Balatbat v.

CA

Facts:

A parcel of land was acquired by plaintiff Aurelio Roque and Maria Mesina during
their conjugal union. Maria died on August 28, 1966. On June 15, 1977, Aurelio filed
a case for partition. The trial court held that Aurelio is entitled to the portion at
his share in the conjugal property, and 1/5 of the other half which formed part of
Marias estate, divided equally among him at his 4 children. The decision having
become final and executory, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued a transfer
certificate of title on October 5, 1979 according to the ruling of the court. On April 1,
1980, Aurelio sold his 6/10 share to spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and Jose
Repuyan, as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale. On June 21, 1980, Aurora caused
the annotation of her affidavit of adverse claim. On August 20, 1980, Aurelio filed a
complaint for rescission of contract grounded on the buyers failure to pay the
balance of the purchase price. On February 4, 1982, another deed of absolute sale
was executed between Aurelio and his children, and herein petitioner Clara Balatbat,
involving the entire lot. Balatbat filed a motion for the issuance of writ of possession,
which was granted by the court on September 20, 1982, subject to valid rights and
interests of third persons. Balatbat filed a motion to intervene in the rescission case,
but did not file her complaint in intervention. The court ruled that the sale between
Aurelio and Aurora is valid.

Issues:

(1) Whether the alleged sale to private respondents was merely executory

(2) Whether there was double sale

(3) Whether petitioner is a buyer in good faith and for value

Held:

(1) Contrary to petitioner's contention that the sale dated April 1, 1980 in favor of
private respondents Repuyan was merely executory for the reason that there was no
delivery of the subject property and that consideration/price was not fully paid, we
find the sale as consummated, hence, valid and enforceable. The Court dismissed
vendor's Aurelio Roque complaint for rescission of the deed of sale and declared that
the Sale dated April 1, 1980, as valid and enforceable. No appeal having been made,
the decision became final and executory.

The execution of the public instrument, without actual delivery of the thing, transfers
the ownership from the vendor to the vendee, who may thereafter exercise the rights
of an owner over the same. In the instant case, vendor Roque delivered the owner's
certificate of title to herein private respondent. The provision of Article 1358 on the
necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or
enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of sale of a parcel
of land that this be embodied in a public instrument. A contract of sale being
consensual, it is perfected by the mere consent of the parties. Delivery of the thing
bought or payment of the price is not necessary for the perfection of the contract; and
failure of the vendee to pay the price after the execution of the contract does not
make the sale null and void for lack of consideration but results at most in default on
the part of the vendee, for which the vendor may exercise his legal remedies.

(2) Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of an immovable
property, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the person acquiring it who in good
faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person
who in good faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person
who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. In the case at bar, vendor
Aurelio Roque sold 6/10 portion of his share to private respondents Repuyan on
April 1, 1980. Subsequently, the same lot was sold again by vendor Aurelio Roque
(6/10) and his children (4/10), represented by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Section
10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on February 4, 1982. Undoubtedly, this is a case of
double sale contemplated under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.

Evidently, private respondents Repuyan's caused the annotation of an adverse claim

on the title of the subject property on July 21, 1980. The annotation of the adverse
claim in the Registry of Property is sufficient compliance as mandated by law and
serves notice to the whole world. On the other hand, petitioner filed a notice of lis
pendens only on February 2, 1982. Accordingly, private respondents who first caused
the annotation of the adverse claim in good faith shall have a better right over herein
petitioner. As between two purchasers, the one who has registered the sale in his
favor, has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title even if the
latter is in actual possession of the immovable property. Further, even in default of
the first registrant or first in possession, private respondents have presented the
oldest title. Thus, private respondents who acquired the subject property in good
faith and for valuable consideration established a superior right as against the
petitioner.

(3) Petitioner cannot be considered as a buyer in good faith. If petitioner did

investigate before buying the land on February 4, 1982, she should have known that
there was a pending case and an annotation of adverse claim was made in the title of
the property before the Register of Deeds and she could have discovered that the
subject property was already sold to the private respondents. It is incumbent upon
the vendee of the property to ask for the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of the
title from the vendor. One who purchases real estate with knowledge of a defect or
lack of title in his vendor cannot claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith
as against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must
be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have put him upon such
inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in
the title of his vendor. Good faith, or the want of it is not a visible, tangible fact that
can be seen or touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be
judged of by actual or fancied tokens or signs.