Dimpas digest

FUDOT VS. CATTLEYA  G.R. NO. 171008 SEPT. 13, 2007

FACTS: 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, respectively.[1][3]  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 No. 3399 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.[2][4]  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 owner’s 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 petitioner’s application.  Much to its surprise, respondent learned that the  Register of Deeds  had already registered the deed of sale in favor of petitioner and issued a new title in her name.[3][5]

            On 5 May 1995, respondent filed its Complaint[4][6] for Quieting Of Title &/Or Recovery Of Ownership, Cancellation Of Title With Damages before the Regional Trial Court of Tagbilaran City.[5][7]   On 26 June 1995, Asuncion filed a complaint-in-intervention, 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 petitioner’s deed of sale was forged thus, said deed should be declared null and void.[6][8]  She also claimed that she has discovered only recently that there was an amorous relationship between her husband and petitioner.[7][9]

Petitioner, for her part, alleged in her answer[8][10]  that  the spouses Tecson had sold to her the subject property for P20,000.00 and delivered to her the owner’s 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 October 2001, the trial court rendered its decision:[9][11] (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 respondent’s claim for damages against the Register of Deeds for insufficiency of evidence; (v) dismissing Asuncion’s claim for damages against petitioner for lack of factual basis; and (vi) dismissing petitioner’s counterclaim  for lack of the required preponderance of evidence.[10][12] 

ISSUES: 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 OWNER’S 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 OWNER’S DUPLICATE TCT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH.

III.

II.     IN SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF REGISTERED LANDS, AS BY SALE, WHICH LAW SHALL GOVERN, ARTICLE 1455 OF CIVIL CODE OR P.D. 1529 OR TORRENS SYSTEM.[11][17]

RULING: The petition is bereft of merit.

            Petitioner’s arguments, which rest on the assumption that there was a double sale, must fail.

            In the first place, there is no double sale to speak of.   Art. 1544 of the Civil Code,[12][24] 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,[13][25] 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,[14][26] 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.

---

            According to the trial court, respondent had recorded in good faith the deed of sale in its favor ahead of petitioner. Moreover, based on  Asuncion’s convincing and unrebutted testimony, the trial court  concluded that the purported signature of Asuncion in the  deed of sale in favor of petitioner was forged, thereby  rendering the sale void.[7][13]