed of Sale without actual
transfer of the physical possession did not have the
effect of making petitioner the owner of the property,
because there was no delivery of the object of the sale as
provided for in Article 1428 of the Civil Code; and
3) being a corporation, petitioner was disqualified from
acquiring the property, which was public land. –
CA affirmed: Case cannot be unlawful detainer because
there has been no prior contract between the parties.
Neither can it be forcibly entry because there is no
showing that there was prior physical possession by the
petitioner.
ISSUE: WON Marina may be validly ejected from the
 NO RULING: 1. In a contract of sale, the buyer acquires
the thing sold only upon its delivery. The execution of a
public instrument gives rise to a presumption of delivery,
but this presumption is destroyed when delivery is not
effected because of a legal impediment. Constructive
delivery is deemed negated upon failure of vendee to
take actual possession of the land. Ten Forty was not able
to take possession and the SC found it highly unlikely that
they allowed occupation of Marina by mere tolerance.
2. In cases of double sale, the person who first recorded
it in the Registry of Property shall be considered the
lawful owner. In this case, however, petitioner was
unable to establish that the Deed was recorded in the
Registry of Deeds of Olongapo. An unverified notation on
the Deed is not equivalent to a registration. In the
absence of this requirement, the law gives preferential
right to the buyer who in good faith is first in possession.
3. To determine who is first in possession, the following
parameters have been established: a. Possession
includes not only material but also symbolic possession
b. Possessors in good faith are not aware of any flaw in
their title or mode of acquisition c. Buyers of property
that is in possession of persons other than the seller must
be wary – they must investigate d. Good faith is always
presumed. Burden of proof rests on the one alleging bad
faith. Property has not been delivered, hence Ten Forty
did not acquire possession either materially or
symbolically. Petitioner has not proven that respondent
was aware of any defect to her title. At the time, the
property had not been registered which was why Marina
relied on tax declarations. Galino was actually occupying
the property when respondent took possession. Thus,
there was no circumstance that could have required her
to investigate further.
4. Private corporations are disqualified from acquiring
lands of public domain. At the time of the sale, there is
no evidence that the property had already ceased to be
of public domain.
DECI: Petition DENIED
SI v. CA- Right of Redemption (Legal Redeption) Jode even acknowledged such when he told his brother
Crisostomo in a letter “Well you are the king of
After physical division of a lot the community ownership
yourselves, and you can sell your share of Leveriza.
is terminated and right of redemption is no longer
Written notice is no longer necessary when there is
available.
actual notice.
FACTS:

Spouses Armada transferred their property to the names

of their three sons namely, Crisotomo, Jose and Severo.
Crisostomo through Cresencia (atty-in-fact) executed a
deed of sale in favor Anita Si.
Spouses Jose Armada (other brother) filed a complaint to
annul the sale on the ground that there was no written
notice of such sale whereas the deed stated that “the co-
owners are not interested in buying the land”. Further,
there was misrepresentation on the citizenship of
Cresencia is a Filipino citizen.
Petitioners claimed that there was really no co-
ownership since the parents executed three deeds of
sale assigning specific properties to the brothers. Since
there is no-ownership it follows that there is no right to
redemption. Petitioners pointed out that it was only
because the brothers failed to submit a subdivision plan
which is the reason why there is only one certificate of
title. Lower court dismissed the petition. CA reversed and
said that co-ownership still exists and that the land was
undivided. Petitioners filed a motion for new trial on the
basis that there was annotation at the back of the
original TCT due to the sale in favor of the brothers. CA
denied because the reglementary period had lapsed and
the decision has become final and executory.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondents are co-owners and

that they are entitled to right of redemption based on Art
Art 1623 of NCC.

RULING:

1. Trial court was correct in finding that the parents

already partitioned the property which was registered
with the RD. Every portion conveyed and transferred was
definitely described and segregated with corresponding
technical description. After this division co-ownership
already ceased. Hence, there is no right to redemption
available to the respondents.

2. There was an actual notice of the impending sale and

Equitable Mortgage HELD: NO. The nature of the transaction between
Olimpia and Aurelio, from the context of the deed of sale
OLIMPIA FERNANDEZ Vda. De ZULUETA (Substituted by
is not a sale with right to repurchase. In this case, there
JOSEFINA, LIBERTY and GREGORIO all surnamed
was no reservation made by the vendor, Olimpia. The
ZULUETA) vs. ISAURO B. OCTAVIANO and AURELIO B.
"option to repurchase" was contained in a subsequent
OCTAVIANO G.R. No. L-55350. March 28, 1983.
document and was made by the vendee, Aurelio. Thus, it
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
was more of an option to buy or a mere promise on the
FACTS: In November 1952, Olimpia, the registered owner part of the vendee, Aurelio, to resell the property to the
of 5.5 hectares of rice land, sold the lot to Private vendor, Olimpia. From the provisions of the deed of sale,
Respondent Aurelio, for P8,600.00. The subject property there is nothing therein from which it could be inferred
was then mortgaged to Maximo Gumayan of Leganes, that the property was being utilized as security for a
Iloiloin representation of the Olimpia’s debt to the same. debt. The document was labeled As a “deed of absolute
It was stipulated by both the Olimpia and Aurelio that and definite sale” with the vendee Aurelio assuming the
upon the execution of the instrument, Olimpia, her heirs, payment of the mortgage obligations owing by Olimpia
assigns, executors and administrators, have no more to Maximino Gumayan, and specifically stipulating that
rights, interests or participations over the parcel of land upon payment of that indebtedness, the transaction
aforementioned. Respondent Aurelio then took became a deed of definite sale. Inasmuch as the contract
possession of the land after the sale. Sometime in May, was neither a sale with right of repurchase, nor an
1953, Respondent tried to get the certificate of title of equitable mortgage, neither can it be successfully alleged
the land from Olimpia, for the purpose of registering the that it partook of a "pactum commissorium " and was,
deed of absolute sale, but was told that the same was in therefore, void. "Pactum commissorium "is a stipulation
the possession of Gumayan, who, in turn, informed him for automatic vesting of title over the security in the
that the title had been deposited with the Philippine creditor in case of the debtor's default. It bears
National Bank. Gumayan continually refused to release reiterating, however, that Olimpia was not a debtor, but
the certificate of title until Aurelio would first pay him the a vendor. She was so described in the document, Olimpia
“pagare” receipts representing the debt of Olimpia from owed nothing to Aurelio, and offered nothing to him as
the former – which amounts were not included in the security for the payment of any indebtedness.
mortgage obligation of Olimpia, assumed by Aurelio.
Relying on the express consent of Olimpia to sell the land
and believing that she had renounced the option granted
her to repurchase the same, Aurelio negotiated with his
own brother, respondent Isauro, for the sale of the
property sometime in 1954. Isauro agreed to buy the
property, and paid Aurelio P10,500.00. Olimpia, through
her lawyer, desired to "repurchase" the land and wrote
Isauro a letter asking him if he was willing to resell the
land as she had the money already to buy it back.
Respondents refused the offer. Olimpia contends that
since 1958, she was looking for Aurelio to tell him of her
desire to "repurchase" the property but that Aurelio
could nowhere be found. Hence, this suit for recovery of
ownership and possession of the land against the
Octaviano brothers.

ISSUE: Whether or not Olimpia may recover ownership

and possession of the subject property.