350 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 533 8/6/20, 8:26 AM
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc.
*
G.R. No. 171008. September 13, 2007.
CARMELITA FUDOT, petitioner, vs. CATTLEYA LAND,

INC., respondent.
Sales; Double Sales; Art. 1544 of the Civil Code, which provides
the rule on double sale, applies only to a situation where the same
property is validly sold to different vendees.·In the first place,
there is no double sale to speak of. Art. 1544 of the Civil Code,
which provides the rule on double sale, applies only to a situation
where the same property is validly sold to different vendees. In this
case, there is only one sale to advert to, that between the spouses
Tecson and respondent. In Remalante v. Tibe, 158 SCRA 138 (1988),
this Court ruled that the Civil Law provision on double sale is not
applicable where there is only one valid sale, the previous sale
having been found to be fraudulent. Likewise, in Espiritu and
Apostol v. Valerio, 9 SCRA 761 (1963), where the same parcel of
land was purportedly sold to two different parties, the Court held
that despite the fact that one deed of sale was registered ahead of
the other, Art. 1544 of the Civil Code will not apply where said deed
is found to be a forgery, the result of this being that the right of the
other vendee should prevail.
Same; Same; Land Titles; The act of registration does not

validate an otherwise void contract·registration is a mere
ministerial
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
351
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000173c11efa057198baff003600fb002c009e/p/AQF666/?username=Guest Page 1 of 17
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 351
act by which a deed, contract, or instrument is sought to be inscribed

in the records of the Office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at
the back of the certificate of title covering the land subject of the
deed, contract, or instrument; The registration of a void deed is not
an impediment to a declaration by the courts of its invalidity.·The
act of registration does not validate petitionerÊs otherwise void
contract. Registration is a mere ministerial act by which a deed,
contract, or instrument is sought to be inscribed in the records of
the Office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the
certificate of title covering the land subject of the deed, contract, or
instrument. While it operates as a notice of the deed, contract, or
instrument to others, it does not add to its validity nor converts an
invalid instrument into a valid one as between the parties, nor
amounts to a declaration by the state that the instrument is a valid
and subsisting interest in the land. The registration of petitionerÊs
void deed is not an impediment to a declaration by the courts of its
invalidity.
Same; Same; Same; In interpreting Art. 1544 of the Civil Code,

the governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time,
stronger in right)·knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second
sale cannot defeat the first buyerÊs rights, except where the second
buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first.
·Even assuming that there was double sale in this case, petitioner
would still not prevail. The pertinent portion of Art. 1544 provides:
Art. 1544. x x x. 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. x x x x. In interpreting this
provision, the Court declared that the governing principle is primus
tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge
gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first
buyerÊs rights, except where the second buyer registers in good faith
the second sale ahead of the first as provided by the aforequoted
provision of the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does
not bar him from availing of his rights under the law, among them
to register first his purchase as against the second buyer. However,
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. It is thus
essential, to merit the protection of Art. 1544, second paragraph,
that the second realty buyer must act in good faith in registering
his deed of sale.
352
Same; Same; Same; Between two transactions concerning the

same parcel of land, the registered transaction prevails over the
earlier unregistered right.·It has been held that between two
transactions concerning the same parcel of land, the registered
transaction prevails over the earlier unregistered right. The act of
registration operates to convey and affect the registered land so
that a bona fide purchaser of such land acquires good title as
against a prior transferee, if such prior transfer was unrecorded. As
found by the courts a quo, respondent was able to register its
purchase ahead of petitioner. It will be recalled that respondent was
able to register its Deed of Conditional Sale with the Register of
Deeds as early as 6 November 1992, and its Deed of Absolute Sale
on 14 October 1993. On the other hand, petitioner was able to
present for registration her deed of sale and ownerÊs copy of the title
only on 23 January 1995, or almost nine years after the purported
sale. Why it took petitioner nine (9) years to present the deed and
the ownerÊs copy, she had no credible explanation; but it is clear
that when she finally did, she already had constructive notice of the
deed of sale in respondentÊs favor. Without a doubt, respondent had
acquired a better title to the property.
Same; Same; Same; The registration contemplated under Article

1544 refers to registration under P.D. No. 1529.·Anent petitionerÊs
claim that P.D. No. 1529 applies to registered lands or any
subsequent sale thereof, while Art. 1544 of the Civil Code applies
only to immovable property not covered by the Torrens System,
suffice it to say that this quandary has already been answered by
an eminent former member of this Court, Justice Jose Vitug, who
explained that the registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has
been held to refer to registration under P.D. No. 1529, thus: The
registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has been held to
refer to registration under Act 496 Land Registration Act
(now PD 1529) which considers the act of registration as the
operative act that binds the land (see Mediante v. Rosabal, 1 O.G.
[12] 900, Garcia v. Rosabal, 73 Phil 694). On lands covered by the
Torrens System, the purchaser acquires such rights and interest as
they appear in the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien or

encumbrance not noted therein. The purchaser is not required to
explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates.
The only exception is where the purchaser has actual knowledge of
a flaw or defect in the title of the seller or of such liens or
encumbrances which, as to him, is equivalent to registration (see
Sec. 39, Act 496; Bernales v.
353
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 353
IAC, G.R. 75336, 18 October 1988; Hernandez vs. Sales, 69 Phil.

744; Tajonera vs. Court of Appeals, L-26677, 27 March 1981)
(Emphasis supplied)
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Victor P. De la Serna for petitioner.
Monteclar, Sibi & Trinidad Law Office for
respondent.
TINGA, J.:
For resolution
1
is a petition
2
that seeks to nullify the
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 28
April 2005 and 11 January 2006, respectively, in C.A.-G.R.
CV No. 73025 which declared respondent as having a
better right over a parcel of land located in Doljo, Panglao,
Bohol. The facts, as culled from the records, follow.
Sometime in July 1992, Cattleya Land, Inc. (hereinafter
referred to as respondent) asked someone to check, on its
behalf, the titles of nine (9) lots, the subject land included,
which it intended to buy from the spouses Troadio and
Asuncion Tecson. Finding no defect on the titles,
respondent purchased the nine lots through a Deed of
Conditional Sale on 6 November 1992. Subsequently, on 30
August 1993, respondent and the Tecsons executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale over the same properties. The Deed of
Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale were
registered with the Register of Deeds on 06 November 1992

and 04 October 1993, respec-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 22-32. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon,

with Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Enrico A. Lanzanas,
concurring.
2 Id., at p. 35.
354

3
tively. The Register of Deeds, Atty. Narciso dela Serna,
refused to actually annotate the deed of sale on the titles
because of the existing notice of attachment in connection
with Civil Case 4No. 3399 pending before the Regional Trial
Court of Bohol. The attachment was eventually cancelled
by virtue of a compromise agreement between the Tecsons
and their attaching creditor which was brokered by
respondent. Titles to six (6) of the nine (9) lots were issued,
but the Register of Deeds refused to issue titles to the
remaining three (3) lots, because the titles covering the
same were still unaccounted for.
On 23 January 1995, petitioner presented for
registration before the Register of Deeds the ownerÊs copy
of the title of the subject property, together with the deed of
sale purportedly executed by the Tecsons in favor of
petitioner on 19 December 1986. On the following day,
respondent sent a letter of protest/opposition to petitionerÊs
application. Much to its surprise, respondent learned that
the Register of Deeds had already registered the deed of
sale in5 favor of petitioner and issued a new title in her
name. 6
On 5 May 1995, respondent filed its Complaint for
Quieting Of Title &/Or Recovery Of Ownership,
Cancellation Of Title With Damages
7
before the Regional
Trial Court of Tagbilaran City. On 26 June 1995, Asuncion
filed a complaint-inintervention, claiming that she never
signed any deed of sale covering any part of their conjugal
property in favor of petitioner. She averred that her
signature in petitionerÊs deed of sale was forged thus, said
deed should be declared null and
_______________
3 Id., at pp. 48-49. Vide Entry No. 83422 and Entry No. 87549,
respectively of the Register of Deeds of Bohol.
4 Tantrade Corporation v. Troadio Tecson, et al.
5 Rollo, pp. 51-52.
6 Id., at pp. 47-55.
7 Docketed as Civil Case No. 5781, Cattleya Land, Inc. v. Carmelita
Fudot and Atty. Narciso dela Serna. The case was eventually raffled to
Branch 4, 7th Judicial Region, Tagbilaran City.
355
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 355

8
void. She also claimed that she has discovered only
recently that there was an9 amorous relationship between
her husband and petitioner. 10
Petitioner, for her part, alleged in her answer that the
spouses Tecson had sold to her the subject property for
P20,000.00 and delivered to her the ownerÊs copy of the
title on 26 December 1986. She claims that she
subsequently presented the said title to the Register of
Deeds but the latter refused to register the same because
the property was still under attachment.
On 31 11
October 2001, the trial court rendered its
decision: (i) quieting the title or ownership of the subject
land in favor of respondent; (ii) declaring the deed of sale
between petitioner and spouses Tecson invalid; (iii)
ordering the registration of the subject land in favor of
respondent; (iv) dismissing respondentÊs claim for damages
against the Register of Deeds for insufficiency of evidence;
(v) dismissing AsuncionÊs claim for damages against
petitioner for lack of factual basis; and (vi) dismissing
petitionerÊs counterclaim 12 for lack of the required
preponderance of evidence.
According to the trial court, respondent had recorded in
good faith the deed of sale in its favor ahead of petitioner.
Moreover, based on AsuncionÊs convincing and unrebutted
testimony, the trial court concluded that the purported
signature of Asuncion in the deed of sale in favor 13
of
petitioner was forged, thereby rendering the sale void.
_______________
8 Rollo, pp. 60-61. Asuncion TecsonÊs testimony was made through oral
deposition; records, pp. 497-510.
9 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 66-68; Complaint-in-Intervention; id., at p. 66.
10 Volume 1, pp. 35-41; Answer with Counter Claim and Motion to
Dismiss, Records.
11 Rollo, pp. 57-64.
12 Id., at p. 64.
13 Id., at pp. 62-63.
356

Petitioner sought recourse to the Court of Appeals, arguing

in the main that the rule on double sale was applicable to
the case. The appellate court, however, dismissed her
appeal, holding that there was no double sale because the
alleged sale to petitioner was null and void in view of the
forgery of AsuncionÊs purported signature in the deed. The
appellate court noted that petitioner failed to rebut 14
AsuncionÊs testimony despite opportunities to do so.
Moreover, even if there was double sale, according to the
appellate court, respondentÊs claim would still prevail since
it was able to register the second sale in its favor in good
faith, had made inquiries before it purchased the lots, and
was informed that the titles were free from encumbrance
except the15
attachment on the property due to Civil Case
No. 3399.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of the decision but the
Court of Appeals
16
denied her motion for reconsideration for
lack of merit.
Petitioner thus presents before this Court the following
issues for resolution:
I.
BETWEEN 2 BUYERS OF REGISTERED LAND, WHO HAS THE

BETTER RIGHT-IS IT THE FIRST BUYER WHO WAS GIVEN
THE OWNERÊS DUPLICATE TCT TOGETHER WITH A DEED OF
SALE IN 1986, 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 OWNERÊS

DUPLICATE TCT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH.
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 22-32, 28-29; CA Decision dated 28 April 2005.

15 Rollo, p. 30.
16 Supra note 2; Resolution dated 11 January 2006.
357
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 357

III.
II. IN SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF REGISTERED LANDS,

AS BY SALE, WHICH LAW SHALL GOVERN, ARTICLE 1455 OF
17
CIVIL CODE OR P.D. 1529 OR TORRENS SYSTEM.
Petitioner avers that she was the first buyer in good faith
and even had in her possession the ownerÊs copy of the title
so much so that she was able to register the deed of sale in
her favor and caused the issuance of a new title in her
name. She argues that the presentation and surrender of
the deed of sale and the ownerÊs copy carried with it the
„conclusive authority of Asuncion Tecson‰18 which cannot be
overturned by the latterÊs oral deposition.
Petitioner claims that respondent did not demand nor
require delivery of the ownerÊs duplicate title from the
spouses Tecson, neither did it investigate the circumstances
surrounding the absence of the title. These indicate
respondentÊs knowledge of a defect in the title of the
spouses and, thus, petitioner 19
concludes that respondent
was not a buyer in good faith.
Finally, petitioner insists that the applicable law in this
case is P.D. No. 1529, a special law dealing precisely with
the registration of registered lands or any subsequent sale
thereof, and not Article 1544 of the Civil Code which deals
with immovable
20
property not covered by the Torrens
System.
Respondent points out, on one hand, that petitionerÊs
first two issues which present an inquiry on who has a
better right or which one is a buyer in good faith, are
questions of fact not proper in a petition for review. The
third issue, on the other hand, is ostensibly a 21

question of
law which had been unsuccessfully raised below.
_______________
17 Rollo, p. 12.
18 Id., at p. 14.
19 Id., at pp. 15-16.
20 Id., at pp. 12-17.
21 Id., at p. 67.
358

Respondent maintains that there is no room to speak of

petitioner as a buyer in good faith since she was never a
buyer in the first place, as her claim is based on a null and
void deed of sale, so the court a quo found. Respondent also
asserts that its status as a buyer in good faith was
established and 22confirmed in the proceedings before the
two courts below.
Lastly, respondent argues that P.D. No. 1529 finds no
application in the instant case. The „production of the
ownerÊs duplicate certificate x x x being conclusive
authority from the registered owner‰ is only true as
between the registration applicant and the register of
deeds concerned, but never to third parties. Such
conclusive authority, respondent adds, is „only for the
Register of Deeds to enter a new certificate or to make a
memorandum of registration in accordance with such
instrument.‰ It cannot cure the fatal defect that the
instrument from which such registration was 23
effected is
null and void ab initio, respondent concludes.
The petition is bereft of merit.
PetitionerÊs arguments, which rest on the assumption
that there was a double sale, must fail.
In the first place, there
24
is no double sale to speak of. Art.
1544 of the Civil Code, which provides the rule on double
sale, applies only to a situation where the same property is
_______________
22 Id., at pp. 70-71.
23 Id., at pp. 72-73.

24 Civil Code, Art. 1544. 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 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.
359
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 359

validly sold to different vendees. In this case, there is only

one sale to advert to, that between the spouses Tecson and
respondent. 25
In Remalante v. Tibe, this Court ruled that the Civil
Law provision on double sale is not applicable where there
is only one valid sale, the previous sale having been found
to be fraudulent.
26
Likewise, in Espiritu and Apostol v.
Valerio, where the same parcel of land was purportedly
sold to two different parties, the Court held that despite
the fact that one deed of sale was registered ahead of the
other, Art. 1544 of the Civil Code will not apply where said
deed is found to be a forgery, the result of this being that
the right of the other vendee should prevail.
The trial court declared that the sale between the
spouses Tecson and petitioner is invalid, as it bears the
forged signature of Asuncion. Said finding is based on the
unrebutted testimony of Asuncion and the trial courtÊs
visual analysis and comparison of the signatures in her
Complaint-inIntervention and the purported deed of sale.
This finding was upheld by the Court of Appeals, as it
ruled that the purported sale in petitionerÊs favor is null
and void, taking into account AsuncionÊs unrefuted
deposition. In particular, the Court of Appeals noted
petitionerÊs failure to attend the taking of the oral
deposition and to give written interrogatories. In short, she
did not take the necessary steps to rebut AsuncionÊs
definitive assertion.
The congruence of the wills of the spouses 27

is essential
for the valid disposition of conjugal
28
property. Thus, under
Article 166 of the Civil Code which was still in effect on 19
De-
_______________
25 No. L-59514, 25 February 1988, 158 SCRA 138.

26 119 Phil. 69; 9 SCRA 761 (1963).
27 Abalos v. Macatangay, G.R. No. 155043, 30 September 2004, 439
SCRA 649, 661.
28 Article 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis
or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a
leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber
360

cember 1986 when the deed of sale was purportedly

executed, the husband cannot generally alienate or
encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership
without the wifeÊs consent. 29
In this case, following Article 173 of the Civil Code, on
26 June 1995, or eight and a half years (8 1/2) after the
purported sale to petitioner, Asuncion filed her Complaint-
inIntervention seeking the nullification thereof, and while
her marriage with Troadio was still subsisting. Both the
Court of Appeals and the trial court found AsuncionÊs
signature in the deed of sale to have been forged, and
consequently, the deed of sale void for lack of marital
consent. We find no reason to disturb the findings of the
trial court and the Court of Appeals. Findings of fact of
lower courts are deemed conclusive and binding30 upon the
Supreme Court subject to certain exceptions, none of
which are present in this case. Besides, it has
_______________
any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wifeÊs

consent. If she refuses unreasonably to give her consent, the court may
compel her to grant the same.
This article shall not apply to property acquired by the conjugal
partnership before the effective date of this Code.
29 Art. 173. The wife may, during the marriage and within ten years
from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any
contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such
consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to
defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property.
Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs after the
dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property
fraudulently alienated by the husband.
30 The exceptions are: when the findings are grounded on speculation,
surmises or conjectures; when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion
in the appreciation of facts; when the factual findings of the trial and
appellate courts are conflicting; when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, has gone beyond the issues of the case and such findings are
contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; when the
judgment of the appellate court is
361
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 361

long been recognized in our jurisprudence

31
that a forged
deed is a nullity and conveys no title.
Petitioner argues she has a better right over the
property in question, as the holder of and the first one to
present, the ownerÊs copy of the title for the issuance of a
new TCT. The Court is not persuaded.
The act of registration does not validate petitionerÊs
otherwise void contract. Registration is a mere ministerial
act by which a deed, contract, or instrument is sought to be
inscribed in the records of the Office of the Register of
Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of title
covering the land subject of the deed, contract, or
instrument. While it operates as a notice of the deed,
contract, or instrument to others, it does not add to its
validity nor converts an 32invalid instrument into a valid one
as between the parties, nor amounts to a declaration by
the state that the instrument
33
is a valid and subsisting
interest in the land. The registration of petitionerÊs void
deed is not an impediment to a declaration by the courts of
its invalidity.
Even assuming that there was double sale in this case,
petitioner would still not prevail. The pertinent portion of
Art. 1544 provides:
_______________
premised on a misapprehension of facts or when it has failed to notice

certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a
different conclusion; when the findings of fact are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence upon which they are based; and when
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of
evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record. Solid Homes,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 261, 275; 275 SCRA 267, 279 (1997).
31 Salomon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70263, 14 May
1990, 185 SCRA 352.
32 Pascua v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 350, 367; 348 SCRA 197, 209
(2000).
33 Agricultural Credit Cooperative Assn. of Hinigaran v. Yusay, et al.,
107 Phil. 791 (1960).
362

Art. 1544. x x x.
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.
x x x x.
In interpreting this provision, the Court declared that the

governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in
time, stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first
buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyerÊs
rights, except where the second buyer registers in good
faith the second sale ahead of the first as provided by the
aforequoted provision of the Civil Code. Such knowledge of
the first buyer does not bar him from availing of his rights
under the law, among them to register first his purchase as
against the second buyer. However, 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
34
knowledge
taints his prior registration with bad faith. It is thus
essential, to merit the protection of Art. 1544, second
paragraph, that the second realty 35buyer must act in good
faith in registering his deed of sale.
We agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals
that respondent was a buyer in good faith, having
purchased the nine (9) lots, including the subject lot,

without any notice of a previous sale, but only a notice of
attachment relative to a pending civil case. In fact, in its
desire to finally have the title to the properties transferred
in its name, it persuaded the parties in the said case to
settle the same so that the notice of attachment could be
cancelled.
_______________
34 Ulep v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125254, 11 October 2005, 472

SCRA 241, 253 citing Uraca v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 702 (1997).
35 Coronel, et al. v. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 294, 321-322; 263 SCRA
15, 37 (1996) citing VITUG, COMPENDIUM OF CIVIL LAW AND
JURISPRUDENCE, 1993 Ed., p. 604.
363
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 363

Relevant to the discussion are the following provisions of

P.D. No. 1529:
Sec. 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner.·An

owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or
otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He
may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, lease or other voluntary
instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease or
other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or
affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the
land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and
as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
Registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to
convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration
shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province
or city where the land lies. (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration.·Every
conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien attachment, order, judgment,
instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered,
filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province
or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice
to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.‰
It has been held that between two transactions concerning

the same parcel of land, the registered transaction prevails
over the earlier unregistered right. The act of registration
operates to convey and affect the registered land so that a
bona fide purchaser of such land acquires good title as
against a prior
36
transferee, if such prior transfer was
unrecorded. As found by the courts a quo, respondent was
able to register its purchase ahead of petitioner. It will be
recalled that respondent was able to register its Deed of
Conditional Sale with the Register of Deeds as early as 6
November 1992, and its Deed of Absolute Sale on 14
October 1993. On the other hand, peti-
_______________
36 Macadangdang v. Martinez, G.R. No. 158682, 31 January 2005, 450

SCRA 363, 368.
364

tioner was able to present for registration her deed of sale

and ownerÊs copy of the title only on 23 January 1995, or
almost nine years after the purported sale. Why it took
petitioner nine (9) years to present the deed and the
ownerÊs copy, she had no credible explanation; but it is
clear that when she finally did, she already had
constructive notice of the deed of sale in respondentÊs favor.
Without a doubt, respondent had acquired a better title to
the property.
Finally, anent petitionerÊs claim that P.D. No. 1529
applies to registered lands or any subsequent sale thereof,
while Art. 1544 of the Civil Code applies only to immovable
property not covered by the Torrens System, suffice it to
say that this quandary has already been answered by an
eminent former member of this Court, Justice Jose Vitug,
who explained that the registration contemplated under
Art. 1544 has been held to refer to registration under P.D.
No. 1529, thus:
„The registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has been

held to refer to registration under Act 496 Land Registration
Act (now PD 1529) which considers the act of registration as the
operative act that binds the land (see Mediante v. Rosabal, 1 O.G.
[12] 900, Garcia v. Rosabal, 73 Phil 694). On lands covered by the
Torrens System, the purchaser acquires such rights and interest as
they appear in the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien or
encumbrance not noted therein. The purchaser is not required to
explore farther than what the Torrens title, upon its face, indicates.
The only exception is where the purchaser has actual knowledge of
a flaw or defect in the title of the seller or of such liens or
encumbrances which, as to him, is equivalent to registration (see
Sec. 39, Act 496; Bernales v. IAC, G.R. 75336, 18 October 1988;
Hernandez vs. Sales, 69 Phil. 744; Tajonera vs. Court of Appeals, L-
37
26677, 27 March 1981) (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
37 VITUG, COMPENDIUM OF CIVIL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

(1993), p. 604, cited in Abrigo v. De Vera, G.R. No. 154409, 21 June 2004,
432 SCRA 544, 557.
365
VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 365

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed

decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are
affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution

affirmed.
Notes.·A registration must be done in the proper

registry in order to bind the land·where the property in
dispute is already registered under the Torrens system,
registration of the sale under Act 3344 is not effective for
purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code. (Abrigo vs. De
Vera, 432 SCRA 544 [2004])
Article 1544 of the Civil Code 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, and even if the sale was made by the same
person, if the second sale was made when such person was
no longer the owner of the property. (Consolidated Rural
Bank [Cagayan Valley], Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 448 SCRA
347 [2005])
··o0o··
366
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

350 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

350 Supreme Court Reports Annotated: Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 533 8/6/20, 8:26 AM

350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

CARMELITA FUDOT, petitioner, vs. CATTLEYA LAND,

Same; Same; Land Titles; The act of registration does not

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 351

Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc.

act by which a deed, contract, or instrument is sought to be inscribed

Same; Same; Same; In interpreting Art. 1544 of the Civil Code,

his deed of sale.

352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc.

Same; Same; Same; Between two transactions concerning the

Same; Same; Same; The registration contemplated under Article

they appear in the certificate of title, unaffected by any prior lien or

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 353

Fudot vs. Cattleya Land, Inc.

IAC, G.R. 75336, 18 October 1988; Hernandez vs. Sales, 69 Phil.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

registered with the Register of Deeds on 06 November 1992

1 Rollo, pp. 22-32. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon,

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 355

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioner sought recourse to the Court of Appeals, arguing

BETWEEN 2 BUYERS OF REGISTERED LAND, WHO HAS THE

IS A BUYER OF REGISTERED LAND WHO DID NOT

DEMAND OR REQUIRE THE DELIVERY OF THE OWNERÊS

14 Id., at pp. 22-32, 28-29; CA Decision dated 28 April 2005.

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 357

II. IN SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF REGISTERED LANDS,

third issue, on the other hand, is ostensibly a 21

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Respondent maintains that there is no room to speak of

22 Id., at pp. 70-71.

23 Id., at pp. 72-73.

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 359

validly sold to different vendees. In this case, there is only

The congruence of the wills of the spouses 27

25 No. L-59514, 25 February 1988, 158 SCRA 138.

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

cember 1986 when the deed of sale was purportedly

any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wifeÊs

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 361

long been recognized in our jurisprudence

premised on a misapprehension of facts or when it has failed to notice

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In interpreting this provision, the Court declared that the

purchased the nine (9) lots, including the subject lot,

34 Ulep v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125254, 11 October 2005, 472

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 363

Relevant to the discussion are the following provisions of

Sec. 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner.·An

It has been held that between two transactions concerning

36 Macadangdang v. Martinez, G.R. No. 158682, 31 January 2005, 450

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tioner was able to present for registration her deed of sale

„The registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has been

37 VITUG, COMPENDIUM OF CIVIL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 365

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution