Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82979:56888&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:13:59+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 193787, April 07, 2014 - SPOUSES JOSE C. ROQUE AND BEATRIZ DELA CRUZ ROQUE, WITH DECEASED JOSE C. ROQUE REPRESENTED BY HIS SUBSTITUTE HEIR JOVETTE ROQUE–LIBREA, Petitioners, v. MA. PAMELA P. AGUADO, FRUCTUOSO C. SABUG, JR., NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN THE PHILIPPINES (NCCP), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL SHARON ROSE JOY RUIZ–DUREMDES, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER EVELYN M. MONTERO, ATTY. MARIO S.P. DIAZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR RIZAL, MORONG BRANCH, AND CECILIO U. PULAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL, Respondents.
SPOUSES JOSE C. ROQUE AND BEATRIZ DELA CRUZ ROQUE, WITH DECEASED JOSE C. ROQUE REPRESENTED BY HIS SUBSTITUTE HEIR JOVETTE ROQUE–LIBREA, Petitioners, v. MA. PAMELA P. AGUADO, FRUCTUOSO C. SABUG, JR., NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN THE PHILIPPINES (NCCP), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL SHARON ROSE JOY RUIZ–DUREMDES, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER EVELYN M. MONTERO, ATTY. MARIO S.P. DIAZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR RIZAL, MORONG BRANCH, AND CECILIO U. PULAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BINANGONAN, RIZAL, Respondents.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated May 12, 2010 and the Resolution3 dated September 15, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. CV No. 92113 which affirmed the Decision4 dated July 8, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69 (RTC) that dismissed Civil Case Nos. 03–022 and 05–003 for reconveyance, annulment of sale, deed of real estate mortgage, foreclosure and certificate of sale, and damages.
On August 12, 1991, Fructuoso Sabug, Jr. (Sabug, Jr.), former Treasurer of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), applied for a free patent over the entire Lot 18089 and was eventually issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. M–59558 in his name on October 21, 1991. On June 24, 1993, Sabug, Jr. and Rivero, in her personal capacity and in representation of Rivero, et al., executed a Joint Affidavit9 (1993 Joint Affidavit), acknowledging that the subject portion belongs to Sps. Roque and expressed their willingness to segregate the same from the entire area of Lot 18089.
On December 8, 1999, however, Sabug, Jr., through a Deed of Absolute Sale10 (1999 Deed of Absolute Sale), sold Lot 18089 to one Ma. Pamela P. Aguado (Aguado) for P2,500,000.00, who, in turn, caused the cancellation of OCT No. M–5955 and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. M–96692 dated December 17, 199911 in her name.
On June 16, 2003, Sps. Roque filed a complaint15 for reconveyance, annulment of sale, deed of real estate mortgage, foreclosure, and certificate of sale, and damages before the RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 03–022, against Aguado, Sabug, Jr., NCCP, Land Bank, the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, and Sheriff Cecilio U. Pulan, seeking to be declared as the true owners of the subject portion which had been erroneously included in the sale between Aguado and Sabug, Jr., and, subsequently, the mortgage to Land Bank, both covering Lot 18089 in its entirety.
After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision28 dated July 8, 2008, dismissing the complaints of Sps. Roque and NCCP.
Aggrieved, both Sps. Roque38 and NCCP39 moved for reconsideration but were denied by the CA in a Resolution40 dated September 15, 2010, prompting them to seek further recourse before the Court.
The central issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in not ordering the reconveyance of the subject portion in Sps. Roque’s favor.
Instead of traversing the arguments of Sps. Roque, NCCP, in its Comment47 dated December 19, 2011, advanced its own case, arguing that the CA erred in holding that it failed to establish its claimed ownership over Lot 18089 in its entirety. Incidentally, NCCP’s appeal from the CA Decision dated May 12, 2010 was already denied by the Court,48 and hence, will no longer be dealt with in this case.
That for and in consideration of the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE PESOS (P30,775.00), Philippine Currency, payable in the manner hereinbelow specified, the VENDORS do hereby sell, transfer and convey unto the VENDEE, or their heirs, executors, administrators, or assignors, that unsegregated portion of the above lot, x x x.
[I]n contracts to sell the obligation of the seller to sell becomes demandable only upon the happening of the suspensive condition, that is, the full payment of the purchase price by the buyer. It is only upon the existence of the contract of sale that the seller becomes obligated to transfer the ownership of the thing sold to the buyer. Prior to the existence of the contract of sale, the seller is not obligated to transfer the ownership to the buyer, even if there is a contract to sell between them.
(c) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each have bought from the same seller.
With the conclusions herein reached, the Court need not belabor on the other points raised by the parties, and ultimately finds it proper to proceed with the denial of the petition.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 12, 2010 and the Resolution dated September 15, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 92113 are hereby AFFIRMED.
2 Id. at 34–53. Penned by Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Ruben C. Ayson, concurring.
4 CA rollo, pp. 22–50. Penned by Presiding Judge Narmo P. Noblejas.
7 CA rollo, p. 25.
8 Records (Civil Case No. 05–003), pp. 18–19. Including dorsal portion.
10 Records (Civil Case No. 05–003), pp. 32–33.
11 Records (Civil Case No. 03–022), pp. 28–29. Including the dorsal portion.
12 See Deed of Real Estate Mortgage; id. at 32–34. Including the dorsal portion.
13 Id. at 441. Including the dorsal portion.
15 Records (Civil Case No. 03–022), pp. 1–11.
17 Id. at 38–39. See also dorsal portion of OCT No. M–5955. (Records [Civil Case No. 05–003], p. 19).
19 Records (Civil Case No. 05–003), pp. 1–15.
23 Namely Pamela Aguado, Emily Aguado, and Gregorio Aguado; rollo, p. 41.
28 CA rollo, pp. 22–50.
38 CA rollo, pp. 301–305. Motion for Reconsideration dated June 2, 2010.
39 Id. at 292–300. Motion for Reconsideration dated June 1, 2010.
49 National Housing Authority v. Pascual, 564 Phil. 94, 107 (2007); Gasataya v. Mabasa, 545 Phil. 14, 18 (2007).
50 Pacete v. Asotigue, G.R. No. 188575, December 10, 2012, 687 SCRA 570, 580; Heirs of Valeriano Concha, Sr. v. Sps. Lumocso, 564 Phil. 580, 593 (2007).
51Rollo, pp. 58–60. Emphasis supplied.
52 See Tan v. Benolirao, G.R. No. 153820, October 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 36, 48–49; Ver Reyes v. Salvador, Sr., G.R. Nos. 139047 and 139365, September 11, 2008, 564 SCRA 456, 476–481.
54Ver Reyes v. Salvador, Sr., supra note 52, at 477; Ursal v. CA, G.R. No. 142411, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 52, 65; Coronel v. CA, 331 Phil. 294, 310 (1996).
55Sps. Serrano and Herrera v. Caguiat, 545 Phil. 660, 668 (2007).
56Ursal v. CA, supra note 54; id. at 66.
58 See Ursal v. CA, supra note 54, at 67.
59 Records (Civil Case 03–022) p. 6.
60 See Padilla v. Sps. Paredes, 385 Phil. 128, 139–140 (2000).
61 CA rollo, pp. 47–48.
62 See Ver Reyes v. Salvador, Sr., supra note 52, at 483.
63 Supra note 54, at 311.
65 Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable 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.
66 360 Phil. 891, 909 (1998).
67Rollo, pp. 24, 26, and 27.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 1544