You are on page 1of 3

1. CARBONELL V.

CA The principle that a person dealing with the owner of


registered land is not bound to go behind the certificate
In case of double sale of immovable property, second and inquire into transactions the existence of which is not
paragraph of 1544 directs that ownership should be there intimated should not apply in this case. It was of
recognized in favor of one who in good faith first recorded common knowledge that at the time the soldiers of
his right. If there is no inscription, what is decisive is prior Laureta took the documents from Mata, the civil
possession in good faith. When Carbonell bought the lot government of Tagum was not yet established and that
from Poncio, she was the only buyer thereof and the title there were no officials to ratify contracts of sale and make
of Poncio was still in his name. Carbonell was not aware them registerable.
of any sale to Infante as there was no such sale to Infante
then. Hence, Carbonell’s prior purchase of the land was 6. CRUZ V. CABANA
made in good faith. Also, Carbonell’s good faith did not
cease until after Poncio told her of his second sale to The knowledge of a prior transfer of registered
Infante. As Infante refused to see her, Carbonell property by a subsequent purchaser makes the
registered her adverse claim in good faith. subsequent purchaser in bad faith and vitiates his title
acquired thereto, which creates no right as against the
2. DAGUPAN TRADING V. MACAM first purchaser.
The requirement that before the second buyer can
Unregistered sale cannot be defeated by a obtain priority over the first buyer, the second buyer must
subsequent execution sale and registration of the latter. show that he acted in good faith throughout from the time
Where for a considerable time prior to the levy on of acquisition until title is transferred to him by registration,
execution interest of the owner of the land levied upon or failing registration, by delivery of possession.
had already been conveyed to another who took
possession thereof and introduced improvements thereon, 7. VALDEZ V. CA
the aforesaid levy is void. The prior sale, albeit
unregistered, cannot be deemed automatically cancelled Petitioners were the first to record their right in good
upon the subsequent issuance of the Torrens Title over faith, thus, establishing a superior right over the
the land. immovable property. Petitioners acquired subject lot in
good faith and for valuable consideration from the Antes
3. DAVID V. BANDIN and as such owners, petitioners fenced the property by
taking possession thereof. Thus, when petitioners
As the record shows, petitioners bought the property annotated their adverse claim in the Register of deed,
when it was still unregistered land. The defense of having they thereby established a superior right to the property as
purchased the property in good faith may be availed of against respondent Viernes.
only where registered land is involved and the buyer had
relied in good faith on the clear title of the registered
owner. One who purchases an unregistered land does so 8. NUGUID V. CA
at his peril. The issue of good or bad faith of buyer is
relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered Although the second sale to the petitioners herein was
land and the purchaser is buying the same from registered made by the heirs of the deceased Victorino Dela Rosa
owner whose title to the land is clean. the said heirs are deemed the judicial continuation of the
personality of the decedent. Essentially, the first and
4. OLIVARES V. GONZALES second sales were made by the same person, as
envisioned under ART 1544. Pursuant to this, the rule in
The SC held that the equities of the case are with the case of a double sale is that the disputed property being
Olivareses. The first sale with pacto de retro by the immovable, the ownership should belong to the vendee
Tuvillas to Tumabini was unregistered; In contrast, the who in good faith first recorded it in the registry of
sale in favor of the Olivareses was duly recorded. The property.
Consolidation Case instituted by Tumabini against Tuvillas
for consolidation of his ownership did not include the 9. RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY V. PALILEO
Olivareses as parties defendants even though they were
in possession of the disputed property. Justice and equity It is the act of registration that operates to convey and
therefore demand, that their side be heard in the Refiled affect registered land. Therefore, a bona fide purchaser of
Case. a registered land at an execution sale acquires a good title
as against a prior transferee, if such transfer was
5. CARAM V. LAURETA unrecorded. The purchaser of an unregistered land at an
execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment
A buyer of real estate should exercise ordinary care in debtor, and merely acquires the latter’s interest in the
purchasing land. The rule of caveat emptor requires the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon.
purchaser to be aware of the supposed title of the vendor
and one who buys without checking the vendor’s title
takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.
10. TANEDO V. CA 16. RAMOS V. CA

Petitioners contend that they were in possession of The purported deeds of sale con pacto de retro are
the property and that private respondents never took equitable mortgages. The two deeds were executed by
possession thereof. As between two purchasers, the one reason of the loan and that the purchase price stated
who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right therein was the amount of the loan itself. The true
over the other who has not registered his title, even if the intention of the parties being that the transaction shall
latter is in actual possession of the immovable property. secure the payment of debt, it shall be presumed to be an
equitable mortgage, and the existence of one
11. OCCENA V. ESPONILLA circumstance is enough to create the presumption.

In the case at bar, the Court finds that the petitioner- 17. DE LEON V. SALVADOR
spouses failed to prove good faith in their purchase and
registration of land. A purchaser in good faith and for When there is the right to redeem, inadequacy of the
value is one who buys property without notice that some price should not be material, because the judgment debtor
other person has a right to or interest in such property and may reacquire the property or also sell his right to redeem
pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse and thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by
claims and interest of another person in the same reason of the price obtained at the auction sale.
property. Good faith implies a freedom from knowledge of
circumstances, which ought to put a person on inquiry. 18. FLORES V. SO

12. MOLES V. IAC Under the old civil code, the ownership was
consolidated in the vendee a retro by operation of law.
As a general rule, there is no implied warranty as to Accordingly, upon the failure of Valentin Gallano, as the
the condition, adaptation, fitness or suitability for the vendor a reto, to redeem the property subject of the pacto
purpose for which made, or the quality, of an article sold de retro sale within the period agreed ipon, the vendee a
as and for a secondhand article. retro, Alfonso Flores, became the absolute owner of the
subject property.
13. ENGINEERING AND MACHINERY CORP V. CA
19. ALONZO V. IAC
The remedy against violations of the warranty against
hidden defects is either to withdraw from the contract, Where co-heirs filed action for redemption of co-heirs
which is known as the redhibitory action, or to demand a sold share only after 13 years had elapsed from the sale,
proportionate reduction of the price, which is known as they are deemed to have been actually informed thereof
accion quanti minoris, with damages in either case. sometime during those years although no written notice of
sale was given to them. In other words, when Tecla
14. SONNY LO V. CA Padua filed her complaint, the right of redemption had
already been extinguished because the period for its
It may well be that the assignment of credit, which is exercise had already expired.
in the nature of a sale of personal property, produced the
effects of a dacion en pago which may extinguish the 20. LAO V. CA
obligation. However, as in any other contract of sale, the
vendor or assignor is bound by certain warranties. ??? It is settled that a pacto de retro sale should be
treated as a mortgage where the property sold never left
15. CATUNGAL V. RODRIGUEZ the possession of the vendors. The Court finds that the
agreement between the private respondent and N.
In the past, this Court has distinguished between Domigo Realty and Housing Corp. is manifestly one of
a condition imposed on the perfection of a contract and a equitable mortgage.
condition imposed merely on the performance of an
obligation. While failure to comply with the first condition 21. LANUZA V. DE LEON
results in the failure of a contract, failure to comply with
the second merely gives the other party the option to The SC held that the fact that the vendors remain in
either refuse to proceed with the sale or to waive the possession of the house sold and that the parties
condition. This principle is evident in Article 1545 of the extended the period of redemption may indicate that a
Civil Code on sales, which provides in part, that where the pacto de retro sale was an equitable mortgage. Other
obligation of either party to a contract of sale is subject to circumstances, such as the inadequacy of the price, the
any condition which is not performed, such party may stipulation that the ownership over the thing sold would
refuse to proceed with the contract or he may waive pass to the vendee only in case there was no redemption
performance of the condition was effected, and the delay in filing the petition for
consolidation show that what was intended was a
mortgage and not a sale.
22. CAPULONG V. CA petitioner was asked to vacate the leased premises, the
lease contract had already expired and therefore, could no
The deed of sale and deed of option to purchase the longer be extended.
property at bar are in reality an equitable mortgage, as
they were signed on the same day. The subsequent sale 28. CLUTARIO V. CA
of the property to vendee-a-retro’s brother and its
registration on same day indicate that the said sale is not For the lessor to be able to validly eject the lessee on
bona fide. The existence of equitable mortgage is shown the ground of need for the leased property, it must be
also by the fact that petitioner obtained a series of loans shown that there is no other available residential unit to
from the respondent, and that the “vendor” remained in satisfy that need. The non-availability must exist at the
possession of the premises. time of the demand by the lessor on the lessee to vacate
the property.
23. SOLID HOMES INC. V. CA
29. YAP V. CRUZ
In a contract of sale with pacto de retro, the vendee
has a right to the immediate possession of the property The Court held that while it is true that the lease of
sold, unless otherwise agreed upon. It is basic that in a private respondent is on a month-to-month bases and
pacto de retro sale, the title and ownership of the property may be terminated at the end of any month after proper
sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro, subject notice or demand to vacate has been given, in the case at
only to the resolutory condition of repurchase by the bar, however, the lack of proper notice or demand to
vendor a retro within the stipulated period. vacate upon the private respondent is clearly evident. In
the absence of such notice, the lease of private
24. PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORP. V VALENCIA respondent continues to be in force and cannot be
deemed to have expired as of the end of the month
Whenever a piece of rural land not exceeding one automatically. Neither can be the non- payment of the rent
hectare is alienated, the law grants to the adjoining for the month of August be a ground for termination of the
owners a right of redemption except when the grantee or lease without a demand to pay and to vacate.
buyer does not own any other rural land.
Art 1623 of the NCC provides that the right of legal 30. UNITED REALTY CORP. V CA
pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except
within 30 days from notice in writing by the prospective Since the lease agreement in question is for a definite
vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. This period, it follows that petitioner has a right to judicially
requirement of notice by vendor is mandatory. eject private respondent from the premises as an
exception to the rule provided for in Section 4 PD 20. A
25. ETCUBAN V. CA lease contract may be terminated at the end of any month,
which shall be deemed terminated upon the refusal to pay
A sworn statement or clause in a deed of sale stating the increased monthly rental demanded by the petitioner,
that a written notice of sale was given to possible provided the same is not exorbitant.
redemptioners or co-owners, can be used to determine Death of the lessee terminates the lease agreement.
whether am offer to redeem was made on or out of time,
or whether there was substantial compliance with the 31. LEGAR MGMT AND REALTY CORP. V. CA
requirement of ART 1623 of the NCC.
Lease agreements with no specified period, but in
26. GUZMAN V. BONNEVIE which rentals are paid monthly, are considered to be on a
month-to-month basis. They are for a definite period and
The Court agrees with the respondent court that it expire after the last day of any given thirty-day period,
was not necessary to secure the approval by the probate upon proper demand and notice by the lessor to vacate.
court of the Contract of Lease because it did not involve Where the verbal lease agreement entered into has been
an alienation of real property of the estate nor did the term validly terminated, there is sufficient cause for ejectment.
of the lease exceed one year so as to make it fall under
ART 1878(8) of the Civil Code. Only if paragraph 20 of the
Contract of Lease was activated and the said property
was intended to be sold would it be required of the
administratrix to secure the approval of the probate court
pursuant to Rule 89 of the Rules of Court.

27. YEK SENG CO V. CA

The Court held that as the rental in the case at bar


was paid monthly and the term had not been expressly
agreed upon, the lease was understood under ART 1687
to be terminable from month to month. At the time the

You might also like