G.R. No. L-2402

FACTS:
Plaintiffs Apolinario Modesto, et al., alleged they were the sole owners of a parcel of land on Calle Azcarraga, Manila, having inherited it from their father Teodoro Modesto who possessed it for over forty years. The land was sold at a public auction by the Sheriff of Manila to defendant Benito Mañalac on September 30, 1903, to satisfy a judgment debt of Roque Almario (a tenant on the land) in favor of defendant Concepcion Leyva. The sale was recorded in the Registry of Property. Almario had a recorded possessory information title (possession dating from March 29, 1894) but not a title of ownership. The plaintiffs sued to have the sheriff’s sale declared null and void and its registration canceled. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in declaring the sheriff’s sale to Benito Mañalac null and void based on the evidence presented by the plaintiffs establishing their superior right of ownership and possession over the land.

RULING:
No, the trial court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The evidence, primarily the testimonies of Apolinario Modesto and other witnesses, sufficiently established that the plaintiffs and their predecessor Teodoro Modesto had been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the land for over forty years, even through tenants including Roque Almario. This possession was not overcome by Almario’s recorded possessory information title, which was expressly approved “without prejudice to third persons with a better right” and was unsupported by other evidence. The appellant Mañalac could not invoke the protection for third parties under Article 34(1) of the Mortgage Law, as that provision does not apply to registrations of mere possession under Article 390. Therefore, the sheriff’s sale of property not owned by the judgment debtor (Almario) was null and void.