G.R. No. 4277
POTENCIANA TABIGUE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANK E. GREEN, defendant-appellant.
August 18, 1908

FACTS:
On February 1, 1906, Potenciana Tabigue (plaintiff) sold a parcel of land to Frank E. Green (defendant) through an absolute deed, but Tabigue retained a right to redeem the property within a specific period. At the time of this transfer, proceedings for the inscription of the land in Tabigue’s name were pending in the Court of Land Registration.

On October 20, 1906, Green wrote a letter to a witness, Zialcita, acknowledging that the land court had decided in Tabigue’s favor. Green stated that the existing deed from Tabigue would not suffice after registration and that Tabigue would need to sign another deed. Critically, Green’s letter also granted Tabigue a new right to redeem the property within three months from the date of this “new document,” even though the original redemption period had expired.

On December 15, 1906, the land was duly registered in Tabigue’s name, and a certificate of ownership under Act No. 496 was issued to her. The following day, December 16, 1906, Tabigue executed and delivered another absolute deed of the property to Green. Prior to this, Tabigue had received and was in possession of Green’s October 20 letter. On December 19, 1906, a new certificate of ownership was issued to Green, certifying him as the sole owner.

A factual dispute arose: Green’s witnesses claimed Tabigue waived her right to redeem when she executed the December 16 deed, in exchange for an unspecified payment when Green sold the land to the military government. Tabigue and her witness denied this waiver, insisted on her right to redeem, and within days, offered to redeem the property by paying P1,900 (the consideration in the December 16 deed).

On December 22, 1906, Tabigue’s attorney made a written offer to redeem, which Green refused. Green then testified that on December 24 or 25, 1906, he executed a deed of the land to the military government for P3,000, contingent on military approval (which had not yet been proven).

The trial court sided with Tabigue, holding that she had a right to redeem, and found that the evidence did not preponderate against its decision on the disputed factual question.

ISSUE:
Did Potenciana Tabigue retain a right to redeem the registered land, notwithstanding Frank E. Green’s subsequent execution of a deed of conveyance to a third party (the military government), considering the provisions of Act No. 496 (The Land Registration Act)?

RULING:
Yes, Potenciana Tabigue retained the right to redeem the land.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Tabigue had not waived her right to redeem, as the evidence did not preponderate against that decision. The Court then addressed the effect of Green’s subsequent deed to the military government in light of Act No. 496 .

Citing Section 50 of Act No. 496 , the Court explained that while an owner of registered land can convey it, “no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument… purporting to convey or affect registered land, shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to the clerk or register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land.”

Applying this principle, the Court ruled that Green’s deed to the military government, because the land was registered, operated only as a contract to convey and was therefore subject to the previous contract (the October 20 letter) made with Tabigue, which allowed her to redeem. Since the military government’s deed had not yet been registered, it had not become an “operative act to convey and affect the land” and did not deprive Tabigue of her pre-existing contractual right to redemption.

The Court ordered Green to transfer his title to Tabigue upon her payment of P1,900 into court. The acting register of deeds was directed to cancel Green’s title and register the land in Tabigue’s name. The judgment was modified to specifically order Green to deliver his original certificate of title for cancellation, as required by Act No. 496 for land transfers.

With this modification, the judgment of the lower court was affirmed.