43. Sabitsana v. Juanito Muertegui the land is clean.

In such case, the purchaser who relies on the clean

Double Sales|Del Castillo title of the registered owner is protected if he is a purchaser in good
FACTS: faith for value.
1. Alberto Garcia issued an unnotarized Deed of Sale in favor of Juanity Muertegui ● SC held that Act. 3344 applies to sale of registered land. Act No. 3344 expressly
over an unregistered land, covered by a Tax Declaration in Garcia’s name declares that any registration made shall be without prejudice to a third party
2. Juanito’s father took actual possession of the land and planted cocout and ipil with a better right.
ipil. ○ The sale to respondent Juanito was executed on via an unnotarized
3. Thereafter, Garcia sold the same land to Juanito’s family lawyer, Atty. Sabitsana deed of sale,
a. A notarized deed of sale was executed ○ While the sale to Atty. Sabitsana was made via a notarized document
b. A new tax declaration was issued. done ten years thereafter.
4. When Juanito sought to register the land under the Public Land Act, it was ○ Thus, Juanito who was the first buyer has a better right to the lot, while
opposed by Atty. Sabitsana, claiming to be the true owner of the land the subsequent sale to Atty. Sabitsana is null and void, because when it
5. Juanito filed a case for quieting of title against Atty. Sabitsana was made, the seller Garcia was no longer the owner of the lot.
6. Atty. Sabitsana claimed that the sale to Garcia was void because the consent of ○ The fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized does not alter
Garcia’s wife was not obtained. anything, since the sale between him and Garcia remains valid
7. RTC/CA affirmed in toto: nonetheless.
a. ruled in favor of Garcia ○ Notarization, or the requirement of a public document under the Civil
b. Applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code, the lower court said that the Code, is only for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability.
determining factor is Atty. Sabitsana’s good faith, or the lack of it. ○ And because it remained valid as between Juanito and Garcia, the latter
Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different no longer had the right to sell the lot to Atty. Sabitsana, for his
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may ownership thereof had ceased.
have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable
property.
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.
Should 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.
c. It held that even though Atty. Sabitsan were first to register the sale in
their favor, they did not do so in good faith, for they already knew
beforehand of Garcia’s prior sale to Juanito.
8. ATTY SABITSANA: insist that the lot, being unregistered land, is beyond the
coverage of Article 1544 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE: Whether the sale to Garcia was valid. YES.

● SC pointed out that the RTC and CA erred in applying Art. 1544 o the Civil Code.
Both courts seem to have forgotten that the provision does not apply to sales
involving unregistered land.
○ Suffice it to state that the issue of the buyer’s good or bad faith is
relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered land, and the
purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner whose title to