447 Phil. 717
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations judgment is hereby rendered:In declaring null and void the “Deed of Absolute Sale” (or second sale) of the lot covered by TCT No. 72707 between spouses Mabanta and Zenaida Tan-Reyes, the trial court ratiocinated as follows:“SO ORDERED.”
- DECLARING Exhibit “A”, the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by the spouses Pablo Mabanta and Escolastica Colobong (in favor of Alejandro and Alfredo Gabriel) valid and subsisting.
- ORDERING the plaintiff Alejandro Gabriel to pay to the spouses Pablo Mabanta and Escolastica Colobong the sums of
P5,000.00 plusP34,426.05 (representing the loan with the DBP which plaintiff assumed) within 30 days from receipt hereof.- DECLARING the deed of sale executed by the spouses Pablo Mabanta and Escolastica Colobong in favor of Zenaida Tan Reyes as null and void.
- ORDERING the intervenor Zenaida Tan-Reyes to reconvey the land covered by T.C.T. No. T-160391 in favor of Alejandro Gabriel.
“But Zenaida (Tan) Reyes professes that she is a buyer in good faith and for value. In her testimony she said that the spouses Mabanta offered to sell the land to her on August 19, 1985. She was informed that the land was mortgaged in the DBP. She readily agreed to buy the land on that same day. She did not inquire further into the status of the land. She did not go and see the land first. What she did was to immediately go to the DBP the following day and paid the mortgage obligation in the amount ofUnsatisfied, spouses Mabanta and Zenaida Tan-Reyes interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals.P16,845.17 andP17,580.88 (Exhibits “1” and “2”). The following day August 21, a deed of sale in her favor was prepared and on October 17, 1985 she secured a certificate of title (Exhibit “5”). Under the above circumstances, it cannot be said that she is a purchaser in good faith. She should have first made a thorough investigation of the status of the land. Had she inquired, she should have been informed that the land was previously sold to at least two persons Susana Soriano and Alejandro Gabriel. She should also have first visited the land she was buying. Had she done so she should have discovered that the land was being cultivated by the Gabriels who would have informed her that they already bought the land from the Mabantas. The reason why she did not do this is because she already was appraised of the status of the land by her father Benito Tan. For reasons known only to her, she decided to buy the land just the same.x x x x x x
“Zenaida Tan therefore is not a purchaser in good faith and she cannot seek refuge behind her certificate of title. True, Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that should immovable property be sold to different vendees, the ownership shall belong to the person who in good faith first recorded it in the registry of property. Unfortunately, the registration made by Zenaida (Tan) Reyes of her deed of sale was not in good faith. For this reason in accordance with the same Article 1544, the land shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in possession. There is no question that it is the Gabriels who are in possession of the land.”
“Wherefore the appealed judgment is AFFIRMED with the following modification:In the instant petition for review on certiorari, petitioners Alejandro and Alfredo Gabriel raise this lone issue:“SO ORDERED.”
- DECLARING Exhibit “A”, the deed of sale with assumption of mortgage executed by the defendants-appellants spouses Pablo Mabanta and Escolastica Colobong over lots covered by TCT Nos. T-72705 and T-72707 valid and subsisting;
- ORDERING spouses Pablo Mabanta and Escolastica Colobong to surrender TCT No. 72705 to plaintiff-appellee Alejandro Gabriel;
- Declaring the deed of sale executed over lot with TCT No. 72707 (now T-160391) by spouses Pablo Mabanta and Escolastica Colobong in favor of intervenor-appellant Zenaida Tan Reyes as valid;
- Ordering plaintiffs-appellees and any all persons claiming rights under them to vacate Lot 3651-A now covered by TCT No. T-160391 and to deliver to intervenor-appellant Zenaida Tan-Reyes the possession thereof;
- Dismissing the case against defendants-appellants Benito Tan and Purita Masa;
- No pronouncement as to costs.
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DECLARING THE SECOND SALE OF THE DISPUTED LOT EXECUTED BY SPOUSES MABANTA IN FAVOR OF ZENAIDA TAN-REYES VALID UNDER ARTICLE 1544 OF THE CIVIL CODE.Petitioners contend that respondent Reyes is not a purchaser in good faith since she bought the disputed lot with the knowledge that petitioner Alejandro is claiming it in a previous sale.
“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 possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.Otherwise stated, where it is an immovable property that is the subject of a double sale, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.[14] The requirement of the law then is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith.[15] The rationale behind this is well-expounded in Uraca vs. Court of Appeals,[16] where this Court held:
“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 possession; and, in the absence thereof; to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.”
“Under the foregoing, the prior registration of the disputed property by the second buyer does not by itself confer ownership or a better right over the property. Article 1544 requires that such registration must be coupled with good faith. Jurisprudence teaches us that “(t)he 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 buyer’s right except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first, as provided by the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against the second buyer. But in converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his right even if he is first to register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer being able to displace the first buyer, that before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer’s right) – from the time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession.” (Emphasis supplied)In the case at bar, certain pieces of evidence, put together, would prove that respondent Reyes is not a buyer in good faith. The records show that on August 18, 1985, spouses Mabanta offered to her for sale the disputed lot. They told her it was mortgaged with respondent DBP and that she had to pay the loan if she wanted to buy it.[17] She readily agreed to such a condition. The following day, her father Benito Tan, accompanied by barangay official Tridanio, went to petitioner Alejandro’s house offering to return to him the
We are thus convinced that respondent Reyes had knowledge that petitioner previously bought the disputed lot from respondent spouses Mabanta. Why should her father approach petitioner and offer to return to him the money he paid spouses Mabanta? Obviously, aware of the previous sale to petitioner, respondent Reyes informed her father about it. At this juncture, it is reasonable to conclude that what prompted him to go to petitioner’s house was his desire to facilitate his daughter’s acquisition of the lot, i.e., to prevent petitioner Alejandro from contesting it. He did not foresee then that petitioner would insist he has a prior right over the lot.
“ATTY. CHANGALE: Q What can you say to that statement? A That is their mistake, sir. Q Why do you say that is their mistake? A Because her husband and Tridanio went at home offering to return the money but I did not accept, sir. Q Who is this Benito Tan you are referring to? A The husband of Pura Masa, sir. Q What is the relationship with the intervenor Zenaida Tan? A The daughter, sir. Q When did Benito Tan together with Councilman Tridanio came? A Before they went to the Development Bank of the Philippines they came at home and I prohibit them, sir. Q How did you prohibit them? A No, I said please I am just waiting for the Bank to inspect then I will pay my obligation.x x x x x x Q You stated earlier that you will just pay the payments. What are those payments you are referring to? A The payment I have given to Colobong and to the Bank, sir. They do not want to return the payment I have given to Susana Soriano and that is the beginning of our quarrel.”[19]
“If a vendee in a double sale registers the sale after he has acquired knowledge that there was a previous sale of the same property to a third party or that another person claims said property in a previous sale, the registration will constitute a registration in bad faith and will not confer upon him any right.”Mere registration of title is not enough, good faith must concur with the registration. To be entitled to priority, the second purchaser must not only establish prior recording of his deed, but must have acted in good faith, without knowledge of the existence of another alienation by the vendor to the other.[22] In the old case of Leung Yee vs. F. L. Strong Machinery, Co. and Williamson, this Court ruled:
“One who purchases a real estate with knowledge of a defect of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the vendor. His mere refusal to believe that such a defect exists, or his willful closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor’s title will not make him an innocent purchaser for value, if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact defective, and it appears that he had such notice of the defect as would have led to its discovery had he acted with that measure of precaution which may reasonably be required of a prudent man in a like situation. x x x ”[23]In fine, we hold that respondent Zenaida Tan-Reyes did not act in good faith when she bought the lot and had the sale registered.