G.R. No. 154409
June 21, 2004
Doctrine
In cases of double sale, the first one who registered the property in good faith and in the proper registry acquired better rights to the property.
Facts
This case involves a double sale. On May 27, 1993, Gloria Villafania first sold the disputed property to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go. Subsequently, Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go sold the subject lot to petitioners on October 16, 1997. Hence, herein petitioners, in turn, derived their right from the first sale.
However, Gloria Villafania executed a second sale on the same property to respondent on October 23, 1997. Respondent registered the sale and as a consequence, TCT No. 22515 was issued in her name. Thereafter, respondent filed a forcible entry case against petitioners. The RTC and the CA ruled in favor of the petitioners. In its decision, the CA initially held that the second sail is void since Gloria Villafania had already transferred ownership to Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go. However, upon Motion for Reconsideration, the CA ruled that respondent is a purchaser in good faith and for value whose right must be protected. Hence, this petition.
Issue
Who has a better right to the property in question?
Held
The respondent has the better right to the property in question.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that a double sale of immovables transfers ownership to (1) the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. This principle is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529 which provides that unregistered sales is binding only between the seller and the buyer but it does not affect innocent third persons.
However, the priority in time principle or the rule that the first one who registers has better rights is not always applicable. This is because the registration must also be done in the proper registry in order to bind the land. If the land is registered under the Land Registration Act (and has therefore a Torrens Title), and it is sold but the subsequent sale is registered not under the Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, as amended, such sale is not considered REGISTERED.
In this case, petitioners registered their sale under Act 3344 while respondent registered it under the Torrens System. Since the subject property is under the Torrens System, respondent acquired better right since she was the one who registered the sale under the Torrens System. Hence, the respondent’s registration under the Torrens system should prevail over that of petitioners.
Moreover, Article 1544 provides that for a second buyer to acquire better right, the latter must acquire the immovable in good faith and to register it in good faith. Mere registration of title is not enough; good faith must concur with the registration. In this case, respondent was an innocent purchaser for value since the factual findings of the case revealed that Respondent De Vera was in good faith. Therefore, respondent’s right must be protected.