G.R. No. 154409 – Spouses NOEL and JULIE ABRIGO, petitioners, vs. ROMANA DE VERA, respondent.
PANGANIBAN, J.
Rule Synopsis
For purposes of applying the rules of double sales, the registration of the sale must be must be made with the proper registry.
Facts
On May 27, 1993, Gloria Villafania sold a house and lot to Rosenda Salazar and Rosita Go (first sale). The sale was disputed in a suit that led to a compromise agreement whereby Villafania was allowed to buy back the property within a specific period; the latter failed to do so. Nonetheless, Villafania was able to sell the subject property to Romana de Vera on Oct. 23, 1997 (second sale); she registered the transaction under the Torrens system. But prior thereto, on Oct. 16, 1997, Salazar and Go sold the same property to Sps. Noel and Julie Abrigo; they registered it under Act. 3344. De Vera filed an action for forcible entry against Sps Abrigo; this was later dismissed.
Thus, Sps Abrigo filed an action for the annulment of documents, injunction, among others.
The RTC ruled in favor of Sps Abrigo. The CA reversed. The SC affirmed.
Issue
Who between Sps Abrigo and de Vera had better right over the subject property?
Ruling and Discussion
De Vera had better right over the subject property.
Registration must be done in the proper registry in order to bind the land. In this case, the registration by the Sps Abrigo under Act. 3344 is ineffective for purposes of applying the rule on double sales under Art. 1544. The Court further found that de Vera’s registration under the Torrens System was done in good faith. Sps Abrigo’s registration of the property under Act. 3344 does not constitute constructive notice to the de Vera as to make the latter in bad faith. Constructive notice to the second buyer through registration under Act 3344 does not apply if the property is registered under the Torrens system, as in this case. Also, there was nothing in the title which would require de Vera to look further into the condition of the subject property.
The registration contemplated under Art. 1544 has been held to refer to registration under Act 496 Land Registration Act (now PD 1529 – Property Registration Decree; Torrens System) which considers the act of registration as the operative act that binds the land.
Dispositive
Petition denied. Decision affirmed.