CARBONELL VS.

COURT OF
APPEALS, PONCIO &
INFANTE
GR NO. L-29972, JANUARY 26, 1976

MAKASIAR, J.
 FACTS
• ROSARIO CARBONELL – A cousin and adjacent neighbor of Jose Poncio.
• JOSE PONCIO – A native of the Batanes Islands, was the owner of the parcel of land involved
with improvement having an area of 195 sq. meters, covered by TCT No. 5040 and subject to
mortgage in favor of the Republic Savings Bank for the sum of Php1,500.00.
• EMMA INFANTE – Offered to buy the property from Poncio at Php3,535.00. She lives just
behind the houses of Poncio and Carbonell.
Poncio, unable to cope up with the installments due on the mortgage, offered to sell the said
land, excluding his house where he lived. Carbonell accepted the offer at a proposed price of Php
9.50 per square meter. Poncio, having secured all the consents needed, accepted the proposed price
on the condition that from the purchase price would come the money to be paid to the bank.
 FACTS
• JANUARY 27, 1955 – Respondent Poncio executed a private memorandum of sale (in Batanes
dialect) of his parcel of land situated in San Juan, Rizal, in favor of petitioner Carbonell, who
knew that said property was at the time subject to a mortgage in favor of the RSB for the sum of
php1,500.00. This memorandum of sale reads:
Contract of one half lot which I bought from
Jose Poncio
Beginning today, January 27, 1955, Jose Poncio can start living on the lot sold by him to me,
Rosario Carbonell, until after one year, during which he will not pay anything. Then if after said
one can he could not find a place where to move his house, he could still continue occupying the
site but he should pay a rent that man, be agreed.
Signed by: Jose Poncio, Rosario Carbonell, Constancio Meonada (witness)
 FACTS
• JANUARY 31, 1955 – Poncio, in another private memorandum, bound himself to sell the same
property for an improvement price to Emma Infante for the sum of Php2,357.52, with Emma
assuming the existing mortgage with the RSB in the amount of Php1,177.48.
• February 2, 1955 – Poncio executed a formal registrable deed of sale in Infante’s favor.
• February 5, 1955 – Carbonell saw Emma erecting a wall around the lot with a gate.
• February 8, 1955 – Carbonell registered her adverse claim over the land in questioned.
• February 12, 1955 – Deed of sale was registered in favor of Infante.
• JUNE 1, 1955 – Carbonell filed an amended second complaint against Poncio and Infante,
praying that she be declared the lawful owner of the parcel of land. Subsequently, the sale to the
Infantes be declared null and void, and that Poncio be ordered to execute the corresponding deed
of conveyance of said land in her favor.
 FACTS
Respondent Infantes, moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground, among others, that petitioner’s claim
is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, as the alleged sale in her favor not being evidenced by a written
document.
• DECEMBER 5, 1962 – After trial, it was rendered that the second sale by respondent Jose Poncio to
Emma Infante of the land in question null and void and ordering Poncio to execute the proper deed of
conveyance in favor of Carbonell. However, this decision was reversed after re-hearing on the ground that
the claim of the respondents was superior to the claim of Carbonell, and dismissing the complaint because
of additional evidence consisting principally of the cost of improvements introduced by the Infantes.
• November 2, 1967 – on appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court declaring Carbonell to have
superior right to the land in question, and condemning the defendant Infantes to reconvey to Carbonell after
her reimbursement to them of the sum of Php3,000.00 plus legal interests and all its improvements.
Respondent sought reconsideration of said decision, the CA, annulled and set aside its decision and
affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.
Hence, this appeal by certiorari.
 ISSUE
WHO HAS THE SUPERIOR RIGHT OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY?

RULING
It is Carbonell who has the superior right over the subject property, relying on article 1544 of the
New Civil Code, which is decisive of this case, recites:
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 movable property.
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.
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.
 RULING
Unlike the first and third paragraph, the second paragraph directs that ownership of immovable property
should be recognized in favor of one “who in good faith first recorded” his right.
It is Carbonell who has a superior right over the property because when Carbonell bought the lot from
Poncio on Jan. 27, 1955, she was the only buyer and the title of Poncio was still in his name solely
encumbered by bank mortgage duly annotated thereon. Carbonell was not aware, and she could have not 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 days prior to the registration of Infante’s deed of sale. Carbonell’s good faith did not cease
after Poncio told her on January 31, 1955 of his second sale of the lot to Infante. Because of that information,
Carbonell sought to contact respondent Infante but the latter refused to see her. The next best thing for
Carbonell to protect her right was to register her adverse claim. Under the circumstances, this recording of
her adverse claim should be deemed to have been done in good faith and should emphasized Infante’s bad
faith when she registered her deed of sale four days later, on February 12, 1955.
 RULING
The existence of the prior sale to Carbonell was duly established, that Memorandum of Sale
Exhibit “A”, is a perfected sale, as a sale is consensual and consummated by mere consent, and is
binding on and effective between parties, Carbonell and Poncio. Further, the testimony of
Carbonell, not having disproved by Poncio, and corroborated as it is by the private document in
Batanes dialect, Exhibit A, the testimony being to the effect that between herself and Poncio had
been celebrated a sale of the property excluding the house for the price of P9.50 per square meter.
Exhibit A, a private document, goes so far as to describe their transaction as one of sale.
As to the identification of the land not sufficiently described as alleged by the Infantes, the
court conclude that the description is sufficient one as none other than the parcel of lot occupied by
the defendant Poncio and where their improvements erected. The identity of the parcel of land was
sufficiently established by the contents of Exhibit “A”.
 RULING
While Carbonell has the superior title to the lot, she must however refund to respondents Infantes
the amount of P1,500.00, which the Infantes paid to the RSB to redeem the mortgage.
It appearing that the Infantes are possessors in bad faith, their rights to the improvements they
introduced over the disputed land are governed by Article 546 and 547 of the New Civil Code. Their
expenses, among others, installing a gate and P11,929.00 bungalow are useful expenditures, for they
add value to the property as cited in Aringo vs. Arenas.
In this case, Carbonell as the lawful possessor can retain the improvements introduced by the
possessors in bad faith for pure luxury only by paying the value thereof at the time he enters into
possession as a matter of equity, the Infantes, although possessors in bad faith, should be allowed to
remove the improvements, unless petitioners Carbonell chooses to pay their value at the time the
Infantes introduces said useful improvements in 1955 and 1959.
Thus, in this case, Petitioner Rosario Carbonell is declared to have superior right to the land in
question over the Infantes.