PEBLIA ALFARO AND THE HEIRS OF PROSPEROUS ALFARO,

Petitioners vs. SPOUSES DUMALAGAN et al., Respondents

(G.R. No. 186622, January 22, 2014)
Perez, J.
FACTS:
Sps. Prosperous and Peblia Alfaro bought a lot from Sps. Bagano
through a Deed of absolute Sale on June 1995. The subject property was
presently occupied by Sps. Dumalagan. Due to such circumstance and to
allegedly protect their right, the Sps. Alfaro filed a petition. Spouses
Dumalagan presented the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated
December 6, 1993 and certificate , they are the real owner of a portion of
the subject property, based on a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated
December 6, 1993 and Certificate of Completion and a Certificate of
Occupancy, both dated August 10, 1993. Spouses Bagano filed a
complaint for Declaration of Nuliity of Sale with Damages and
Preliminary Injunction against petitioners. In said case, this court
sustained validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale between petitioners and
Spouses Bagano, which the appellate court reversed and set aside.
According to the Appellate court, petitioners cannot claim good faith by
referring to the annotations written at the back of Baganos title. It stated
that regardless if the petitioners name was not stated in the annotated
adverse claims it still have te effect of constructive notice of the defect in
the sellers title that made them as subsequent buyers. Such fact can be
considered as an evidence that Sps. Alfaro had prior notice that the
property they bought had prior owners.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners are considered as buyer in good faith?
HELD:
NO. According to the evidence presented, it clearly showed that Sps.
Alfaro admitted to the existence of the annotation in the tile of Sps.
Bagano when the former had bought the property. Their contention that
such annotation have already expired pursuant to Section 70 of PD 1529,
which provides that an adverse claim shall be effective only for a period
of 30 days from the date of its registration. Petitioners claim that the
constructive notice ended 30 days from February 22, 1995 or on March
23, 1995 is untenable. The law also states that after the lapse of said
period, the party in interest may cancel the annotation of adverse claim
upon filing of a verified petition. Through the stated evidence it was

proven that the sale to the Sps. Alfaro happened before hte expiration of
the annotations. Thus showing that the entered in to contract of sale
during the validity of such annotation. Therefore, petitioners cannot
claim good faith on the basis of the supposed in-effectivity of the
annotated adverse claims. Also, of the fact that they were aware of that
the the subject property had a present occupants and the Alfaros did not
even question or looked into it before proceeding to with the sale. Rules
on double sale cannot also be had as it requires good faith on the part of
the buyer.