Case No. 21. Mendoza v.

Kalaw

Facts: Federico Cañet sold a parcel of land to Kalaw under a conditional sale. Weeks later, he sold it to Mendoza under an absolute
sale and the latter was able to take it into his possession and fenced it. However, a representative of Kalaw claimed and attempted to
get the land but failed. Kalaw then attempted to have his title registered in the registry of deeds but such registration was denied by the
register of deeds because there existed some defect in the description of the property, and for the reason that the title of the vendor had
not theretofore been registered.

Issue: W/N Kalaw is the rightful owner.

Ruling: No. There wasn’t a sale between Kalaw and Cañet because a conditional sale, before the performance of the condition, can
hardly be said to be a sale of property, especially where the condition has not been performed or complied with.
REVIEWER: DOCTRINE ON CONDITIONAL SALES/CONTRACTS TO SELL AND ADVERSE CLAIMS
The rules on double sales under Art. 1544 are not applicable to contract to sell, because of the circumstances that must concur in order
for the provisions to Art. 1544 on double sales to apply, namely that there must be a valid sales transactions, and buyers must be at
odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter who must have bought from the very same seller, are lacking in a contract to
sell for neither a transfer of ownership nor a sales transaction has been consummated, and such contract is binding only upon the
fulfillment or non-fulfillment of an event. Nevertheless, the governing principle of Art. 1544 should apply, mainly the governing
principle of primus tempore, portior jure (first in time, stronger in right).

Case No. 22
Double Sales
Adalin v. CA

Facts: Petitioners executed a Deed of Conditional Sale with the respondents, owner of the 5 door commercial building, wherein they
made a downpayment, and the balance was payable upon the eviction of the lessees. Respondents filed an ejectment case against
the lessees. Subsequently, the lessees sent letters to the respondents that they want to buy the property. Respondents, then, sold it to
the lessees, and returned the downpayment of the petitioners. Petitioners filed for specific performance. The vendors contend that they
can rescind the contract because the condition to evict the tenants was not completed.

Issue: W/N there was a double sale.

Ruling: Yes. Although the contract was a conditional sale, what was subject to the condition is the payment of the balance. Both
parties have their respective obligations yet to be fulfilled, the seller the eviction of the tenants and the buyer, the payment of the
balance of the purchase price. The sale to the respondents was definitive and absolute. A clear breach of contract was made by the
vendors. A case double sale occurred when the vendors sold the property to the tenants. When the tenants bought the property, they
are fully aware of its prior sale to the respondents. Though the second sale to the said tenants was registered, such prior registration
cannot erase the gross bad faith that characterized such second sale, and as such, there is no legal basis to rule that such second sale
prevails over the first sale of the said property.
REVIEWER (UNDER 1545): Failure to comply with condition imposed upon perfection of the contract results in failure of a
contract, while the failure to comply with a condition imposed on the performance of an obligation only gives the other party the
option either to refuse to proceed with sale or waive the condition.

23. Ong v. Olasiman, 485 SCRA 464 (2006)

FACTS:
1. Paula Verzano sold an unregistered parcel of land to her niece Bernandita. Bernandita subsequently sold the same to Spouses
Olasiman. Paula thereafter died and was survived by her siblings Demetrio, et al.
2. Demetrio executed a document entitled ―Extrajudicial Settlement by Sole Heir and Sale where he adjudicated to himself the
subject property. He likewise sold the same to Spouses Ong.
3. Bernandita, by Deed of Sale, sold the questioned lot to respondents Spouses Olasiman.
4. Spouses Olasiman filed a Complaint against Spouses Ong and Demetrio for annulment of the sale, quiet of title and damages
before the RTC - Dumaguete City.
5. The RTC dismissed the complaint. CA reversed declared that the sale in favor of Spouses Ong = null and void.

ISSUE: Whether or not Article 1544 is applicable.

RULING: NO. Article 1544 applies where the same thing is sold to different vendees by the same vendor.  It does not apply
where the same thing is sold to different vendees by different vendors. When Paula sold to Bernandita by Deed of Absolute the
parcel of land, ownership thereof was transferred to the latter. When Paula died, she no longer owned the lot and, therefore, her
brother Demetrio could not have inherited it.
REVIEWER: Article 1544 on double sales has no application in cases where the sales involved were initiated not by just one vendor
but by several successive vendors. For Article 1544 to apply, it is necessary that the conveyance must have been made by a party who
has an existing right, the thing and the power to dispose of it. It cannot be invoked where the two different contracts of sale are made
by two different persons, one of them not being the owner of the property sold. And even if the sale was made by the same person, if
the second sale was made when such person was no longer the owner of the property, because it had been acquired by the first
purchaser in full dominion, the second purchaser cannot acquire any right.

24. Dichoso v. Roxas, Borja and Alanguilan 5 SCRA 781 (1962)

FACTS:
Roxas sold for P850 to Borja and Alanguilan a parcel of unregistered coconut land, subject to the condition that the vendor could
repurchase the land for the same price within 5 years from the date of sale. Roxas received from Dichoso P770 as initial or advance
payments, with the agreement that Roxas would sell the same property, by absolute sale, to Dichoso, for P2,000. Out of the balance of
P1,230, they would use P850 to repurchase the property from Borja and Alanguilan within the period stipulated. Dichoso informed
Borja of their readiness to repurchase and sent Roxas a check. Roxas returned the check with the request that they indorsed it to Borja
and Alanguilan when they make the repurchase. Roxas and Borja deliberately failed to execute the corresponding deed of absolute
sale and deed of resale.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a double sale.

RULING: NO. The contract between the petitioners and Roxas was a mere promise to sell because Roxas merely promised to execute
a deed of absolute sale upon Dichoso’s completion of payment. The private document executed between Roxas and Dichoso can be
considered as an assignment by Roxas to Dischoso of her right to repurchase which Roxas only had knowledge thereof when Dichoso
attempted to make the repurchase. The sale in favor of Borja was of the property itself, while the one in favor of Dichoso, if not a
mere promise to assign, was at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the same property. Art. 1544, par. 3 of the
CC do not apply.
REVIEWER: Article 1544 applies where the same thing is sold to different buyers by the same seller.; and therefore does not apply
where there was a sale to one party of the land itself while the other contract was a mere promise to sell the land or at most an actual
assignment of the rights to repurchase the same land.

25. Salera v. Rodaje, 530 SCRA 432, 438 (2007)

FACTS: 
Petitioner spouses Salera filed with the RTC a complaint for quieting of title against spouses Rodaje alleging that they are the absolute
owners of the subject parcel of land.   They acquired the property from the heirs of Brigido Tonacao as shown by a Deed of Absolute
Sale. They had the document registered in the RD. When they asked the Provincial Assessor to declare the property under their names
for taxation purposes, they found that the Tax Declaration was issued in the names of the Rodajes, no longer of Brigido. Respondents
Rodajes claimed that they acquired it from Catalino Tonacao, the father of Brigido, in a Deed of Absolute Sale and the sale was
registered in the RD and a Tax Declaration was issued in their names. RTC declared petitioners the rightful and legal owners of the
property. CA reversed.

ISSUE: Which of the two contracts of sale is valid.

RULING: THE ONE IN FAVOR OF PETITIONERS SPOUSES SALERA. Article 1544 of the Civil Code contemplates a case
of double sale or multiple sales by a single vendor.   It cannot be invoked where the two different contracts of sale are made by two
different persons, one of them not being the owner of the property sold.
In the instant case, the property was sold by two different vendors to different purchasers.  Petitioners are the ones in prior
possession of the property. Evidence established that respondents knew beforehand that the property was declared in the name of
Brigido Tonacao for taxation purposes. Thus, respondents should have been wary in buying the property.  

26. CONSOLIDATED RURAL BANK (CAGAYAN VALLEY) INC vs. CA

(Needs to be a little long for comprehension)
FACTS:
The Madrid brothers were the registered owners of Lot A which was subdivided into several lots. Rizal Madrid sold part of his share
(Lot A-7) to Gamiao and Dayag, to which his brothers offered no objection. The deed of sale was not registered with the RD.
However, Gamiao and Dayag declared the property in their names on a Tax Declaration.
Gamiao and Dayag sold the subject southern half of lot to Teodoro dela Cruz, and the northern half to Hernandez. Teodoro dela Cruz
and Hernandez took possession of and cultivated the portions of the property respectively sold to them. Later Hernandez donated the
northern half to his daughter. The children of Teodoro dela Cruz continued possession of the southern half.
The Madrid brothers conveyed all their rights and interests over lot A-7 to Marquez, the sale was registered with the RD.
Subsequently, Marquez subdivided lot A-7 into 8 lots, mortgaged 4 lots thereof to the Consolidated Rural Bank (CRB) to secure a
loan. As Marquez defaulted in the payment of his loan, CRB caused the foreclosure of the mortgages in its favor and the lots were sold
to it as the highest bidder.
The Heirs- (respondents) filed a case for reconveyance and damages for the southern portion the lot against Marquez and CRB.
RTC: in favor of Marquez. CA: in favour of the Heirs.

ISSUE: Whether or not Marquez, having registered first, has better right over the property.

RULING: NO. But first, Art. 1544 is not applicable in this case. In the first sale, the vendors were Gamiao and Dayag whose right to
the property originated from their acquisition thereof from Rizal Madrid. In the second sale, the vendors were the Madrid brothers but
at that time they were no longer the owners since they had long disposed of the property. In a situation where not all the requisites are
present which would warrant the application of 1544, the principle that “he who is first in time is preferred in right” should apply.
In the instant case, the sale by Gamiao and Dayag who first bought it from Rizal Madrid was anterior to the sale to Marquez. The
Heirs of dela Cruz and Hernandez also had possession of the property first. Thus, applying the principle, the Heirs have a superior
right to the subject property. Moreover, since the Madrid brothers were no longer the owners of the lot at the time of the sale to
Marquez, Marquez did not acquire any right to it.
REVIEWER: In a situation where a party has actual knowledge of the claimant’s actual, open and notorious possession of a disputed
property at the time of registration, the actual notice and knowledge are equivalent to registration, because to hold otherwise would be
to tolerate fraud and the Torrens system cannot be used to shield fraud – while certificates of title are indefeasible, unassailable and
binding against the whole world, they merely confirm or record title already existing and vested.

27. Sigaya v. Mayuga, 467 SCRA 341, 357 (2005)

FACTS:
Dionisia owned a land which she sold a portion to Fuentes while the remainder was inherited by her children, and a grandson,
Francisco Abas. These heirs executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale wherein one of them sold her share to spouses Mayuga.
Later, another document entitled Extra-Judicial Partition with Deed of Sale was uncovered wherein the heirs purportedly sold their
shares to Francisco. Francisco executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Sigaya. Thus, the title was cancelled and a new one was issued in
the name of Sigaya.
Petitioners filed for recovery of possession and damages against Mayuga.
Respondents averred that: the Deed of Sale executed by Francisco in favor of Sigaya and the title = null and void, for being based on a
fictitious Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale.

ISSUE: W/N petitioners are entitled to be awarded ownership based on rule on double sale of real property

RULING: No. Apart from the fact that Sigaya is not a purchaser in good faith, the law on double sales does not apply. For the rule to
apply, it is necessary that the conveyance must have been made by a party who has an existing right in the thing and the power
to dispose it. The rule cannot be invoked where the two different contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them not
being the owner of the property sold. In this case, respondents derive their right over their respective portions either through
inheritance or sale from Dionisia while petitioners invoke their right from the sale of the land from Francisco. Clearly, the law on
double sales does not apply here.

Case No. 28
Ulep v. CA, Rodico, Paringit and INC 472 SCRA 241

Facts: Petitioner Samuel Ulep et al filed their complaint for Quieting of Title, Reconveyance and Declaration of Nullity of Title
against respondents INC,  Rodico and the spouses Paringit. The lot in dispute is named Lot 840. The eastern portion = Rodico &
Spouses Paringit; western = petitioners acquired from his brother Atinedro Ulep and his wife through a sale in 1971.
INC started constructing its chapel in the western portion of the said lot, with a deed of sale bearing the year 1954 registered in
favor of INC and signed by Atinedro Ulep and his wife.
RTC: in favor of the petitioners; CA: reversed on the ground that there is a record of the deed of sale and as a public instrument enjoys
the presumption of regularity, clear and convincing evidence is necessary to contradict such, which was not done by the respondent.

Issue: W/N the INC has a better right over the disputed property.

Ruling: Yes. Registration” means any entry made in the books of the Registry which records solemnly and permanently the
right of ownership and other real rights. However, mere registration is not sufficient. Good faith must concur with
registration. In the instant case, not only was respondent INC the first buyer of the disputed area but was also the first to register the
sale in its favor long before petitioners’ intrusion as second buyers. Petitioners cannot claim that they are in good faith since they
admitted that they were aware that there existed an agreement between INC and vendors spouses. Verily, the sale to INC should
prevail over the sale made to petitioners because INC was the first registrant in good faith and the first buyer.

Case No. 29
Bayoca v. Nograles, 340 SCRA 154 (2000)

Facts: Nogales acquired the disputed land from Julia Deocareza who had acquired of said property from the Canino Siblings, through
Preciosa Canino, andwas registered in the RD under Act 3344. The disputed land was extrajudicially partitioned by Tomas Canino
several years after AFTER the sale to Julia. The land was subsequently sold at different times and portions of the subject property to
herein petitioners. Nogales then filed a complaint against the petitioners for “Accion Reinvindicatoria with damages” claiming that he
lawfully purchased the property from Julia and the petitioners acquired the properties in bad faith. RTC ruled in favor of Nograles; CA
affirmed.

Issue: W/N petitioners have the superior right over the parcel of land.

Ruling: No. The second buyer must act in good faith not in buying the property but in registering, the deed, that is, without
knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold. In the case at bar, the Canino siblings sold the parcel of land to Deocareza
and was registered in the RD under Act 3344. Registration, however, by the first buyer under Act 3344 can have the effect of
constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as such buyer in good faith.
REVIEWER: Under Act 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is “without prejudice to a third party with a
better right,” which means that mere registration does not give the buyer any right over the land if the seller was not anymore the
owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. The rules on double sale
under Art. 1544 has no application to land not registered under the Torrens system

Case No. 30
Vda. De Alcantara v. CA, Aniceto P. Cruz, And Norberto P. Santiago, 252 SCRA 457 (1996)

Facts: Respondents seek to enforce a Pacto De Retro Sale of a land in their favor granted by the petitioners’ predecessor (Leona Vda
de Alfonso). The latter executed in favor the former a deed of sale and failed to exercise her right to repurchase. The petitioners
contended that the sale was null and void because at the time it was executed, their predecessor was no longer the owner of the land as
the same had already been transferred by her in a “Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition” to them.
RTC: in favor of the respondents; CA: affirmed.

Issue: W/N pacto de retro sale prevails over the deed of extrajudicial partition despite the fact that the latter was executed and
registered earlier than the former.

Ruling: YES. While the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was registered ahead of the Pacto de Retro Sale, it did not, however, rise to
the level of a valid instrument of conveyance of the subject property since it merely mentions of an alleged "sale executed by Leona C.
vda. de Alfonso …” The said deed of sale was never offered in evidence by the petitioners.   There is, as well, no proof that it was
registered. The TCT bears no annotation of the sale.
Good faith or bad faith in the registration of the Pacto de Retro Sale for purposes of determining who has the better right to the
property pursuant to Article 1544 of the Civil Code has become irrelevant because the petitioners never presented in evidence the deed
of sale purportedly executed by Leona C. vda. de Alfonso in their favor. Article 1544 applies only when there are at least two deeds
of sale over the same property.
REVIEWER: Registration of the Extra-judicial Partition which merely mentions the sale is not the registration covered under Art.
1544 and cannot prevail over the registration of the pacto de retro sale.