Abrigo v. De Vera Case Digest

G.R. No. 154409

June 21, 2004

Rule: Betweem two buyers of the same immovable property registered under the Torrens system, the law gives ownership priority to

1. The first registrant in good faith
2. First possessor in good faith
3. Buyer who in good faith present the oldest title

This provision, however, does not apply to properties not registered under the Torrens system.

• In 1993, Villafania sold a house and lot located at Pangasinan. She sold it to Rosenda Salazar and Rosita Go.
  • This sale was subject to annulment, but the RTC approved the Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties.
  • Villafania was given 1 year from the date of the Compromise Agreement to buy back the house and lot and failure to do so would mean that the previous sale in favor of Rosenda and Rosita shall remain valid and binding and that Villafania should then vacate the premises without need of demand.
• Villafania failed ot buy back the house and lot.
• Rosita and Rosenda declared the property in their name.
• However, unknown to Rosita and Rosenda, Willafania obtained a free patent over the land involved in 1988. The free patent was later on cancelled by a TCT in 1996.
• On October 16, 1997, Rosenda and Rosita sold the property to Spouses Abrigo.
  • Abrigo registered the sale under Act 3344
• On October 23, 1997, Villafania sold the same property to de Vera.
  • De Vera registered the sale under the Land Registration Act and a TCT was issued in her name.
• In November 1997, de Vera filed an action for forcible entry and damages against the Spouses Abrigo.
  • This was dismissed because of the agreement of the parties that neither of them can physically take possession of the property in question unless the case is terminated.
• RTC favored the Spouses Abrigo.
• CA favored de Vera.
  • It found the de Vera is a purchaser in good faith and for value because she relied on the Torrens title.

Issues:

1. WON the deed of sale executed by Villafania in favor of de Vera is valid
2. WON de Vera is a purchaser for value in good faith
3. Who between the parties has a better title?

Ruling:

Article 1544 of the Civil Code says

“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.

Whould there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.”

This is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529 which provides that no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument (except a will) purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land until its registration.

So if a sale is unregistered, it is binding only between the seller and the buyer.

Rule: If the land is registered under the LRA and has therefor a Torrens Title and it is sold but the subsequent sale is registered not under the LRA but under Act 3344, such sale is not considered registered as the term is used under Article 1544.

The registration must be held in the proper registry in order to bind the land.

Difference between Article 3344 and LRA:

Under Act 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered land is without prejudice to a third party with a better right. The phrase has been held to mean that the mere registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.

Article 1544 of the Civil Code has no application to land not registered under Act 496.

• Reason: A purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff’s execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor and merely acquires the latter’s interest in the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon.

There is also a requirement of good faith.

Primus tempore, potior jure – first in time, stronger in right

A person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind the registry to determine the condition of the property since such condition is noted on the face of the register or certificate of title.