CASE # 36 DE JOMOC V.

CA

FACTS:
A parcel of land in owned by late Pantaleon Jomoc was fictitiously sold to third persons in
which the last transferee are the spouses Mariano and Maria So. Maria Vda de Jomoc filed suit
to recover the property and won. While pending appeal, Vda de Jomoc executed executed a Deed
of Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale of Land with private respondent for P300,000.00. The
document was not yet signed by all the parties nor notarized but in the meantime, Maura So had
made partial payments amounting to P49,000.00.

So demanded from the heirs of Jomoc for the execution of final deed of conveyance but
the latter did no comply. As such, So filed a civil case and a notice of lis pendens were placed in
the title of the land.On the same date, the heirs of Jomoc executed another extra-judicial
settlement with absolute sale in favor of intervenors Lim Leong Kang and Lim Pue claiming that
they believe that So already backed-out from the agreement.

ISSUE:
W/N the private respondent Maura So backed out from the agreement for the purchase
of a lot belonging to the heirs of Pantaleon Jomoc, so that the subsequent sale to petitioner
spouses Lim is null and void.

RULING:
Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:
“..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..”

In view of this provision, the two courts below correctly ruled that the spouses Lim do not
have a better right. They purchased the land with full knowledge of a previous sale to private
respondent and without requiring from the vendors-heirs any proof' of the prior vendee's
revocation of her purchase. They should have exercised extra caution in their purchase especially
if at the time of the sale, the land was still covered by TCT No. 19648 bearing the name of Mariano
So and was not yet registered in the name of petitioners- heirs of Pantaleon Jomoc (Original
Records, p. 80), although it had been reconveyed to said heirs. Not having done this, petitioners
spouses Lim cannot be said to be buyers in good faith. When they registered the sale on April 27,
1983 after having been charged with notice of lis pendens annotated as early as February 28,
1983 (the same date of their purchase), they did so in bad faith or on the belief that a registration
may improve their position being subsequent buyers of the same lot. Under Article 1544, mere
registration is not enough to acquire new title. Good faith must concur.
CASE # 37: SANTOS V MANALILI

FACTS:
At the core of the controversy is a 4,608 square-meter parcel of land in the District of Toril,
Davao City. On August 6, 1970, Reynaldo Manalili, predecessor-in-interest of respondent Ronald
C. Manalili, filed with the BOL an application to purchase the subject property, attaching therewith
his Occupants Affidavit. The application was favorably acted upon and on March 27, 1972, the
BOL required Manalili to pay the downpayment of 10% of the purchase price or P1,865.28.
Thereafter, Manalili declared the land for taxation purposes.

On March 25, 1981, after the lapse of nine (9) years and even as the BOL had already
issued a Certification of Full Payment endorsing the approval of the sale of the land in question
to applicant Reynaldo Manalili, herein petitioner Rodolfo Santos wrote an undated letter to the
BOL protesting Manalilis application.

On December 16, 1981, following Manalilis compliance with other requirements, the BOL
issued to him the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale which was duly approved by the Office of
the President on December 21, 1981.

On April 26, 1982, petitioner filed the aforementioned complaint for Reconveyance,
Damages, Attorneys Fees and/or Annulment of Title against the BOL and the Manalilis.

The trial court rendered its September 20, 1993 decision in favor of the Manalilis. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE:
W/N Manalili has the better right of possession over the lot in question.

RULING:
The two (2) courts below, in unanimously upholding the validity of the sale of the land in
question to the Manalilis, likewise affirmed the BOLs finding that the Manalilis had a better right
of possession thereto. Preponderant evidence of respondent have sufficiently established that as
early as 1970, Reynaldo Manalili, respondents predecessor-in-interest, had already filed an
Affidavit of Occupancy with the BOL, the government agency tasked to administer it; that the
Manalilis administered the land before they left for Manila in 1972; that after they moved to Manila
they appointed an administrator to oversee the land and the improvements and crops they have
planted thereon, such as bananas and coconut trees; and that the Manalilis have been paying
the real estate taxes for the subject land even before the sale thereof to them.

The circumstance that after the sale, the Manalilis resided in Manila and Pangasinan is of
no moment. As it is, possession may be exercised in ones own name or in that of another. [5] It is
not necessary that the owner or holder of the thing exercise personally the rights of possession.
Rights of possession may be exercised through agents.[6]
CASE# 38: CUIZON V REMOTO

FACTS:
Petitioners-spouses Encarnacion L. Cuizon and Salvador Cuizon rely on Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-3121 in the name of Encarnacion L. Cuizon, married to Salvador
Cuizon, issued by the Registry of Deeds of Agusan del Norte on March 15, 1984,[1] pursuant to a
notarized Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale dated August 3, 1983 (1983 Extra-Judicial
Settlement with Sale) executed by the heirs of Placida Tabada-Lambo (Placida), wherein they
adjudicated unto themselves the one-fourth share of Placida, and, at the same time, sold said
portion to their co-heir, Encarnacion L. Cuizon.[2]
On the other hand, respondents have in their favor a notarized Deed of Sale of Real
Property dated September 19, 1968, (1968 Deed of Sale) involving a portion of the same property
covered by TCT No. RT-183, measuring 4,300 square meters, executed by Placida in favor of
Angel Remoto (Angel), husband of respondent Mercedes C. Remoto, and father of the other
respondents, Leonida R. Meynard, Celerina R. Rosales and Remedios C. Remoto.[4]

RTC rendered a decision in favour of respondents which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals.

ISSUE:
Who has a better right to the property in dispute?

RULING:
As correctly ruled by both the trial court and the CA, the 1968 Deed of Sale executed by
Placida in favor of Angel should prevail over the 1983 Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale made
by the heirs of Placida in favor of petitioners-spouses Cuizon. Prior tempore, potior jure. It simply
means, He who is first in time is preferred in right. The only essential requisite of this rule is priority
in time, and the only one who can invoke this is the first vendee.[14] Records bear the fact that
when Placida sold her one-fourth portion of the property covered by TCT No. RT-183 in 1968, the
1983 Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale was still inexistent, and more importantly, said portion
was yet to be transferred by succession to Placidas heirs. The records also show that after Placida
sold her portion to Angel, the latter immediately took possession of the same. Applying the
principle of priority in time, it is clear that Angel, and consequently his heirs, the respondents
herein, have a superior right to the property.
CASE# 39: SUN BROS V. VELASCO

FACTS:
The petitioner delivered to Lopez an Admiral refrigerator under a “Conditional Sale Agreement”.
Out of the P1,700 purchase price, only P500 was paid as down payment. They stipulated that Lopez shall
not remove the refrigerator from his address nor part possession therewith without the express written
consent of Sun brothers. In violation thereof, Sun Brothers may rescind the sale, recover possession and
the amounts paid shall be forfeited. The refrigerator shall remain the absolute property of Sun Brothers
until Lopez has fully paid the purchase price.
Lopez sold the refrigerator to JV Trading (owned by Jose Velasco) without knowledge of Sun
brothers for P850, misrepresented himself as Jose Lim and executed a document stating that he is the
absolute owner. Thereafter, Velasco displayed the refrigerator in his store abd Co Kang Chui bought it for
P985.

ISSUE:
W/N Co Kang Chiu, an innocent buyer from a store, has a better right as owner than Sun Brothers,
a conditional vendor

RULING:
Article 1505 of the Civil Code provides:
“Subject to the provisions of this Title, where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof,
and who does not sell them under authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no
better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner if the goods is by his conduct precluded
from denying the seller’s authority to sell.

“Nothing in this Title, however, shall affect:

(3) Purchases made in a merchant’s store, or in fairs, or markets, …”

Since Co Kang Chui purchased the refrigerator from JV Trading, a merchant store and displayed
thereat, the 3rd paragraph of Art. 1505 applies, from which Co Kang Chui should be declared as having
acquired a valid title to the refrigerator, although his predecessors in interest did not have any right of
ownership over it. This is a case of imperfect or void title ripening into a valid one, as a result of some
intervening causes. The policy of the law which we do not feel justified to deviate, has always been that
where the rights and interests of a vendor comes into clash with that of an innocent buyer for value, the
latter must be protected.

Co Kang Chui who is now is possession of the refrigerator should be adjudged the owner thereof,
because he bought it at a merchant’s store in good faith and for value.
CASE#40: SALONGA V. CONCEPCION

FACTS:
The spouses Natalio Salonga and Felicidad Salonga were the owners of eight (8) prime
parcels of land located in Dagupan City. They had a commercial building with four floors which
stood on their property located to which they are leasing ito traders and merchants.

To finance their business, the spouses secured a loan from several banks to which they
excuted a Real Estate Mortgage as payment thereof. An earthquake occurred and they latter
defaulted in payment. The banks threatened to foreclose the real estate mortgages. The spouses
Salonga secured a loan from spouses Concepcion, who were engaged in the business of lending
money, to repay their loan to the PNB and to release the mortgages in favour of the spouses
Concepcion.

The spouses Salonga failed to pay the loans, interest and commission despite the lapse
of several months. The spouses Salonga executed, in favor of the spouses Concepcion and
Florencoa Realty Corporation, a Deed of Absolute Sale.

The spouses Salonga and their daughter offered to redeem the property from the spouses
Concepcion. But the latter informed the Salonga family that the title to the property had already
been transferred to their names. Hence, Salonga filed a complaint against the spouses
Concepcion and the Florencia Realty Corporation with the RTC.

ISSUE:
W/N the deeds of sale in favor of respondents are null and void as they are
absolutely simulated.

RULING:
Article 1602 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that a contract shall be presumed
to be an equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:….
(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;…”

The provision shall apply to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale.[41] In case of

doubt, a contract purporting to be a sale with right to repurchase shall be considered as an
equitable mortgage.[42] In a contract of mortgage, the mortgagor merely subjects the property to
a lien, but the ownership and possession thereof are retained by him.[43]

The nomenclature given by the parties to the contract is not conclusive of the nature and
legal effects thereof.[46] Even if a document appears on its face to be a sale, the owner of the
property may prove that the contract is really a loan with mortgage, and that the document does
not express the true intent of the parties.[47]

After a thorough examination of the records, we find and so hold that the August 31 and
October 18, 1993 Deeds of Absolute Sale are mere equitable mortgages and not bona
fide absolute sale of the parcels of land therein described.
CASE#41: SIGAYA V. MAYUGA

FACTS:
Dionisia Alorsabes owned a three hectare land in Dao, Capiz, denominated as Lot 3603.
In 1934, she sold a portion of the lot to Juanito Fuentes while the remainder was inherited by her
children Paz Dela Cruz, Rosela Dela Cruz, and Consorcia Arroja (an adopted child), and a
grandson, Francisco Abas, in representation of his deceased mother Margarita Dela Cruz. These
four heirs executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale dated February 4, 1964 wherein
Consorcia sold her share with an area of 6,694 square meters to spouses Balleriano Mayuga.
On April 1, 1977, Paz also sold her share to Honorato de los Santos. Later, another document
entitled Extra-Judicial Partition with Deed of Sale dated November 2, 1972 was uncovered
wherein the heirs of Dionisia purportedly adjudicated Lot 3603 among themselves and sold their
shares to Francisco. On January 9, 1978, Francisco executed a Deed of Sale over Lot 3603 in
favor of Teodulfo Sigaya. Thus, the title over Lot 3603 was cancelled and a new one was issued
in the name of Teodulfo, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein.[1]

On October 14, 1986, the petitioners, who are the widow and children of Teodulfo, filed
Civil Case Nos. V-5325, V-5326, V-5327 and V-5328 for recovery of possession and damages
against Diomer Mayuga, Honorato de los Santos, Sps. Jose Viva and Rosela Dela Cruz-Viva,
and Renato Distor,[2] respectively, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Roxas City.

RTC believed that the actual occupation and possession of the defendants had been
satisfactorily proven which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals

ISSUE:
W/N Teodulfo should be considered as a purchaser in good faith and thus enjoy the
protection of the Torrens system

RULING:

A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice that some other person
has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse
claims and interest of another person in the same property.

Indeed, it is a well-settled rule that every person dealing with registered land may safely
rely on the correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige
him to go beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. However, this rule shall
not apply when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect

In this case, preponderance of evidence shows that respondents had been in actual
possession of their respective portions even prior to 1960. Rolly Daniel even accompanied
Francisco and Teodulfo to the different houses of respondents. Hence, this Court cannot give
credence therefore to the claim of petitioners that Teodulfo found no occupants in the property.

There being occupants of the property, the Court cannot ascribe good faith to Teodulfo
who has not shown any diligence in protecting his rights.
CASE# 42: PREMIERE DEVT BANK V. CA
FACTS:
Two (2) different persons with exactly the same name, i.e., Vicente T. Garaygay, each
claimed exclusive ownership of Lot 23 by virtue of an owners duplicate certificate each had
possession of during the period material covering said lot.

On April 17, 1979, Garaygay of Cebu executed a deed of sale in favor of his nephew, Joselito
P. Garaygay. In another transaction, Garaygay of Rizal sold to Liberto G. Yambao and Jesus B.
Rodriguez the same property. Buyers Yambao and Rodriquez would later sell a portion of their
undivided interests on the land to Jesus D. Morales.[6]

Then came the June 11, 1988 fire that gutted a portion of the Quezon City hall and destroyed
the document of Garayfay of Cebu but it was later reconstituted. It was later subdivided into 3
lots. One of which was sold to Lilian TOundjis and the other 2 lots were assigned to Century
Realty which mortgaged[13] the same to Premiere Development Bank, Inc. (Premiere Bank) to
secure a P2.5 Million loan.

Yambao, Rodriquez and Morales They then filed with the Regional Trial Court at Quezon
City suit against Joselito, Century Realty and Premiere Bank for quieting of title and annulment of
said defendants fake titles with prayer for damages.

The RTC rendered a decision in favour of Yambao, Rodriguez and Morales as rightful owners
which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
W/N the Court of Appeals erred in holding Garaygay of Rizal, instead of Garaygay of Cebu,
as the real owner of Lot 23.

RULING:
The categorical conclusion of the Court of Appeals – confirmatory of that of the trial court
– is that Exhibit “B” is genuine and that Garaygay of Rizal is a real person. On the other
hand, Exhibit “1” was adjudged spurious. These factual determinations as a matter of long and
sound appellate practice must be accorded great weight, and, as rule, should not be disturbed
on appeal, save for the most compelling and cogent reasons.

Other than paying taxes from 1949 to 1990, however, Garaygay of Cebu – and this holds
true for his nephew Joselito – did not appear before the current stand-off to have exercised
dominion over Lot 23. For one, it has not been shown that Garaygay of Cebu was at any time in
possession of the property in question, unlike his namesake from Rizal who managed to place
the property under the care of certain individuals who built semi-permanent structure-dwelling
houses thereon without so much of a protest from Garaygay of Cebu or his nephew Joselito after
the latter purportedly bought the property. For another, neither Garaygay of Cebu nor his nephew
Joselito ever instituted any action to eject or recover possession from the occupants of Lot 23.
This passivity bespeaks strongly against their claim of ownership. Not lost on this Court are
circumstances noted by the trial court which negatively reflect on Garaygay of Cebu’s and his
nephew’s claim of ownership.