GR 27587; (February, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27587 February 18, 1970
AMADO CARUMBA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANTIAGO BALBUENA and ANGELES BOAQUIÑA as Deputy Provincial Sheriff, respondents.
FACTS
On April 12, 1955, spouses Amado Canuto and Nemesia Ibasco sold a parcel of unregistered land to spouses Amado Carumba and Benita Canuto via a “Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land with Covenants of Warranty.” This deed was never registered. Carumba took possession of the land, planting crops thereon. On January 21, 1957, Santiago Balbuena filed a money claim against Amado Canuto and Nemesia Ibasco. A decision was rendered in favor of Balbuena on April 15, 1957. Subsequently, the property was levied upon and sold at an execution sale to Balbuena on October 1, 1958. Balbuena’s definite deed of sale was registered on October 3, 1958, and he declared the property for taxation in his name in 1958. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Carumba, declaring him the owner. The Court of Appeals reversed, applying Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale, and held Balbuena’s registered title superior.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied Article 1544 on double sale to give preference to the later vendee (Balbuena) who registered the execution sale, over the prior unregistered vendee (Carumba) in possession, concerning unregistered land.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the judgment of the Court of First Instance. Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale is inapplicable. A purchaser at a sheriff’s execution sale of unregistered land merely acquires the judgment debtor’s interest in the property as of the time of the levy, as provided under Section 35, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. At the time of the levy (which could not have been before April 15, 1957), the judgment debtor (Canuto) no longer had any dominical interest or real right over the land, as ownership had already passed to Carumba through the prior sale on April 12, 1955, coupled with Carumba’s taking of possession. Therefore, nothing passed to Balbuena at the execution sale. The rule differs for registered land under the Torrens system, but the land in question was unregistered.