G.R. No. L-5567 May 29, 1953
JUAN EVANGELISTA, petitioner, vs. GUILLERMO MONTAÑO, FLORENCIO TAYTAY, and TITO PAZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juan Evangelista purchased a parcel of land from Juana Dalisay on September 29, 1947. The land was originally a homestead granted to Fortunato Dalisay, Juana’s father. Prior to this sale, Juana Dalisay had sold portions of the same homestead to respondents: 5 hectares to Tito Paz on March 28, 1939; 2 hectares and later 1 hectare to Guillermo Montaño on November 7, 1941 and April 9, 1946, respectively; and 2 hectares to Florencio Taytay on November 7, 1944. These respondents took immediate possession of their respective lots but did not register their deeds of conveyance. After Fortunato Dalisay’s death, Juana Dalisay consolidated ownership and obtained Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-118 in her name on November 5, 1946, which was free from annotations of the prior sales. Before buying, Evangelista examined the title, found only a mortgage annotation, and inquired with the Register of Deeds, who confirmed no pending transactions. He also inspected the land, where the respondents warned him they owned portions, but Juana Dalisay claimed they were merely tenants. Evangelista proceeded with the purchase, paid the mortgage, and obtained a new title in his name. He then sued to recover the portions occupied by the respondents.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Juan Evangelista, as a subsequent purchaser with a registered title, can recover the portions of land previously sold but unregistered to the respondents, considering the lack of approval from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for some sales as required by the Public Land Act and the petitioner’s status as a purchaser in good faith.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, absolving the respondents. The Court held:
1. The petitioner was not a purchaser in good faith. Both lower courts found this as a factual conclusion, which is not subject to review. He was aware of the respondents’ claims before purchase.
2. Regarding the lack of approval from the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources for the sales to Montaño and Taytay (required under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , as amended), the Court ruled that the petitioner, as successor-in-interest to the vendor, could not invoke this defect to nullify the sales. The vendor had a warranty obligation to secure such approval. Under the principle “Equity regards that as done which ought to have been done,” the sales are treated as valid between the parties. The approval was considered directory and demandable, as there were no alleged legal grounds for denial.
3. The sale to Tito Paz in 1939 was not covered by the amendment requiring approval, as the law took effect later.
4. The unregistered sales are effective and binding between the immediate parties. The registration requirement under the Land Registration Act is for the protection of innocent third parties, which the petitioner is not.
5. The petitioner’s purchase of land already sold to others was illegal, and his title is tainted with fraud. He cannot use the lack of approval or registration to defeat the respondents’ ownership. Costs were awarded against the petitioner.