ROSARIO CARBONELL, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE PONCIO, EMMA INFANTE and RAMON INFANTE, respondents.

G.R. No. L-29972 January 26, 1976

FACTS:

Petitioner Carbonell lives in an adjoining lot owned by Respondent Poncio, latter’s lot is mortgaged in favor of Republic Savings Bank for P1,500.

Petitioner and another Respondent (Infante) offered to buy the land owned by Poncio. Which Poncio, in his failure to pay the mortgaged agreed for the petitioner to buy the land including his house for P9.50 per square meter on the condition that from the purchase price would come the money to be paid to the bank.

Both parties settled the arrears of the mortgaged amounting P247.26. However, Petitioner only have P200.00 as per respondent’s information that he only owes the same to the bank. Respondent then withdrew the deficit amount and was reimbursed by Carbonell the following day.

The parties executed a document stipulating that, Poncio may still occupy the land sold by him to the petitioner and if after a year, he still can’t find a place to move, that he shall pay rent in favor of the petitioner.

Subsequently, Poncio had told Carbonell that the former can no longer pursue with the sale for he had given the land to Infante, to which he cannot withdraw even if he goes to jail. The said lot was fenced by Infante.

Atty. Jose Garcia advised her to present an adverse claim over the land in question with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal.

Poncio, admittedly sold the land to Infante when she improved her offer.

With the information that the land was not yet registered, Atty. Garcia in favor of the petitioner prepared an adverse claim over the property. Whereby upon registration of the same by Infante, the said adverse claim was noted in the Transfer Certificate of Title.

Petitioner filed a second complaint, alleging that the sale between Poncio and Infante be declared null and void. Respondent’s allegation was that, Petitioner’s claim was unenforceable for lack of written document.

Trial Court ruled that the second sale was null and void. However, after re-trial, Trial Court reversed it’s decision ruling that the claim of the respondents were greater than that of the petitioner.

CA ruled in favor of petitioner, alleging that it has a superior right over the respondent. After a motion for reconsideration CA reversed its decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Petitioner have the superior right over the property.

HELD:

YES.

Article 1544, 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 (emphasis supplied).

When Carbonell bought the lot from Poncio on January 27, 1955, she was the only buyer thereof 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 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. Carbonell's good faith did not cease after Poncio told her on January 31, 1955 of his second sale of the same lot to Infante. Because of that information, Carbonell wanted an audience with Infante, which desire underscores Carbonell's good faith. With an aristocratic disdain unworthy of the good breeding of a good Christian and good neighbor, Infante snubbed Carbonell like a leper and refused to see her. So Carbonell did the next best thing to protect her right — she registered her adversed claim on February 8, 1955. Under the circumstances, this recording of her adverse claim should be deemed to have been done in good faith and should emphasize Infante's bad faith when she registered her deed of sale four (4) days later on February 12, 1955.