LAW ON SALES | URACA VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 278 SCRA 702, SEPTEMBER 05, 1997
URACA VS. COURT OF APPEALS,
278 SCRA 702, SEPTEMBER 05, 1997
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys
property without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in
such property and pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse
claims and interest of another person in the same property.
FACTS
The Velezes were the owners of the lot and commercial
building in Cebu while the petitioners were lessees of the said building. The
Velezes through Ting wrote a letter offering to sell the subject property for
P1,050,000.00.
Uraca went to see Ting about the offer to sell but she was
told by the latter that the price was P1,400,000.00 in cash or managers check
and not P1,050,000.00 as erroneously stated in their letter-offer after some
haggling. Emilia Uraca agreed to the price of P1,400,000.00 but counter-
proposed that payment be paid in installments with a down payment of
P1,000,000.00 and the balance of P400,000 to be paid in 30 days.
The Velezes sold the lot and commercial building to the
Avenue Group for P1,050,000.00. The Avenue Group had actual knowledge of the
Velezes’ prior sale of the same property to the petitioners.
Trial court ruled infavor of petitioners. The Court of
Appeals set aside the Decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA erred in not ruling that petitioners
have better rights to buy and own the Velezes property for registering their
notice of lis pendens ahead of the Avenue Groups registration of their deeds of
sale.
RULING
The court held that before the second buyer can obtain
priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout
(i.e., in ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer’s rights)—from the
time of acquisition until the title is transferred to him by registration or
failing registration, by delivery of possession. 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, as
provided by the Civil Code. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her
from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to register first her
purchase as against the second buyer. But in converso, knowledge gained by the
second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to
register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration
with bad faith.