Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1921 > October 1921 Decisions > G.R. No. 16420 October 12, 1921 - AGRIPINO MENDOZA v. PRIMITIVO KALAW

042 Phil 236:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 16420. October 12, 1921. ]

AGRIPINO MENDOZA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. PRIMITIVO KALAW, objector-appellant.

Guillermo M. Katigbak for Appellant.

Felipe A. Jose for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION, FACTS OF THIS CASE. — C sold a parcel of land to K under "pacto de retro." About two weeks later C sold the same parcel of land, by an absolute deed of sale, to M, who, four days thereafter, took possession of said land and enclosed it with a fence. A representative of K then tried to obtain possession of the land from M but the latter refused to deliver It. Then K tried to have his "pacto de retro" registered in the registry of deeds; but, for some valid reasons, the register of deeds declined to register the same and only made a "preventative precautionary notice" (anotacion preventiva) of K’s "pacto de retro." Later, M applied for the registration of said ’ parcel of land under the Torrens system, and K opposed the came upon the ground that he was the owner thereof by virtue of his "pacto de retro." Held: M was entitled to have said land registered in his name. He has a better title to said land than K because he (M) had acquired it by an absolute deed of sale and had taken possession thereof prior to K.

2. ID.; EFFECT OF AN "ANOTACION PREVENTIVA." — The preventative precautionary notice obtained by K created no advantage in his favor, for the reason that such a notice on the records of the registry of deeds only protects the rights of the person securing it for a period of thirty days. (Par. 2, art. 17, Mortgage Law; see also cases cited in the opinion.)


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


From the record it appears that on the 26th day of November, 1919, the petitioner presented a petition in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila for the registration, under the Torrens system, of a piece or parcel of land, particularly described;n paragraph A of the petition. The said lot is alleged to have an area of 371.6 square meters. The petitioner alleged that he was the owner in fee simple of said parcel of land for the reason that he had purchased the same of Federico Cañet on the 8th day of November, 1919. Accompanying the petition, there was united a plan (marked Exhibit A) containing a technical description of the metes and bounds of said parcel of land.

To the registration of said parcel of land the oppositor, Primitivo Kalaw, presented his opposition, alleging that he was the owner of the same and that he had acquired it from the said Federico Cañet.

Upon the issue thus presented by the petition and opposition, the Honorable James A. Ostrand, on the 23d day of January, 1920, in a carefully prepared opinion, reached the conclusion that the petitioner was the owner in fee simple of said parcel of land, and ordered it registered in his name in accordance with the provisions of the Land Registration Act. From that decree the oppositor appealed to this court.

From an examination of the record the following facts seem to be proved by a large preponderance of the evidence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) That on the 24th day of September, 1919, the said Federico Cañet sold, under a conditional sale, the parcel of land in question to the appellant (Exhibit 1);

(2) That on the 8th day of November, 1919, the said Federico Cañet made an absolute sale of said parcel of land to the petitioner Agripino Mendoza (Exhibit B);

(3) That on the 12th day of November, 1919, Agripino Mendoza entered upon, and took actual possession of, said parcel of land, enclosed it with a fence, and began to clean the same;

(4) That after the petitioner had fenced and cleaned said lot, as above indicated, a representative of the oppositor claimed and attempted to obtain possession of said lot, but the petitioner, who was then in possession, refused to deliver the possession, upon the ground that he was the owner;

(5) That on the 17th day of November (18th day of November), 1919, the oppositor attempted to have his title registered in the registry of deeds of the City of Manila, but such registration was denied by the register of deeds for the reason that there existed some defect in the description of the property, and for the reason that the title of the vendor had not theretofore been registered. The register of deeds, however, did make an "anotacion preventiva."cralaw virtua1aw library

It will be noted from the foregoing that Federico Cañet made two sales of the same property — one to the oppositor and the other to the petitioner. The first was but a conditional sale while the latter was an absolute sale. It will also be noted that while the absolute sale to the petitioner was subsequent to the conditional sale to the oppositor, the former obtained the actual possession of the property first. It will further be noted from a reading of Exhibits 1 and B that the petitioner actually paid to his vendor the purchase price of the property in question, while the payment by the oppositor depended upon the performance of certain conditions mentioned in the contract of sale.

While we have stated that there were two sales of the parcel of land in question, that is hardly the fact, because a conditional sale, before the performance of the condition, can hardly be said to be a sale of property, especially where the condition has not been performed or complied with That being true, article 1473 of the Civil Code can hardly be said to be applicable.

Neither can the "anotacion preventiva" obtained by the oppositor be said to have created any advantage in his favor, for the reason that a preventative precautionary notice on the records of the registry of deeds only protects the rights of the person securing it for a period of thirty days. (Par. 2, art. 17, Mortgage Law.) A preventative precautionary notice only protects the interests and rights of the person who secures it against those who acquire an interest in the property subsequent thereto, and then, only for a period of thirty days. It cannot affect the rights or interests of persons who acquired an interest in the property theretofore. (Veguillas v. Jaucian, 25 Phil., 315; Samson v. Garcia and Ycalina, 34 Phil., 805.) In the present case the petitioner had acquired an absolute deed to the land in question, and had actually entered into the possession of the same, before the preventative precautionary notice was noted in the office of the registry of deeds. Therefore, under the provisions of the Mortgage Law above cited, it could in no way affect the rights or interests of persons, acquired theretofore.

For all of the foregoing reasons, we are fully persuaded that the judgment ordering the registration of the parcel of land in question in the name of the petitioner should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Araullo, Street, Avanceña, and Villamor, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





October-1921 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 16397 October 3, 1921 - DY BUNCIO v. TAN TIAO BOK

    042 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 16569 October 3, 1921 - FREIXAS AND CO. v. PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIP CO.

    042 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 16598 October 3, 1921 - H. E. HEACOCK CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

    042 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 17333 October 3, 1921 - UNITED STATES v. TIENG PAY

    042 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 17558 October 3, 1921 - SAM MOW TOW v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    042 Phil 217

  • G.R. No. 16014 October 4, 1921 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    042 Phil 220

  • G.R. No. 16179 October 6, 1921 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. JUAN M. AGUSTIN, ET AL.

    042 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 16968 October 6, 1921 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHAN FOOK

    042 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. 16420 October 12, 1921 - AGRIPINO MENDOZA v. PRIMITIVO KALAW

    042 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 17312 October 12, 1921 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE MAGNO

    042 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 15648 October 13, 1921 - PROV. GOV. OF BULACAN v. URSULA ADUNA, ET AL.

    042 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 15674 October 17, 1921 - CONSOLACION GABETO v. AGATON ARANETA

    042 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 13695 October 18, 1921 - STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK v. MANUEL LOPEZ CASTELO

    042 Phil 256

  • G.R. No. 16318 October 21, 1921 - PANG LIM, ET AL. v. LO SENG

    042 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 17986 October 21, 1921 - LUIS GUZMAN v. FAUSTINO LICHAUCO

    042 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 16212 October 27, 1921 - ELIGIO GATMAITAN, ET AL. v. JUAN NEPOMUCENO

    042 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 15990 October 29, 1921 - PATRICIO ALINO v. FORTUNATO ADOVE, ET AL.

    042 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. 16643 October 29, 1921 - DATARAM VALIRAM, ET AL. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    042 Phil 305