DOUBLE SALE and the buyer had relied in good faith on the clear
title of the registered owner.
Carbonell vs CA
- Carbonell was not aware — and she could not
have been aware — of any sale of Infante as there
was no such sale to Infante then. Hence, Carbonell's
prior purchase of the land was made in good faith.
Her good faith subsisted and continued to exist
when she recorded her adverse claim four (4) days
prior to the registration of Infantes's deed of
sale.
--Exhibit A (private document) effectively transferred
the possession of the lot to the vendee Carbonell
by constitutum possessorium: thereunder the
vendor Poncio continued to retain physical
possession of the lot as tenant of the vendee.
Dagupan Trading vs Maron
-(Note: unregistered land) what should determine
the issue are the provisions of the last paragraph of
Section 35, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to the
effect that upon the execution and delivery of the
final certificate of sale in favor of the purchaser of
land sold in an execution sale, such purchaser
"shall be substituted to and acquire all the right, title,
interest and claim of the judgment debtor to the
property as of the time of the levy."
-that he had none (no more interest): for a
considerable time prior to the levy, his interest had
already been conveyed.
David vs Bandin
-petitioners bought the property when it was still
unregistered land. The defense of having
purchased the property in good faith may be
availed of only where registered land is involved
-Nuguid not in bad faith.
Olivares vs Gonzales
-However, the equities of the case are with the
Olivareses. The first sale with pacto de retro by the
Tuvillas to Tumabini was unregistered; in contrast,
the sale in favor of the Olivareses was duly
recorded.
Caram vs Laureta
-Since Caram was a registrant in bad faith, the
situation is as if there was no registration at all.
The question to be determined now is, who was first
in possession in good faith? Laureta.
Cruz vs Cabana
1) Cruz not in good faith in registering land. (was
informed by Register of prior sale)
2) Sps Legaspi, registered the deed of absolute
sale ahead of Cruz
3) Sps have been in possession of the land.
Valdez vs. CA
-adverse claim of Valdez was annotated earlier
that the Deed of Assignment to Viernes.
- The rule is clear that a prior right is accorded to
the vendee who first recorded his right in good
faith over an immovable property.
Nuguid vs CA
-first sale to Juliana Salazar was not registered while
the sale to the Nuguid was registered. Guevarras
contend the registration was in bad faith.
1) The OCT covering the entire property was clean
and free from any annotation of an encumbrance.
Thus, the petitioners could not have known of the
prior sale to Juliana Salazar as, precisely, it was not
registered. The general rule is that if the property
sold is registered land, the purchaser in good faith
has a right to rely on the certificate of title and is
under no duty to go behind it to look for flaws.
2) Nuguid did not rely solely upon the certificate of
title. They personally inspected the subject
property. They found the same to be occupied by
two houses. Neither of the occupants professed
ownership over the portions of land they were
occupying. The spouses Guevarra (respondent), in
particular, made no mention of the prior
unregistered sale to Juliana Salazar.
Radiowealth Finance vs Palileo
- Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments
affecting unregistered lands is "without prejudice to
a third party with a better right.”
- First sale: unrecorded >Second sale: (execution
sale – registered)
-purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriffs
execution sale only steps into the shoes of the
judgment debtor, and merely acquires the latter's
interest in the property sold as of the time the
property was levied upon. (no more interest:
already sold property)
Tanedo vs CA
First Sale: to Ricardo (not registered)
Second Sale: brothers/sisters Tanedo (registered)
-which of these two deeds should be given effect is
the registration of the sale.
Sps Tomas vs Espenilla
-knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first
sale defeats his rights even if he is first to
register, since such knowledge taints his
registration with bad faith.
-a buyer of real property in the possession of
persons other than the seller must be wary and
should investigate the rights of those in
possession. Without such inquiry, the buyer can
hardly be regarded as a buyer in good faith and
cannot have any right over the property.
Summary:
>What can be recorded?
1) ADVERSE CLAIM
2) DEED OF SALE/ASSIGNMENT
>Land is REGISTERED: first who recorded in GF
>Land is UNREGISTERED: not necessarily one who
first recorded. ONE WHO HAS BETTER RIGHT
(in execution sale (2nd sale) of MORTGAGED land:
first sale is upheld EVEN IF NOT RECORDED
>Defense of acquisition in GOOD FAITH applies
only to REGISTERED LAND.
>Registration in BAD FAITH IS NO REGISTRATION
AT ALL
CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES
Moles vs CA
-a certification (written) to the effect that the
linotype machine bought by petitioner was in A-1
condition was issued by Diolosa in favor of Moles.
-considered EXPRESS warranty (not merely dealer’s
talk)
-The present case involves one with and express
warranty. Consequently, the general rule on
rescission of contract, which is four years shall
apply.
-complaint filed w/in a year
Note: apparently contradicts Engg vs CA > written
contract- 10 yrs
Engg Machinery vs CA
-complaint filed in the trial court reveals that the
original action is NOT really for enforcement of the
warranties against hidden defects, but one for
breach of the contract itself.
Contract here (with EXPRESS warranty is written)
hence complaint filed w/in prescriptive period
Prescriptive periods: (Accdg to Sir)
1) Implied Warranty – 6 mos.
2) Express Warranty
NOT written – 4 yrs (rescission in general)
WRITTEN contract – 10 yrs
Lo vs KJS
-as in any other contract of sale, the vendor or
assignor is bound by certain warranties. More
specifically, the first paragraph of Article 1628 of the
Civil Code provides:
The vendor in good faith shall be responsible for the
existence and legality of the credit at the time of
the sale, unless xxx
From the above provision, petitioner, as vendor or
assignor, is bound to warrant the existence and
legality of the credit at the time of the sale or
assignment.
Indeed, by warranting the existence of the credit,
petitioner should be deemed to have ensured the
performance thereof in case the same is later found
to be inexistent. He should be held liable to pay to
respondent the amount of his indebtedness.
Catungal vs Rodriguez
Payment of balance of purchase price is
CONDITIONED on acquisition of right of way. Held:
not condition on perfection of contract but only on
obligation to pay.
Remedy (in case of nonfulfillment):
1545: 1) rescind: not to proceed in sale and
demand return of downpayment or 2) waive
condition and proceed w/ sale (despite lack of road
access)

REDEMPTION
Ramos vs CA
-pacto de retro sale held equitable mortgage
-the two deeds (of sale) were executed by reason
of the loan extended by Oscar Ramos to private
Adelaida Ramos and that the purchase price stated
therein was the amount of the loan itself.
-to create the presumption enunciated by Article
1602, the existence of one circumstance is
enough. The said article expressly provides therefor
"in any of the following cases”xxx
De Leon vs Salvador
(No full text)
-alleged gross inadequacy of price is not material
when the law gives the owner the right to redeem as
when a sale is made at public auction, upon the
theory that the lesser the price, the easier it is for the
owner to effect redemption.
Flores vs So
-The pacto de retro sale between Gallano and
Flores was executed when the Civil Code of Spain
was still in effect. It is provided in Article 1509
thereof that if the vendor does not comply with the
provisions of Article 1518, (i.e. to return the price,
plus expenses) the vendee shall
acquire irrevocably the ownership of the thing
sold.
Under the old Civil Code, the ownership was of the sale and that thereafter the 30-day period
consolidated in the vendee a retro by operation of started running and ultimately expired.
law. Accordingly, upon the failure of Valentin
Gallano, as the vendor a retro, to redeem the Lao vs CA
property subject of the pacto de retro sale within the
-agreement between the Better Homes Realty and
period agreed upon, the vendee a retro, Alfonso
N. Domingo Realty & Housing Corporation (Lao),
Flores, became the absolute owner of the subject
manifestly one of equitable mortgage.
property.
1) possession of the property remained with
Note: 1607 (registration of consolidation of title)
Manuel Lao who was the beneficial owner of the
does not impair ownership/title.
property, before, during and after the alleged sale.
-title is automatically vested to vendee subject only
2) the option given to Manuel Lao to purchase the
to resolutory condition: redemption within stipulated
property in controversy had been extended twice.
period.
(These extensions clearly represent the extension of
time to pay the loan given to Manuel Lao upon his
Alonzo vs IAC
failure to pay said loan on its maturity.) Mr. Lao was
-there was no written notice given by the vendors even granted an additional loan of P20,000.00.
to their co-heirs. But, Alonzos occupied the lands
sold and the co-heirs lived on same lot. Hence, there 3) Lao and his brother were in such "dire need of
was actual notice. money" that they mortgaged their townhouse units
(compelling them to sign the document purporting to
-the right of redemption was invoked be a sale after they were told that the same was just
not days but years (13 yrs) after the sales were for "formality."
made in 1963 and 1964.
Lanuza vs De Leon
-(co-heirs were aware of sale) By requiring written
proof of such notice, we would be closing our eyes Held: equitable mortgage
to the obvious truth in favor of their palpably false
1) gross inadequacy of the price – (prop sold new
claim of ignorance, thus exalting the letter of the law
house of strong materials + TV + ref + =P3,000)
over its purpose. The purpose is clear enough: to
make sure that the redemptioners are duly notified. 2) non-transmission of ownership to the vendees
Deed states that only after Lanuza fails to pay within
Now, when did the 30-day period of redemption
3 mos. would the prop automatically pass.
begin?
-This stipulation is contrary to the nature of a
While we do not here declare that this period started
true pacto de retro sale under which a vendee
from the dates of such sales in 1963 and 1964, we
acquires ownership of the thing sold immediately
do say that sometime between those years and
upon execution of the sale, subject only to the
1976, when the first complaint for redemption
vendor's right of redemption.
was filed, the other co-heirs were actually informed
3) delay in the filing of the petition for
consolidation. (the period of redemption expired on
July 12, 1961 and yet this action was not brought
until October 19, 1962)
-All the while, the Lanuzas remained in possession
of the properties they were supposed to have sold
and they remained in possession even long after
they had lost their right of redemption.
Capulong vs. CA
-equitable mortgage even if the option
repurchase is not reserved in the deed of sale
-the deed of sale and the document embodying the
option to buy were prepared, signed, and notarized
on the same day
-the deed of absolute sale and the document giving
the right to repurchase were, in fact, only one
transaction of sale pacto de retro which must be
construed as an equitable mortgage.
-Capulong remained in actual physical possession
of the land and enjoyed the fruits thereof confirms
the real intention of the parties to secure the
payment of the loans with the land as security.
Solid Homes, Inc. vs CA
Redemption price + all cost of money equivalent to
30% per annum, registration fees, real estate and
documentary stamp taxes and other incidental
expenses
-Art 1616 NOT restrictive or exclusive
-1616 should be construed together with Art. 1601:
“Conventional redemption xxx with the obligation to
comply with the provisions of article 1616 and other
stipulations which may have been agreed
upon.”
Hence, must comply with x x x the other
stipulations (i.e. 30% per annum money equivalent)
of the Memorandum of Agreement/Dacion en
Pago it freely entered into with respondent.
Primary Structures vs. Valencia
to -Art. 1621 of the Civil Code expresses that the right
of redemption it grants to an adjoining owner of the
property conveyed may be defeated if it can be
shown that the buyer or grantee does not own any
other rural land. (no evidence that buyers are not
owners of rural land) Hence, right of redemption was
upheld.
-there was a statement in the deed of sale to the
effect that the vendors have complied with the
required written notice. Primary Structures was not
a party to the deed of sale Valencia and Mendoza
and has had no hand in the preparation and
execution of the deed of sale. It could not thus be
considered a binding equivalent of the obligatory
written notice prescribed by the Code.
-No written notice of sale hence, period of
redemption had yet to commence the right to
redeem was sought to be exercised.
-The written notice of sale is mandatory. This
Court has long established the rule that
notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner,
the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the
selling co-owner in order to remove all uncertainties
about the sale, its terms and conditions, as well as
its efficacy and status.
Note: Alonzo case was made an exception due to its
peculiar circumstances
Ectuban vs. CA
(no full text)
-notice to prospective redemptioner of the sale by a
co-owner may be given EITHER by the vendor or
by the vendee, citing the case of De Conejero vs.
CA, 16 SCRA 775, where a copy of deed of sale
was presented.
LEASE
Guzman, Bocaling vs. Bonevie
-Contract of Lease specifically stated that Bonevies
could exercise the right of first priority, "all things
and conditions being equal." The Court reads this
mean that there should be identity of the terms
and conditions to be offered to the Bonnevies
and all other prospective buyers, with the
Bonnevies to enjoy the right of first priority.
[ The selling price qouted to the Bonnevies was
P600,000.00, to be fully paid in cash less only the
mortgage lien of P100,000.00. On the other hand,
the selling price offered to and accepted by the
Guzman was only P400,000.00 and only
P137,500.00 was paid in cash while the balance of
P272,500.00 was to be paid "when the property
(was) cleared of tenants or occupants ]
-Only if the Bonnevies failed to exercise their right
of first priority could Reynoso lawfully sell the subject
property to others, and at that only under the same
terms and conditions offered to the Bonnevies.
Hence, sale to Guzman may be rescinded.
Yek Seg Co vs. CA
-the rental in this case was paid monthly and the
term had not been expressly agreed upon, the
lease was understood under Article 1687 to be
terminable from month to month. At the time the
petitioner was asked to vacate the leased
premises, the lease contract had already expired
and therefore, could no longer be extended
-even if such contract had not yet expired, its
extension would still be subject to the sound
discretion of the court.
can the non-payment of the rent for the month of
August, 1985 be a ground for termination of the
lease without a demand to pay and to vacate.
United Realty vs. CA
-two contracts of lease show that its period is from
month to month and that the lease may be
terminated when either party gives a 5 days notice
in writing.
-such a stipulation between the parties
demonstrates that the agreement of lease is for a
definite period and not for an indefinite period
-Since the lease agreement is for a definite period
it follows that petitioner has a right to judicially
eject private respondent from the premises as an
exception to the general rule provided for in
Section 4 of P.D. No. 20 which provides as follows:
Legar Mgt. vs. CA
-lease agreements with no specified period, but in
which rentals are paid monthly, are considered to
be on a month-to-month basis. xxx They are for a
definite period and expire after the last day of
any given thirty-day period, upon proper demand
and notice by the lessor, to vacate. xxx
-lease over the subject property was on a month-to-
month basis, and that there was proper notice of
non-renewal of contract and demand for vacation
-therefore, the verbal lease agreement entered into
has been validly terminated.

-petitioner had already enjoyed a de facto extension Except when the lease is for a definite period, the
for several years due to the pendency of appeals. provisions of paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines insofar as they refer to
dwelling unit or land on which another's dwelling is
located shall be suspended until otherwise
Yap vs. Cruz
provided; x x x
-When the Yap and the landlord executed a new
1) a greater portion of two apartments is not used
contract of lease, the lease of Dr. Cruz was still valid
by Father Torralba (lessee) as his residence but
and subsisting.
for a Buddhist Temple. (P.D. No. 20 and B.P. No.
-the lease of Cruz is on a month-to-month basis 25 which cover only dwelling units)
and may be terminated at the end of any month
2) During pendency of appeal, Father Torralba died
after proper notice or demand to vacate has been,
thus lease agreements were effectively terminated
-lack of proper notice or demand to vacate upon
by his death.
the Cruz is clearly evident. In the absence of such
notice, the lease of private respondent continues to
be in force and can not be deemed to have expired
as of the end of the month automatically. Neither