559 Phil. 852
QUISUMBING, J.:
However, in July 1990, Araceli, as co-owner and attorney-in-fact of the other co-owners, offered to sell the whole lot consisting of 746 square meters to herein petitioner spouses Brilly and Olivia Bernardez. At that time, the property was mortgaged in favor of Banco Filipino; but the mortgage was cancelled upon payment of
- That the VENDEE shall pay the VENDOR the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND (
P150,000.00) PESOS representing the down payment;- That the subject property will be resurveyed to determine the exact area and a separate title will be applied in favor of the VENDEE;
- That upon issuance of said title, the same will be used to apply for a loan, after which, the sum of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND (
P200,000.00) PESOS will be paid to the VENDOR as part of the purchase price;- That the remaining balance of the purchase price shall be annotated at the back of the title which shall be paid by the VENDEE to the VENDOR within one (1) year from January 15, 1986 to January 15, 1987; on a monthly basis of
P27,500 per month;- That in case any of the aforementioned terms and conditions will not materialize, this Conditional Deed of Sale shall automatically and without any formality, becomes null and void, and the VENDOR is given the right to retain 15% of the down payment as rentals of the premises.[4]
Thereafter, the Bernardez spouses paid
- PESOS: One Million (
P1,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, upon execution hereof and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the VENDOR to their complete satisfaction;- PESOS: Two Million (
P2,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, upon submission to the VENDEE by co-owner Araceli Felicia P. Pascual-Sevilla of the appropriate Special Power/s of Attorney from her co-owners re-confirming her authority to represent them in this transaction, which submission Vendor Araceli Felicia P. Pascual-Sevilla undertakes shall be not later than 15 January 1991;- PESOS: Two Million (
P2,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, on or before 31 January 1991, provided that Vendor Araceli Felicia P. Pascual-Sevilla's authority as attorney-in-fact of her other co-owners has been reconfirmed as above provided, and that the Certificate of Title to the property which the VENDOR represented to have been destroyed by the fire that hit the Quezon City Hall including the offices of the Register of Deeds, shall have been duly reconstituted in accordance with law;- PESOS: Two Million (
P2,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, on or before 15 May 1991, provided the conditions stated in the immediately preceding paragraph have been fully satisfied and the premises shall have been completely vacated by tenants and other occupants; otherwise, this installment payment shall become due and payable only on such later date as all such prior conditions shall have been fully and completely complied with.[6]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the decision appealed from is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered:Consequently, a deed of conveyance was issued in favor of the Magtoto spouses. Forthwith, a separate title was issued in their name under TCT No. N-187873.
1) Declaring the Conditional Deed of Sale enforceable in accordance with this Decision;
2) Ordering the appellees to cause the issuance of a separate title in favor of the appellants covering 154 square meters of the lot, and upon the issuance of said title, the appellants are ordered to comply with their obligation under condition no. 3 of the contract;
3) After the above-mentioned have been complied with, the appellants are ordered to payP8,500.00 to the appellees representing the deficiency in the July installment and thereafter to pay the monthly installment ofP27,500.00 for six (6) consecutive months; and
4) Pending its full payment, the remaining balance aforementioned shall be annotated at the separate title of the appellants in compliance with the terms of the contract.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[9]
The Bernardez spouses contend that the Court of Appeals erred in finding that they failed to prove their status as purchasers in good faith. They insist they had no knowledge of any prior claim on the disputed property. They also assert that the October 10, 1990 inscription of lis pendens on the subject title was fraudulent and that their registration in good faith precedes that of the Magtoto spouses.I.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT REJECTING AS A FALSIFICATION THE SUPPOSED INSCRIPTION ON OCTOBER 10, 1990 OF THE LIS PENDENS APPEARING ON PAGE 5 OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE IT BEING UTTERLY WAY OUT OF THE CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE ENTRIES THEREIN.II.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE UNCONTROVERTED CLAIM OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, BUTTRESSED BY THE OFFICIAL RECORDS, THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF ANY ENCUMBRANCE, ADVERSE CLAIM OR LIEN ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME THEY BOUGHT IT.III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR SUPERIOR RIGHT OVER THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES ON THE [154-SQUARE] METER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY TCT NO. 224112, AND IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT.[11]
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.The law is clear that when the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of Property shall be deemed the owner. Primus tempore, potior jure. First in time, stronger in right. However, the act of registration must be coupled with good faith. That is, the registrant must have no knowledge of any defect in the title of the vendor or must not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with any such defect.[12]
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
Dear Mrs. Sevilla,Further, the said prior sale of the 154-square meter portion of the property to the Magtoto spouses was precisely the reason why the Bernardez spouses entered into a Memorandum of Agreement[14] with the vendors in order to proceed with the sale. By their own admissions and undertakings, the Bernardez spouses are already estopped from claiming lack of knowledge of the prior sale. They cannot be said to have been in good faith in registering the subject property in their name. Hence, between the Bernardez spouses and the Magtoto spouses, we rule that the latter have a better right to the 154-square meter portion of the property, having first registered the same in good faith.
Please be hereby informed that on account of our recently discovered pendency of Civil Case No. Q-90-6808 entitled "Spouses Leopoldo Magtoto and Clarita Magtoto - versus - Aurea Vda. de Pascual and Araceli P. Sevilla" before Branch LXXXVI (86) of the Regional Trial Court at Quezon City, which materially affects our rights as Vendee of the entire property subject of our Deed of Conditional Sale dated November 16, 1990, we are constrained to with[h]old further payments under the aforesaid Deed of Conditional Sale until the matter of the pending case is finally resolved in your favor.[13]
x x x x