Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50158:gr-171008-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:01:01+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 171008 - Carmelit A. Fudot v. Cattleya Land, Inc.
CARMELITA FUDOT, Petitioner, v. CATTLEYA LAND, INC., VELASCO, JR., JJ. Respondent.
For resolution is a petition that seeks to nullify the Decision1 and Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals dated 28 April 2005 and 11 January 2006, respectively, in C.A. G.R. CV No. 73025 which declared respondent as having a better right over a parcel of land located in Doljo, Panglao, Bohol.
The facts, as culled from the records, follow.
Sometime in July 1992, Cattleya Land, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as respondent) asked someone to check, on its behalf, the titles of nine (9) lots, the subject land included, which it intended to buy from the spouses Troadio and Asuncion Tecson. Finding no defect on the titles, respondent purchased the nine lots through a Deed of Conditional Sale on 6 November 1992. Subsequently, on 30 August 1993, respondent and the Tecsons executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same properties. The Deed of Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale were registered with the Register of Deeds on 06 November 1992 and 04 October 1993, respectively.3 The Register of Deeds, Atty. Narciso dela Serna, refused to actually annotate the deed of sale on the titles because of the existing notice of attachment in connection with Civil Case No. 3399 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol.4 The attachment was eventually cancelled by virtue of a compromise agreement between the Tecsons and their attaching creditor which was brokered by respondent. Titles to six (6) of the nine (9) lots were issued, but the Register of Deeds refused to issue titles to the remaining three (3) lots, because the titles covering the same were still unaccounted for.
Petitioner, for her part, alleged in her answer10 that the spouses Tecson had sold to her the subject property for P20,000.00 and delivered to her the owner's copy of the title on 26 December 1986. She claims that she subsequently presented the said title to the Register of Deeds but the latter refused to register the same because the property was still under attachment.
BETWEEN 2 BUYERS OF REGISTERED LAND, WHO HAS THE BETTER RIGHT-IS IT THE FIRST BUYER WHO WAS GIVEN THE OWNER'S DUPLICATE TCT TOGETHER WITH A DEED OF SALE IN 1986, OR THE SECOND BUYER IN 1992 WITH ONLY A DEED OF SALE.
IS A BUYER OF REGISTERED LAND WHO DID NOT DEMAND OR REQUIRE THE DELIVERY OF THE OWNER'S DUPLICATE TCT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH.
Petitioner's arguments, which rest on the assumption that there was a double sale, must fail.
In the first place, there is no double sale to speak of. Art. 1544 of the Civil Code,24 which provides the rule on double sale, applies only to a situation where the same property is validly sold to different vendees. In this case, there is only one sale to advert to, that between the spouses Tecson and respondent.
In Remalante v. Tibe,25 this Court ruled that the Civil Law provision on double sale is not applicable where there is only one valid sale, the previous sale having been found to be fraudulent. Likewise, in Espiritu and Apostol v. Valerio,26 where the same parcel of land was purportedly sold to two different parties, the Court held that despite the fact that one deed of sale was registered ahead of the other, Art. 1544 of the Civil Code will not apply where said deed is found to be a forgery, the result of this being that the right of the other vendee should prevail.
The trial court declared that the sale between the spouses Tecson and petitioner is invalid, as it bears the forged signature of Asuncion. Said finding is based on the unrebutted testimony of Asuncion and the trial court's visual analysis and comparison of the signatures in her Complaint-in-Intervention and the purported deed of sale. This finding was upheld by the Court of Appeals, as it ruled that the purported sale in petitioner's favor is null and void, taking into account Asuncion's unrefuted deposition. In particular, the Court of Appeals noted petitioner's failure to attend the taking of the oral deposition and to give written interrogatories. In short, she did not take the necessary steps to rebut Asuncion's definitive assertion.
The congruence of the wills of the spouses is essential for the valid disposition of conjugal property.27 Thus, under Article 166 of the Civil Code28 which was still in effect on 19 December 1986 when the deed of sale was purportedly executed, the husband cannot generally alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent.
Petitioner argues she has a better right over the property in question, as the holder of and the first one to present, the owner's copy of the title for the issuance of a new TCT. The Court is not persuaded.
The act of registration does not validate petitioner's otherwise void contract. Registration is a mere ministerial act by which a deed, contract, or instrument is sought to be inscribed in the records of the Office of the Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of title covering the land subject of the deed, contract, or instrument. While it operates as a notice of the deed, contract, or instrument to others, it does not add to its validity nor converts an invalid instrument into a valid one as between the parties,32 nor amounts to a declaration by the state that the instrument is a valid and subsisting interest in the land.33 The registration of petitioner's void deed is not an impediment to a declaration by the courts of its invalidity.
Art. 1544. x x x.
We agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeals that respondent was a buyer in good faith, having purchased the nine (9) lots, including the subject lot, without any notice of a previous sale, but only a notice of attachment relative to a pending civil case. In fact, in its desire to finally have the title to the properties transferred in its name, it persuaded the parties in the said case to settle the same so that the notice of attachment could be cancelled.
Sec. 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner.' An owner of registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, lease or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make Registration.
Sec. 52. Constructive notice upon registration. Every conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien attachment, order, judgment, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or entered in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all persons from the time of such registering, filing or entering.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Costs against petitioner.
1 Rollo, pp. 22-32. Penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, with Associate Justices Arsenio J. Magpale and Enrico A. Lanzanas, concurring.
3 Id. at 48-49. Vide Entry No. 83422 and Entry No. 87549, respectively of the Register of Deeds of Bohol.
4 Tantrade Corporation v. Troadio Tecson, et al.
7 Docketed as Civil Case No. 5781, Cattleya Land, Inc. v. Carmelita Fudot and Atty. Narciso dela Serna. The case was eventually raffled to Branch 4, 7th Judicial Region, Tagbilaran City.
8 Rollo, pp. 60-61. Asuncion Tecson's testimony was made through oral deposition; records, pp. 497-510.
9 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 66-68; Complaint-in-Intervention; id. at 66.
10 Volume 1, pp. 35-41; Answer with Counter Claim and Motion to Dismiss, Records.
14 Id. at 22-32, 28-29; CA Decision dated 28 April 2005.
16 Supra note 2; Resolution dated 11 January 2006.
24 Civil Code, 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.
25 No. L-59514, 25 February 1988, 158 SCRA 138.
26 119 Phil. 69 (1963).
27 Abalos v. Macatangay, G.R. No. 155043, 30 September 2004, 439 SCRA 649, 661.
28 Article 166. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a spendthrift, or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent. If she refuses unreasonably to give her consent, the court may compel her to grant the same.
This article shall not apply to property acquired by the conjugal partnership before the effective date of this Code.
29 Art. 173. The wife may, during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned, ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent, when such consent is required, or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. Should the wife fail to exercise this right, she or her heirs after the dissolution of the marriage, may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband.
30 The exceptions are: when the findings are grounded on speculation, surmises or conjectures; when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; when the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts are conflicting; when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, has gone beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; when the judgment of the appellate court is premised on a misapprehension of facts or when it has failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence upon which they are based; and when findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record. Solid Homes, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 261, 275 (1997).
31 Salomon v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70263, 14 May 1990, 185 SCRA 352.
32 Pascua v. Court of Appeals, 401 Phil. 350, 367 (2000).
33 Agricultural Credit Cooperative Assn. of Hinigaran v. Yusay, et al., 107 Phil 791 (1960).
34 Ulep v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125254, 11 October 2005, 472 SCRA 241, 253 citing Uraca v. Court of Appeals, 278 SCRA 702 (1997).
35 Coronel, et al. v. Court of Appeals, 331 Phil. 294, 321-322 (1996) citing Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence, 1993 Ed., p. 604.
36 Macadangdang v. Martinez, G.R. No. 158682, 31 January 2005, 450 SCRA 363, 368.
37 Vitug, Compendium of Civil Law and Jurisprudence (1993), p. 604, cited in Abrigo v. De Vera, G.R. No. 154409, 21 June 2004, 432 SCRA 544, 557.

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

Art. 1544
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 1544
 v. 
 Art. 173
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.