SEPTEMBER 5 For registered land, madali lang. Follow the procedure.

1544 For unregistered land, is act 3344 applicable? -registration without prejudice to one with th ebetter right. if no registration 1544 rd Execution sale: rules of court will apply. Could be judgement creditor or 3 party- merely steps into the rights of judgement debtor. If the debtor has no right, you get no right. BUT if torrens title + registered and it is clean, pd1529 will give you a right. B. Double Sales (Articles 1544 and 1165) 17 Cheng v. Genato (300 SCRA 722 [1998]) o Genato to De Jose and subsequently cheng. ( Affidavit to annul during extended period without informing de jose and no annotation. When he registered, sold to de jose and gave cheng back his money) Suspensive condition for cheng not fulfilled so no contract. But failure to notify is wrong so not validly rescinded. Cheng is in bad faith because it was never sold to him. 21 Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (448 SCRA 347 [2005]) o Madrid sold to Gamiao and Dayag but didnt register ( only for tax) Both sold the norther half to hernandez and the southern half to Teodoro ( father of heirs) Later, Madrid sold the land to marquez who registered the property in his name and mortgaged several properties to CRB and RBC, forclosed. Heirs are rightful owners. 1) 1544 not applicable because not single vendor. Marquez bought in bad faith. CRB was in bad faith. Prior lawful possession more controlling. 16Carbonell v. Court of Appeals (69 SCRA 99 [1976]) (including Separate Opinion) o Poncio mortgaged to Republic savings. Carbonel lived adaject to land. Poncio sold to carbonel excluding the house. Carbonel boughtit and paid the mortgage. Later, he said he cant proceed with sale because he had given th elot to respondent emma who bought for more. Caronel filed adverse claim. Feb 8,1955. Deed of sale feb 12 1955 to ema. Carbonel wins. Emma is in bad faith. Annotated, avoided carbonel like the plague. Pushed through with deal. 23Abrigo v. De Vera (432 SCRA 544 [2004]) o Villafina sold to salazar and go w/ right of redemption may 1993. Uknown to both, acquired patent and sold to de vera. Oct 23,1997. Meanwhile, salazar go sold to abrigo in oct 16,1997. Forcible entry. De vera wins. (registered in TCT) 13Naawan Community Rural Bank, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (395 SCRA 43 [2003]) o Comayas waned to sell to lumos a house and lot. It was mortgaged to mrs. Gulapo. Lumons paid the mortgage to release the property. It was released. Prior to release, there was already a deed of sale. Sold for 125k but only expressed 30k. It was registered and TCT was issued to lumos. When lumos requested a tax declaration, the learned that it was still in the name of naawan community rural bank. Apparently, a loan was secured before through same lot. Balibay was the old owner and gave comayas an spa to use the land a ssecurity for the loan. A deed of mortgage and spa was recorded in misamis, not cdo becaue there used to be only one RoD. Foreclosed and sold to NCRB. Lumos are the true owners. 14Naval v. Court of Appeals (483 SCRA 102 [2006]) o Naval sold to Galarosa. Recorded in registry of deeds. Galarosa sold to balila 76, nacio77, moya 77 and camaala 87, who took possession. In 1975, juanita great grandaughter of nabval was issued an oct claiming the same land was sold to her by naval. Juanita loses. The principle of priorty in time priority In rights applies. Juanity cannot claim the better right even if she secured a title through a torrens sistem. 3344 st nd applies. Under the said law, registration of the 1 buyer is constructive notice to the 2 buyer so juanita cannot be in good faith. 24Dagupan Trading Co. v. Macam (14 SCRA 179 [1965])

Sammy and 7 syblings were owners of unregstered land. They applied for registration. Pending application, the marons executed 2 deeds of sale converying the property to macam. Subsequently,clean oct was issued to marons and sale to macom was not annotated. Later, court rendered judgement in separate case for manila trading agaisnt sammy maron where 1/8 of his share in the property was attached. The interest was sold in public auction. 2 years later, manila trading sold the rights to dagupan. Macom is now prejudiced. Sale to macam happened BEFORE it was registered and sale to Dagupan was AFTER registration. 25Carumba v. Court of Appeals (31 SCRA 558 [1970]) o Spouses Amado sold land to spouses carumba. Never registered. Later, a balbuena filed collection suit against amado. Sherrif issued a deed of sale for balbuena and registered in ROD. CFI though noticed that carumba was already cultivating the land and was delcared owner of a consumated sale. The sherrifs sale was voided. CA reversed holding balbuenas right stronger because it I sregistered. SC reveresed again saying carumba is correct. 1) purchaser from sheriff only steps into shoes of judgement debtor and is limited to his interest. The deed of sale issued to canuto was excercised 2 years before in a private document sufficed to vest ownership to him.

C. Obligations of the Buyer (Articles 1582-1589) D. Effect of Sale by a Non-Owner or One with Voidable Title (Articles 1505 and 1506) Paulmitan v. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 866 [1992]) Mindanao Academy, Inc. v. Yap (13 SCRA 190 [1965]) Bucton v. Gabar (55 SCRA 499 [1974]) EDCA Publishing v. Santos (184 SCRA 614 [1990]) Aznar v. Yapdiangco (13 SCRA 486 [1965]) VII. Documents of Title (Articles 1507-1520, 1636) VIII. Loss, Deterioration, Fruits A. Applicability (Article 1263) B. Effects of Loss or Deterioration of the Subject Matter (Articles 1493-1494, 1164, 1189, 1262, 1480, 1504, 1538, 1480, 1163, 1164, 1165, 1504, 1538, 1189) C. Fruits (Articles 1480, 1537-1538) SEPTEMBER 12 IX. Remedies for Breach (Articles 1594-1599) A. Remedies of the Seller 1. Movables (Articles 1593, 1595-1597) 2. Unpaid Seller (Articles 1524-1535) 3. Recto Law (Articles 1484-1486) Levy v. Gervacio (69 Phil 52 [1939] Delta Motor Sales Corp. v. Niu Kim Duan (213 SCRA 259 [1992]) Tajanglangit v. Southern Motors (101 Phil. 606 [1957]) Nonato v. IAC (140 SCRA 255 [1985]) Ridad v. Filipinas Investment (120 SCRA 246 [1983]) Northern Motors v. Sapinoso (33 SCRA 356 [1970]) Cruz v. Filipinas Investment (23 SCRA 791 [1968]) Borbon II v. Servicewide Specialists, Inc. (258 SCRA 634 [1996]) Filipinas Investment v. Ridad (30 SCRA 564 [1969]) PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Giraffe-X Creative Imaging, Inc. (527 SCRA 405 [2007]) x Zayas v. Luneta Motors (117 SCRA 726 [1982]) x Macondray & Co. v. Eustaquio (64 Phil 446 [1937])

4.

Immovables i. Subdivision Lots and Condominium Units: Sections 23 and 24, Presidential Decree No. 957 ii. Maceda Law (Republic Act No. 6552)

B. SEPTEMBER 19 C.

Jestra Development and Management Corp. v. Pacifico (513 SCRA 413 [2007]) x Mc Laughlin v. Court of Appeals (144 SCRA 693 [1986]) x Garcia v. Court of Appeals (619 SCRA 280 [2010]) iii. Non-Residential Immovables: Articles 1191 and 1592 iv. Remedies of the Buyer (Articles 1590, 1598-1599, 1191; PD 957, Sections 23 and 24) -

Cancellation of Contracts to Sell v. Breach of Contract of Sale 1. Resolution (Rescission) (Articles 1191, 1479, 1592) 2. Definitions and Distinctions Adelfa Properties, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (240 SCRA 575 [1995]) Coronel v. Court of Appeals (263 SCRA 15 [1996]) PNB v. Court of Appeals (262 SCRA 464 [1996]) Babasa v. Court of Appeals (290 SCRA 532 [1998]) Valdez v. Court of Appeals (439 SCRA 55 [2004]) De Leon v. Ong (611 SCRA 381 [2010]) Dignos v. Court of Appeals (158 SCRA 375 [1988]) 3. Cancellation of CTS University of the Philippines v. De Los Angeles (35 SCRA 103 [1970]) x Palay, Inc. v. Clave (124 SCRA 638 [1983]) x Lim v. Court of Appeals (182 SCRA 564 [1990]) x AFP Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (364 SCRA 768 [2001])

X.

Conditions and Warranties x Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. Court of Appeals (274 SCRA 597 [1997]) A. Conditions (Article 1545) Laforteza v. Machuca (333 SCRA 643 [2000]) Heirs of Pedro Escanlar v. Court of Appeals (281 SCRA 176 [1997]) B. Warranties 1. Express (Article 1546) x Guinhawa v. People (468 SCRA 278 [2005]) 2. Implied (Articles 1547-1580) Ang v. Court of Appeals (567 SCRA 53 [2008]) Nutrimix Feeds Corp. v. Court of Apeals (441 SCRA 357 [2004]) 3. Remedies (Article 1599) XI. Extinguishment of Sale A. Modes of Extinguishment of Obligations (Article 1231 and 1600) B. Conventional Redemption (Articles 1601 to 1618) x Roberts v. Papio (515 SCRA 346 [2007]) x Misterio v. Cebu State College of Science and Technology (461 SCRA 122 [2005]) x Solid Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals (275 SCRA 267 [1997]) x A. Francisco Realty v. Court of Appeals (298 SCRA 349 [1998]) x Abilla v. Gobonseng (374 SCRA 51 [2002]) C. Legal Redemption (Articles 1619 to 1623) Francisco v. Boiser (332 SCRA 305 [2000]) XII. XIII. XIV. Assignment of Credit and Other Incorporeal Rights (Articles 1624 to 1635) xNyco Sales Corp. v. BA Finance (200 SCRA 637 [1991]) xLicaros v. Gatmaitan (362 SCRA 548 [2001]) Bulk Sales Law (Act No. 3952) xChin v. Uy (40 O.G. 4 Supp. 52) xDBP v. The Honorable Judge of the RTC of Manila (86 O.G. No. 6 1137, 5 February 1990) Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000

xBalmaceda v. Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. (124 SCRA 893 [1983]) xGoodyear Tire v. Reyes, Sr. (123 SCRA 273 [1983])