LAW ON SALES | CORONEL VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 263 SCRA 15, OCTOBER 07, 1996

CORONEL VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 

263 SCRA 15, OCTOBER 07, 1996


TOPIC/DOCTRINE

In interpreting Art. 1544 of the Civil Code, the governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right)—knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights, except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first.


FACTS

On January 15, 1985, plaintiff-appellee Concepcion D. Alcaraz, paid the down payment of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos to consummate the sale of a parcel of land originally owned by Coronel under house and lot, covered by TCT No. 119627. On February 6, 1985, the property originally registered in the name of the Coronel’s father was transferred in their names under TCT No. 327043.

On February 18, 1985, the Coronels sold the property to intervenor-appellant Catalina B. Mabanag for One Million Five Hundred Eighty Thousand (P1,580,000.00) Pesos after the latter has paid Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos. For this reason, Coronels canceled and rescinded the contract with Ramona by depositing the down payment paid by Concepcion in the bank in trust for Ramona Patricia Alcaraz. On April 2, 1985, Catalina caused the annotation of a notice of adverse claim covering the same property with the Registry of Deeds under TCT No. 351582.

The lower courts rule in-favor of the adverse claim of plaintiff-appellee Concepcion hence this appeal.

 

ISSUE

Who has better rights over the property?

 

RULING

Plaintiff-appellee Concepcion has better rights.

The court held that in Article 1544 on double sale, title or ownership to pass to the first buyer, the exceptions being: (a) when the second buyer, in good faith, registers the sale ahead of the first buyer, and (b) should there be no inscription by either of the two buyers, when the second buyer, in good faith, acquires possession of the property ahead of the first buyer. Unless, the second buyer satisfies these requirements, title or ownership will not transfer to him to the prejudice of the first buyer. In interpreting Art. 1544 of the Civil Code, the governing principle is primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right)—knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights, except where the second buyer registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first.—Even assuming that there was double sale in this case, petitioner.

Here, the court held that as clearly borne out by the evidence, petitioner Mabanag could not have in good faith, registered the sale entered into on February 18, 1985 because as early as February 22, 1985, a notice of lis pendens had been annotated on the transfer certificate of title in the names of petitioners, whereas petitioner Mabanag registered the said sale sometime in April, 1985. At the time of registration, therefore, petitioner Mabanag knew that the same property had already been previously sold to private respondents, or, at least, she was charged with knowledge that a previous buyer is claiming title to the same property. Petitioner Mabanag cannot close her eyes to the defect in petitioners’ title to the property at the time of the registration of the property. https://www.instagram.com/lawyalstudent/

Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147