G.R. No. L-27345; February 28, 1969
LEONARDO CATAIN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HERMINIO RIOS and MARIANO TAMAYO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Leonardo Catain filed Civil Case No. 313 to establish title, secure possession, and recover damages over a land in Busuanga, Palawan. The case was preceded by Civil Case No. 268 for recovery of possession, which was dismissed because the right to possession hinged on ownership, reserving the right to settle the ownership question in a separate action. On March 8, 1954, defendant Herminio Rios sold the land to plaintiff Catain. Over a year later, on August 20, 1955, Rios sold the same land to his co-defendant Mariano Tamayo. When plaintiff later sought physical possession, Tamayo refused. Defendant Rios did not contest the complaint. The land was registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 344 in the name of plaintiff’s father, Vicente Catain. Before 1951, Vicente Catain had sold the property to Honesto Rios (Herminio’s father) subject to redemption. This sale was not registered, but the owner’s duplicate certificate of title was delivered to Honesto Rios. On March 8, 1954, plaintiff redeemed the property from Herminio Rios (both fathers having died), and Rios turned over the owner’s duplicate certificate, the tax declaration, and executed an affidavit of transfer. Tamayo’s possession of the land began in 1951, but it was with the consent of Honesto Rios and was therefore precarious, not in the concept of an owner, until the sale to him on August 20, 1955. Neither the deed to Catain nor the deed to Tamayo was registered. The lower court ruled in favor of Tamayo, applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code, holding that since neither deed was registered, Tamayo had a better right as he was first in physical possession.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly applied Article 1544 of the Civil Code in ruling that defendant Mariano Tamayo, as the first in physical possession, had a better right to the land over plaintiff Leonardo Catain, considering the circumstances of the sales and the nature of possession.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The possession referred to in the last paragraph of Article 1544 includes both actual and constructive possession. The sale to plaintiff was made through a public instrument, which under Article 1498 is equivalent to the delivery of the thing (symbolic delivery) unless the contrary appears. The execution of the public instrument, coupled with the surrender of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and tax declaration, and the affidavit of transfer, manifested Rios’s intent to fully convey ownership to plaintiff, thereby effecting constructive delivery. At the time of the sale to plaintiff, Rios was in civil possession of the land, and this possession was symbolically delivered to plaintiff. Tamayo’s possession from 1951 until August 20, 1955, was precarious, held with the consent of and on behalf of the Rios family, not adversely. Therefore, he cannot be considered “first in possession” in good faith under Article 1544. Furthermore, the land was registered in the name of Vicente Catain, and this was a matter of public record. Tamayo is deemed to have notice of this fact and cannot claim good faith belief that it belonged to Herminio Rios, especially since Rios could not produce the owner’s duplicate certificate at the time of the sale to Tamayo. Additionally, under the Torrens system, a deed does not transmit a right in rem until registered, and the deed to Tamayo was not and could not be registered as the land was not in Rios’s name. The Court ordered defendants to vacate the property and deliver possession to plaintiff, and to pay damages equivalent to 50 cavans of palay per year from August 20, 1955, until delivery, at P8.00 per cavan, with legal interest from September 22, 1958, plus attorney’s fees and costs.