In Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a double sale of immovable property. The Court ruled that the buyer who first registers the sale in good faith has the superior right. Since Carbonell registered her adverse claim before Infante’s registration, and acted in good faith, she was declared the rightful owner.
Carbonnell vs. Court of Appeals [January 26, 1976] Read More »
In Consolidated Rural Bank vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that when two sales involve the same property but are executed by different sellers, the principle of “he who is first in time is preferred in right” applies. The Court emphasized that a seller cannot convey what they do not own, and subsequent buyers must exercise due diligence to verify the property’s ownership.
Consolidated Rural Bank vs. Court of Appeals [January 17, 2005] Read More »
In Abrigo vs. De Vera, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that in cases of double sales, the buyer who first registers the property in good faith with the proper registry has the superior right. Since De Vera registered the property under the Torrens system before the Abrigos, her claim was upheld.
In Roman Catholic Church vs. Pante, the Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Church’s sale of a property to Pante was valid, as there was no misrepresentation to invalidate the contract. The Court emphasized that actual occupancy was not a necessary qualification for the sale, and Pante’s use of the lot as a passageway constituted possession in good faith.
Roman Catholic Church vs. Pante [April 11, 2012] Read More »
In Rosaroso vs. Doria, the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed a double sale of property. The Court upheld the validity of the first sale to Luis Rosaroso’s children, citing the presumption of sufficient consideration. It declared the subsequent sale to Meridian Realty void, noting that Meridian was not a buyer in good faith, as it failed to investigate the property’s actual occupants.
In EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corp. v. Santos, the Supreme Court ruled that EDCA’s sale of books to an impostor was valid despite payment with dishonored checks. Ownership transferred upon delivery, as there was no agreement retaining ownership until full payment. Thus, EDCA was not unlawfully deprived of the books.
EDCA Publishing & Distributing Corp. vs. Santos [April 26, 1990] Read More »
In Aznar v. Yapdiangco, the Supreme Court ruled that the original owner, Santos, who was unlawfully deprived of his car, retains the right to recover it from Aznar, a buyer in good faith. Under Article 559 of the Civil Code, ownership remains with the original owner if the property was stolen.
In Cavite Development Bank v. Lim, the Supreme Court ruled that a seller must own the property at the time of ownership transfer. Here, the bank’s sale was void because it never acquired valid title due to a defective foreclosure process, highlighting the importance of due diligence in property transactions.
Cavite Development Bank vs. Lim [February 1, 2000] Read More »
In Francisco v. Boiser, the Supreme Court held that under Article 1623 of the Civil Code, the co-owner-vendor must notify other co-owners of a sale for the redemption period to commence. Notification by the buyer is insufficient. However, actual knowledge, such as receiving a summons, can trigger the redemption period.
In Abilla v. Gobonseng, the Supreme Court held that a seller who consistently claims a transaction is an equitable mortgage cannot later exercise the right to repurchase under Article 1606 of the Civil Code after the contract is judicially declared a pacto de retro sale.
