GR 187013; (April, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187013; April 22, 2015
SPOUSES MAGDALINO AND CLEOFE BADILLA, Petitioners, vs. FE BRAGAT, Respondent.
FACTS
Spouses Azur and Profitiza Pastrano were the original owners of Lot No. 19986. On November 18, 1968, they sold the lot to Eustaquio P. Ledesma, Jr. via a Deed of Definite Sale. In 1970, Ledesma sold a 200 sq. m. portion of the lot to petitioners Spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla on installment; possession was transferred to the Badillas, and Ledesma later delivered to them the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-2035 after its issuance in 1980. On April 18, 1978, Ledesma sold 991 sq. m. of the property to respondent Fe Bragat and her husband via a Deed of Absolute Sale. On May 5, 1984, the Spouses Pastrano executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of the entire lot in favor of Bragat. Bragat petitioned for and obtained a new owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. P-2035 after reporting its loss. On October 2, 1987, the Spouses Pastrano executed another Deed of Sale in favor of Bragat, leading to the cancellation of OCT No. P-2035 and the issuance of TCT No. T-47759 in Bragat’s name. Bragat demanded that the Badillas vacate the portion they occupied. The Badillas refused, leading to Bragat filing a Complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages, and the Badillas filing a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Declaration of Nullity of TCT No. T-47759 and Damages. The cases were consolidated. The RTC ruled in favor of Bragat, ordering the Badillas to vacate and awarding damages. The CA affirmed but modified, ordering the Badillas to vacate 128 sq. m. and Bragat to reconvey 24 sq. m. to the Badillas, and deleting the damages.
ISSUE
The issue is one of ownership of the subject property.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, reversing the CA and RTC. The Court held that ownership of the 200 sq. m. portion was transferred to the Spouses Badilla upon their purchase from Ledesma in 1970, as delivery of possession had been made and there was no stipulation reserving ownership until full payment. Since the Spouses Pastrano had already sold the property to Ledesma in 1968, they no longer had ownership to transfer to Bragat in 1984 and 1987. The subsequent issuance of OCT No. P-2035 to Pastrano did not revest ownership in them. Bragat could not be considered a purchaser in good faith because the Badillas were in prior possession of the disputed portion, and Bragat’s title was derived from a vendor who was no longer the owner. The Deed of Sale dated October 2, 1987, was also void as it was signed by a deceased person (Profitiza Pastrano died in 1985). Therefore, the Badillas are the lawful owners of the 200 sq. m. portion.