GR L 11285; (May, 1958) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-11285; May 16, 1958
VICENTE SAPTO, LAUREANA SAPTO and DORA (BAGONA), plaintiffs-appellants, vs. APOLONIO FABIANA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Sapto (Moro), now deceased, was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Davao City under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-5701. Upon his death, his children Samuel, Constancio, and Ramon inherited the property. Ramon predeceased his brothers without heirs. On June 6, 1931, Samuel and Constancio Sapto executed a deed of sale for a four-hectare portion of the land in favor of defendant Apolonio Fabiana for P245.00. The sale was approved by the Provincial Governor of Davao but was never registered. However, possession of the land was transferred to Fabiana, who has been in continuous possession since 1931. Constancio Sapto later died without issue. Samuel Sapto married Dora (Bagoba) and, upon his death, was survived by his widow and children Laureana and Vicente Sapto. On October 19, 1954, the widow and children of Samuel Sapto filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Davao to recover the parcel of land sold to Fabiana in 1931. The lower court held the sale was valid and binding on the parties and the vendors’ heirs, ordering the plaintiffs to execute a deed of conveyance in Fabiana’s favor and annotate it on the certificate of title. The plaintiffs appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the unregistered deed of sale executed by the appellants’ predecessors in favor of the appellee is valid and binding on the appellants and operated to convey title and ownership to the appellee.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The Court ruled that, as between the parties to a sale, registration is not necessary for the deed to be valid and effective, as actual notice is equivalent to registration. Citing a long line of cases, the Court held that the purpose of registration under the Land Registration Act is to protect against claims of third persons and is not required to give effect to the deed between the parties. Since no rights of innocent third parties or subsequent transferees are involved, and the vendee (Fabiana) has remained in possession since 1931, the conveyance is valid and binding upon the vendors’ heirs (the appellants). The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that the action for reconveyance had prescribed, characterizing the action as one to quiet title, which is imprescriptible when the plaintiff is in possession. The appellants’ suit in 1954 to recover the land constituted the cloud on title that triggered the appellee’s right to seek quieting of title.