GARCIA vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
January 22, 1980
FACTS:
A deed of sale for 2 parcels of land of the Hacienda Maysilo was executed in favor of
Ismael Lapus a bona fide occupant thereof. That deed of sale itself contains an entry
that it was annotated on the back of OCT NO. 983. However, contrary to the foregoing
entry, the deed of sale was not annotated on its OCT and consequently, that title was
apparently not cancelled.
As a result of the registration of that deed of sale, TCT No. 4910 was issued to Lapus
for the 2parcels of land. Lapus on different occasions mortgaged said parcels of land
to secure his obligations to the Philippine National Bank, the Government and the
Philippine Trust Company. He died in 1951. The subject lands were inherited by his
daughter, Carolina Lapuz-Gozon. Meanwhile, in 1962, certain alleged heirs known as
the Riveras of the late Maria Vidal filed a motion in the CFI of Rizal, alleging that they
were deprived of their participation in the Hacienda Maysilo. And that, since only OCT
No. 983 was supposedly unencumbered, all the land covered by that title should be
adjudicated to them. The court granted the motion.
In 1963, the lots sold to Ismael Lapus were assigned by Bartolome Rivera to his
successors-in-interest and new TCTs were issued to them. Thus, two sets of TCT for
the 2 lots, originally covered by OCT No. 983, were issued, one to the heir of Ismael
Lapus and another set to the successors-in-interest of the Riveras. Gozon and her coplaintiffs filed an action to quiet title and for damages. The trial court declared as valid
the TCTs to Gozon and her co-plaintiffs. It voided TCT issued to the Riveras.
ISSUE:
Whether the 1920 title issued to Lapus and the titles derived therefrom should prevail
over the 1963 title issued to the Riveras and the subsequent titles derived from it?
HELD:
There can be no doubt that Lapus was an innocent purchaser for value. He validly
transmitted to his successors-in-interest his indefeasible title or ownership over the
disputed lots or parcels of land. That title could not be nullified or defeated by the
issuance 43 years later to other persons of another title over the same lots due to the
failure of the register of deeds to cancel the title preceding the title issued to Lapuz.
The general rule is that in the case of two certificates of title, purporting to include the
same land, the earlier in date prevail, whether the land comprised in the latter
certificate be wholly, or only in part, comprised in the earlier certificate. In the case at
bar, Lapus has an earlier title over the Riveras.
The court also made distinction between involuntary and voluntary registration. In
involuntary registration an entry thereof in the day book is a sufficient notice to all
persons even if the owner's duplicate certificate of title is not presented to the register
of deeds. In voluntary registration, the buyer becomes the registered owner the
moment the deed is entered in the day book and he surrenders the owners duplicate
certificate of title and pays the fees.
The judgment of the CA, affirming the decision of the trial court, should stand.