GR L 15133; (July, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15133; July 31, 1963
EMIGDIO SORIANO and BEATRIZ DE VERA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. THE HEIRS OF DOMINGO MAGALI, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The dispute involves a 25,000-square-meter northeastern portion of a larger parcel registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 51878 in the names of spouses Domingo Magali and Modesta Calimlim. In 1939, the spouses sold this portion to Tomas Cerezo and Segunda Soriano, and in 1941, these vendees sold it to Maximino Mamorno. Neither deed was registered or annotated on the title. In January 1944, Maximino Mamorno verbally sold the same portion back to Modesta Calimlim for P5,000, delivering to her the original deeds of the prior sales (Exhibits 1 and 2) as muniments of title. Calimlim subsequently took possession and paid real estate taxes. In April 1946, after Maximino’s death, his widow Francisca Reyes sold the property to spouses Emigdio Soriano and Beatriz de Vera (plaintiffs-appellants). These 1946 deeds were registered under Act 3344 but not on OCT No. 51878. Appellants then filed an action for recovery of possession (reivindicacion) against the heirs of Domingo Magali, who were in possession.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) whether the verbal sale by Maximino Mamorno to Modesta Calimlim in 1944 was valid and established; and (2) if so, whether the rights derived from that sale are superior to those derived from the subsequent 1946 registered sale to the appellants.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees. The Court found the verbal sale in 1944 to Modesta Calimlim was sufficiently proven by the sworn statement of Ildefonso Mamorno (Exhibit 3) and corroborated by Calimlim’s immediate possession, payment of taxes, and custody of the original deeds of the prior sales. This sale, though verbal, was executed and consummated by the delivery of the property and the muniments of title, thus taking it out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds, which applies only to executory contracts.
Applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code (on double sales), the Court ruled that as between two purchasers of the same immovable property, ownership belongs to the first possessor in good faith if no inscription is made in the Registry of Property. Appellees, through Calimlim, acquired possession in good faith in 1944. Appellants never obtained possession. The registration of appellants’ 1946 deeds under Act 3344 was ineffective for purposes of Article 1544 because it was not an inscription in the proper registry under the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ). Therefore, the appellees’ prior possession in good faith vested in them a superior right. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.