G.R. No. L-11887; January 28, 1918
CEFERINO ESTIVA Y ANISTA, petitioner-appellant, vs. MARTIN ALVERO, JOSEFA ILAGAN and ALBERTO C. RAMOS, objectors-appellees.

FACTS:
On November 5, 1913, Ceferino Estiva y Anista applied for registration of several parcels of land, including Parcel D, with the Court of Land Registration. On April 12, 1911, Estiva had already sold Parcel D to spouses Martin Alvero and Josefa Ilagan under a pacto de retro (sale with right of repurchase) for P1,000, with a redemption period of up to ten years. The Alvero spouses took possession of the land. Estiva did not disclose this sale in his registration application. On April 14, 1914, Estiva and his wife sold Parcels C and D (including the same Parcel D) to spouses Alberto C. Ramos and Benita Garin under another pacto de retro for P3,900. The Ramos spouses filed an opposition to Estiva’s application regarding Parcels C and D. Estiva then amended his application to note the sale to the Ramos spouses but still omitted the prior sale to the Alvero spouses. The land court initially decreed registration in Estiva’s name, noting the encumbrance in favor of the Ramos spouses. Later, upon motion by the Alvero spouses, the court found that Estiva fraudulently concealed the prior sale to them and set aside the decree. It ordered registration of Parcel D in Estiva’s name with a memorandum of the sale to the Alvero spouses. Estiva appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Estiva fraudulently obtained the decree of registration for Parcel D by concealing the prior pacto de retro sale to the Alvero spouses.
2. Whether the contract between Estiva and the Alvero spouses was a true pacto de retro sale or merely a loan with mortgage.
3. Whether Estiva is entitled to a judicial declaration of his right to redeem the property.

RULING:
1. Yes, Estiva obtained the decree fraudulently. Under Section 19 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), as amended, an applicant must obtain written consent from parties with an interest in the land or disclose such interests in the application. Estiva knowingly concealed the prior sale to the Alvero spouses, securing a decree that prejudiced their rights. This omission constitutes fraud.
2. The contract was a valid pacto de retro sale, not a loan with mortgage. The terms of the contract clearly indicated a sale with right of repurchase. The price was reasonable, and the Alvero spouses took possession and usufruct of the property. Estiva’s claim that it was a loan was unfounded.
3. The court declined to make a specific finding on Estiva’s right to redeem. The proceedings were for land registration only, not for declaring ancillary rights. Estiva remains free to assert any redemption rights under the contract in appropriate proceedings.

Additionally, applying Article 1473 of the Civil Code on double sales, since neither deed was recorded, but the Alvero spouses took possession in good faith immediately after the first sale, they have superior right over the Ramos spouses.

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the land court’s decision setting aside the prior decree and ordering registration of Parcel D in Estiva’s name with a memorandum of the sale to the Alvero spouses. Costs against Estiva.

This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.