G.R. No. L-11907; February 27, 1919
FAUSTINO LICHAUCO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JOSE BERENGUER, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On July 26, 1882, Macario Berenguer sold a parcel of land with a right of repurchase (pacto de retro) to Cristino Singian. On October 7, 1889, Macario Berenguer sold the same land with a right of repurchase to Cornelia Lauchangco, stipulating that he would lease it from her. On September 2, 1890, Macario Berenguer again sold the same land with pacto de retro to Cristiano Singian (acting as tutor for Anselmo Singian), consolidating the 1882 price and a subsequent loan. The 1889 sale to Lauchangco was registered only in 1907. On February 20, 1904, Anselmo Singian sold the land back to Macario Berenguer under a conditional sale agreement, which stipulated that ownership would revert to Singian if the price was not fully paid within eight years (which did not occur).

The heirs of Cornelia Lauchangco (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to have the 1889 sale declared absolute or to compel repurchase by the estate of Macario Berenguer (defendant Jose Berenguer). Defendant Anselmo Singian claimed absolute ownership. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, declaring Anselmo Singian the owner.

ISSUE:
Which of the two unregistered sales (the 1882 sale to Cristino Singian/Anselmo Singian or the 1889 sale to Cornelia Lauchangco) has preference, and who is the rightful owner of the land?

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling in favor of defendant Anselmo Singian.

1. Preference Between the Two Unregistered Sales: Under Article 1473 of the Civil Code, in case of double sale of the same immovable property, and in the absence of inscription, ownership shall belong: (a) to the person who first took possession in good faith; or (b) in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title. The Court found that both vendees (Singian and Lauchangco) took possession constructively through the vendor Macario Berenguer, who became their lessee after each sale. Since the 1882 sale to Singian was prior, and his possession (through his lessee, Berenguer) commenced first, preference is given to the Singian sale. Furthermore, even if neither was deemed to have taken possession, the older title (1882) prevails.

2. Effect of the 1890 Sale and Identity of the Vendee: The Court held that the 1890 sale was essentially a modification of the 1882 sale, consolidating the original price and a subsequent loan, and was made in favor of the same real party in interest, Anselmo Singian (through his tutor). Therefore, the ownership right originated from the 1882 transaction.

3. Inefficacy of the 1907 Registration: By the time Lauchangco’s sale was registered in 1907, Anselmo Singian had already been in possession for about 25 years. He had acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription. Registration of a later sale cannot defeat a title acquired independently through prescription.

4. Effect of the 1904 Sale by Singian to Berenguer: The 1904 conditional sale provided that if the price was not paid in full within eight years, ownership would revert to Singian. Since there was no proof of full payment, ownership had reverted to Anselmo Singian.

Consequently, the complaint against both defendants was properly dismissed.