February 1910 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions >
G.R. No. 5359 February 23, 1910 - JOSE COJUANGCO v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ
015 Phil 311:
015 Phil 311:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5359. February 23, 1910. ]
JOSE COJUANGCO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.
Leodegario Azarraga, for Appellants.
Ortigas & Fisher, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. SALE OF REALTY; REGISTRATION OF TITLE; OWNERSHIP. — If the same land is sold to different vendees, it belongs to the person acquiring it who first records it: but if there is no record, it belongs to the one first records it; but if there is no record, it belongs to the one who first takes possession in good faith.
2. ID.; SECOND INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE; OWNERSHIP. — A person who, paying a valuable consideration therefor, purchases land then in the full possession of his vendor, in good faith and without knowledge that such land had been previously sold by his vendor to another person whose conveyance is unrecorded, and takes possession thereof, is entitled to hold said land as against the first vendee.
2. ID.; SECOND INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE; OWNERSHIP. — A person who, paying a valuable consideration therefor, purchases land then in the full possession of his vendor, in good faith and without knowledge that such land had been previously sold by his vendor to another person whose conveyance is unrecorded, and takes possession thereof, is entitled to hold said land as against the first vendee.
D E C I S I O N
MORELAND, J. :
The petitioner in this case asks for the registration of two parcels of land under the Torrens systems, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
One parcel having an area of 243 hectares, 35 ares, and 32 centares, and the other an area of 3 hectares, 30 ares, and 85 centares, both parcels being situated in the barrio of Canan, municipality of Paniqui, Province of Tarlac.
The registration of these lands was opposed by three different oppositors. Manuel Rodriguez and the other heirs of Antonio Rodriguez, deceased, claimed in opposition to the petition herein that they were the owners of 43 quinones, 6 loanes, and 40 square brazas of the first parcel above mentioned by virtue of the fact that the said Antonio Rodriguez, deceased, had purchased said land from Emigdio Navarro and Alfonso Torres on the 23rd day of October, 1894. Ponciano Diemsen claimed to be the owner of 2 hectares, 9 ares, and 60 centares of the said first parcel above described by virtue of a purchase from Juan Valdez. Arcadio Paguia, as administrator of the estates of Antonio de Roxas, deceased. It appears that the lands mentioned in the petition contain something over 80 hectares more than the total of all the lands described in the documents of title introduced in evidence by the petitioner. The court below, after a careful consideration of the evidence relating to the quantity of land owned by the petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had included in the lands described in his petition, and also in the plan filed by him therewith, several parcels of land not described in his muniments of title and that the proofs did not justify him in claiming this excess. The court below accordingly dismissed the petition as to that portion of the lands described therein in excess of the amount of land described in the documents of title. From this portion of the decision of the court below the petitioner did not appeal.
The main question in this case arises from the opposition of Manuel Rodriguez and others with reference to that portion of the first parcel of land above-mentioned obtained by the petitioner by purchase from Emigdio Navarro. As before stated, the oppositors found their objection to the registration of the land in question in the claim that Emigdio Navarro had sold said land to the father of the oppositors, Antonio Rodriguez, on the 23rd day of October, 1894. It appears, however, from Exhibit U, introduced in evidenced by the petitioner, that the said Antonio Rodriguez, a civil governor of the Province of Tarlac, on the 12th day of November, 1894, transferred said land to said Emigdio Navarro, which said transfer was the last step necessary to complete the purchase of said land by said Navarro at a public sale which took place in 1889. It appears clearly established from the proofs that from the time of said transfer, namely, November 12, 1894, said Navarro continuously possessed the land thus obtained down to the time when he sold it to the petitioner in this case. At the time of the sale to the petitioner the said possession of Exhibit U and of the old documents of title, There is no proof in the case tending to show that the petitioner herein had any knowledge whatever of any knowledge that Rodriguez claimed to have been the purchaser of said lands. The court below well says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That it does not appear anywhere in the case that the petitioner knew of the pretensions to said lands on the part of said oppositors or that the petitioner did not buy the lands of Navarro in good faith. Good faith is always presumed (article 34 of the Civil Code), and after leaving Emigdio Navarro in possession of the said land and the document Exhibit U for a period of twelve years prior to the sale to the petitioner, the oppositors may not now maintain as against the petitioner the pretended acquisition of the title to said lands by their father from Navarro a month before the execution of Exhibit U. The opposition of Manuel Rodriguez and others is overruled."cralaw virtua1aw library
After a careful examination of the record and the proofs, we find ourselves fully in accord with the said Emigdio Navarro was the real owner of the lands in question on the 23rd day of October, 1894, and that on that date he executed and delivered a private document of sale to the said Manuel Rodriguez of the lands in question, it is, nevertheless, a fact that in the year 1906 he executed and delivered a public document of sale of the same land to the petitioner, Jose Cojuangco, who took said land in good faith and without knowledge of said private document and while said land was in the possession of his vendor. Article 1473 of the Civil Code reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ART. 1473. If the same thing should gave 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 be personal property.
"Should it be real property, it shall belong to the person acquiring it who first recorded it in the registry.
"Should there be no entry, the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of it in good faith, and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is undisputed that neither document was registered and that the petitioner in this case first took possession of the land in question in good faith.
The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
One parcel having an area of 243 hectares, 35 ares, and 32 centares, and the other an area of 3 hectares, 30 ares, and 85 centares, both parcels being situated in the barrio of Canan, municipality of Paniqui, Province of Tarlac.
The registration of these lands was opposed by three different oppositors. Manuel Rodriguez and the other heirs of Antonio Rodriguez, deceased, claimed in opposition to the petition herein that they were the owners of 43 quinones, 6 loanes, and 40 square brazas of the first parcel above mentioned by virtue of the fact that the said Antonio Rodriguez, deceased, had purchased said land from Emigdio Navarro and Alfonso Torres on the 23rd day of October, 1894. Ponciano Diemsen claimed to be the owner of 2 hectares, 9 ares, and 60 centares of the said first parcel above described by virtue of a purchase from Juan Valdez. Arcadio Paguia, as administrator of the estates of Antonio de Roxas, deceased. It appears that the lands mentioned in the petition contain something over 80 hectares more than the total of all the lands described in the documents of title introduced in evidence by the petitioner. The court below, after a careful consideration of the evidence relating to the quantity of land owned by the petitioner, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had included in the lands described in his petition, and also in the plan filed by him therewith, several parcels of land not described in his muniments of title and that the proofs did not justify him in claiming this excess. The court below accordingly dismissed the petition as to that portion of the lands described therein in excess of the amount of land described in the documents of title. From this portion of the decision of the court below the petitioner did not appeal.
The main question in this case arises from the opposition of Manuel Rodriguez and others with reference to that portion of the first parcel of land above-mentioned obtained by the petitioner by purchase from Emigdio Navarro. As before stated, the oppositors found their objection to the registration of the land in question in the claim that Emigdio Navarro had sold said land to the father of the oppositors, Antonio Rodriguez, on the 23rd day of October, 1894. It appears, however, from Exhibit U, introduced in evidenced by the petitioner, that the said Antonio Rodriguez, a civil governor of the Province of Tarlac, on the 12th day of November, 1894, transferred said land to said Emigdio Navarro, which said transfer was the last step necessary to complete the purchase of said land by said Navarro at a public sale which took place in 1889. It appears clearly established from the proofs that from the time of said transfer, namely, November 12, 1894, said Navarro continuously possessed the land thus obtained down to the time when he sold it to the petitioner in this case. At the time of the sale to the petitioner the said possession of Exhibit U and of the old documents of title, There is no proof in the case tending to show that the petitioner herein had any knowledge whatever of any knowledge that Rodriguez claimed to have been the purchaser of said lands. The court below well says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That it does not appear anywhere in the case that the petitioner knew of the pretensions to said lands on the part of said oppositors or that the petitioner did not buy the lands of Navarro in good faith. Good faith is always presumed (article 34 of the Civil Code), and after leaving Emigdio Navarro in possession of the said land and the document Exhibit U for a period of twelve years prior to the sale to the petitioner, the oppositors may not now maintain as against the petitioner the pretended acquisition of the title to said lands by their father from Navarro a month before the execution of Exhibit U. The opposition of Manuel Rodriguez and others is overruled."cralaw virtua1aw library
After a careful examination of the record and the proofs, we find ourselves fully in accord with the said Emigdio Navarro was the real owner of the lands in question on the 23rd day of October, 1894, and that on that date he executed and delivered a private document of sale to the said Manuel Rodriguez of the lands in question, it is, nevertheless, a fact that in the year 1906 he executed and delivered a public document of sale of the same land to the petitioner, Jose Cojuangco, who took said land in good faith and without knowledge of said private document and while said land was in the possession of his vendor. Article 1473 of the Civil Code reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"ART. 1473. If the same thing should gave 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 be personal property.
"Should it be real property, it shall belong to the person acquiring it who first recorded it in the registry.
"Should there be no entry, the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of it in good faith, and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is undisputed that neither document was registered and that the petitioner in this case first took possession of the land in question in good faith.
The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
