SECOND DIVISION  Aurelio A.

Roque 6/10 share The rescission of contracts are provided for in the laws and
Severina M. Roque 1/10 share nowhere in the provision of the Civil Code under the title
Osmundo M. Roque 1/10 share Rescissible Contracts does the circumstances in the case at bar
G.R. No. 109410 August 28, 1996 Feliciano M. Roque 1/10 share appear to have occurred, hence, the prayer for rescission is outside
Corazon M. Roque 1/10 share the ambit for which rescissible [sic] could be granted.
CLARA M. BALATBAT, petitioner,
vs. On April 1, 1980, Aurelio A. Rogue sold his 6/10 share in T.C.T. No. The Intervenor — Plaintiff, Clara Balatbat, although allowed to
COURT OF APPEALS and Spouses JOSE REPUYAN and 135671 to spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and Jose Repuyan as intervene, did not file her complaint in intervention.
AURORA REPUYAN, respondents.  evidenced by ."Deed of Absolute Sale." 6
Consequently, the plaintiff having failed to prove with sufficient
TORRES, JR. , J.:p On July 21, 1980, Aurora Tuazon Repuyan caused the annotation preponderance his action, the relief prayed for had to be denied.
7
of her affidavit of adverse claim   on the Transfer Certificate of Title The contract of sale denominated as "Deed of Absolute Sale" (Exh.
Petitioner Clara M. Balatbat instituted this petition for review No. 135671, 8 to wit: 7 and sub-markings) being valid and enforceable, the same
pursuant to Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court seeking to set pursuant to the provisions of Art. 1159 of the Civil Code which says:
aside the decision dated August 12, 1992 of the respondent Court Entry No. 5627/T-135671 — NOTICE OF ADVERSE CLAIM —
of Appeals in CA-GR. CV No. 29994 entitled "Alexandra Balatbat Filed by Aurora Tuazon Repuyan, married, claiming among others Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between
and Clara Balatbat, plaintiffs-appellants versus Jose Repuyan and that she bought 6/10 portion of the property herein described from the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.
Aurora Repuyan, defendants-appellees", the dispositive portion of Aurelio Roque for the amount of P50,000.00 with a down payment
which reads: 1 of P5,000.00 and the balance of P45,000.00 to be paid after the
partition and subdivision of the property herein described, other has the effect of being the law between the parties and should be
complied with. The obligation of the plaintiff under the contract
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the claims set forth in Doc. No. 954, page 18, Book 94 of being to have the land covered by TCT No. 135671 partitioned and
modification that the awards of P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and ________________ 64 _______ PEDRO DE CASTRO, Notary subdivided, and title issued in the name of the defendant buyer (see
P5,000.00 as costs of litigation are deleted. Public of Manila.
page 2 par. C of Exh. 7-A) plaintiff had to comply thereto to give
effect to the contract.
SO ORDERED. Date of instrument — July 21, 1980
Date of inscription — July 21, 1980 at 3:35 p.m.
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered against the plaintiff, Aurelio A.
The records show the following factual antecedents: Roque, and the plaintiff in intervention, Clara Balatbat, and in favor
TERESITA H. NOBLEJAS of the defendants, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit, and
Acting Register of Deeds declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1980 as valid
It appears that on June 15, 1977, Aurelio A. Roque filed a complaint and enforceable and the plaintiff is, as he is hereby ordered, to
for partition docketed as Civil Case No. 109032 against Corazon partition and subdivide the land covered by T.C.T. No. 135671, and
Roque, Alberto de los Santos, Feliciano Roque, Severa Roque and By: to aggregate therefrom a portion equivalent to 6/10 thereof, and
Osmundo Roque before the then Court of First Instance of Manila, cause the same to be titled in the name of the defendants, and after
2
Branch IX.   Defendants therein were declared in default and RAMON D. MACARICAN which, the defendants, and after which, the defendants, and after
plaintiff presented evidence ex-parte. On March 29, 1979, the trial Acting Second Deputy which, the defendants, and after which, the defendants to pay the
court rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff Aurelio A. Roque, the plaintiff the sum of P45,000.00. Considering further that the
pertinent portion of which reads:  3
defendants suffered damages since they were forced to litigate
On August 20, 1980, Aurelio A. Roque filed a complaint for unnecessarily, by way of their counterclaim, plaintiff is hereby
"Rescission of Contract" docketed as Civil Case No. 134131 ordered to pay defendants the sum of P15,000.00 as moral
From the evidence, it has been clearly established that the lot in against spouses Aurora Tuazon-Repuyan and Jose Repuyan
damages, attorney's fees in the amount of P5,000.00.
question covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51330 was before Branch IV of the then Court of First Instance of Manila. The
acquired by plaintiff Aurelio Rogue and Maria Mesina during their complaint is grounded on spouses Repuyan's failure to pay the
conjugal union and the house constructed thereon was likewise balance of P45,000.00 of the purchase price. 9 On September 5, Costs against plaintiff.
built during their marital union. Out of their union, plaintiff and Maria 1980, spouses Repuyan filed their answer with counterclaim. 10
Mesina had four children, who are the defendants in this case.
When Maria Mesina died on August 28, 1966, the only conjugal SO ORDERED.
properties left are the house and lot above stated of which plaintiff In the meantime, the trial court issued an order in Civil Case No.
herein, as the legal spouse, is entitled to one-half share  pro- 109032 (Partition case) dated February 2, 1982, to wit: 11 On March 3, 1987, petitioner Balatbat filed a notice of lis pendens in
indiviso  thereof. With respect to the one-half share  pro- Civil Case No. 109032 before the Register of Deeds of Manila. 18
indiviso  now forming the estate of Maria Mesina, plaintiff and the
four children, the defendants here, are each entitled to one-fifth In view of all the foregoing and finding that the amount of
(1/5) share pro-indiviso. The deceased wife left no debt. P100,000.00 as purchase price for the sale of the parcel of land On December 9, 1988, petitioner Clara Balatbat and her husband,
covered by TCT No. 51330 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila Alejandro Balatbat filed the instant complaint for delivery of the
consisting of 84 square meters situated in Callejon Sulu, District of owners duplicate copy of T.C.T. No. 135671 docketed as Civil Case
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the partition of Santa Cruz, Manila, to be reasonable and fair, and considering the No. 88-47176 before Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of
the properties, subject matter of this case consisting of the house opportunities given defendants to sign the deed of absolute sale Manila against private respondents Jose Repuyan and Aurora
and lot, in the following manner: voluntarily, the Court has no alternative but to order, as it hereby Repuyan. 19
orders, the Deputy Clerk of this Court to sign the deed of absolute
sale for and in behalf of defendants pursuant to Sec. 10, Rule 39 of
1. Of the house and lot forming the conjugal properties, plaintiff is the Rules of Court, in order to effect the partition of the property On January 27, 1989, private respondents filed their answer with
entitled to one-half share pro-indiviso  thereof while the other half involved in this case. affirmative defenses and compulsory counterclaim. 20
forms the estate of the deceased Maria Mesina;

SO ORDERED. On November 13, 1989, private respondents filed their

2. Of the Estate of deceased Maria Mesina, the same is to be memorandum 21 while petitioners filed their memorandum on
divided into five (5) shares and plaintiff and his four children are November 23, 1989. 22
entitled each to one-fifth share thereof  pro-indiviso. A deed of absolute sale was executed on February 4, 1982
between Aurelio S. Roque, Corazon Roque, Feliciano Roque,
Severa Roque and Osmundo Roque and Clara Balatbat, married to On August 2, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 24,
Plaintiff claim for moral, exemplary and actual damages and Alejandro Balatbat. 12 On April 14, 1982, Clara Balatbat filed a rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, the dispositive
attorney's fees not having been established to the satisfaction of the motion for the issuance of a writ of possession which was granted portion of which reads : 23
Court, the same is hereby denied. by the trial court on September 14, 1982 "subject, however, to valid
rights and interest of third persons over the same portion thereof,
other than vendor or any other person or persons privy to or Considering all the foregoing, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have
Without pronouncement as to costs. not been able to establish their cause of action against the
claiming any rights or interests under it." The corresponding writ of
possession was issued on September 20, 1982. 13 defendants and have no right to the reliefs demanded in the
SO ORDERED complaint and the complaint of the plaintiff against the defendants
is hereby DISMISSED. On the counterclaim, the plaintiff are
On May 20, 1982, petitioner Clara Balatbat filed a motion to ordered to pay defendants the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos by
On June 2, 1979, the decision became final and executory. The 14
intervene in Civil Case No. 134131   which was granted as per way of attorney's fees, Five Thousand Pesos as costs of litigation
corresponding entry of judgment was made on March 29, 1979. 4 court's resolution of October 21, 1982. 15 However, Clara Balatbat and further to pay the costs of the suit.
failed to file her complaint in intervention. 16 On April 15, 1986, the
trial court rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, the
On October 5, 1979, the Register of Deeds of Manila issued a SO ORDERED.
pertinent portion of which reads: 17
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 135671 in the name of the following
persons in the following proportions: 5
Dissatisfied, petitioner Balatbat filed an appeal before the Civil Code. 27 Non-payment only creates a right to demand the possession of herein petitioners by virtue of a writ of possession
respondent Court of Appeals which rendered the assailed decision fulfillment of the obligation or to rescind the contract. issued by the trial court on September 20, 1982 is "subject to the
on August 12, 1992, to wit: 24 valid rights and interest of third persons over the same portion
thereof, other than vendor or any other person or persons privy to
With respect to the non-delivery of the possession of the subject or claiming any rights to interest under it." 36 As between two
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the property to the private respondent, suffice it to say that ownership purchasers, the one who has registered the sale in his favor, has a
modification that the awards of P10,000.00 for attorney's fees and of the thing sold is acquired only from the time of delivery thereof, preferred right over the other who has not registered his title even if
P5,000.00 as costs of litigation are deleted. either actual or constructive. 28 Article 1498 of the Civil Code the latter is in actual possession of the immovable
provides that — when the sale is made through a public instrument, property. 3 7 Further, even in default of the first registrant or first in
the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing possession, private respondents have presented the oldest
SO ORDERED. which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary title. 38 Thus, private respondents who acquired the subject property
does not appear or cannot be inferred. 29 The execution of the in good faith and for valuable consideration established a superior
On March 22, 1993, the respondent Court of Appeals denied public instrument, without actual delivery of the thing, transfers the right as against the petitioner.
petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 25 ownership from the vendor to the vendee, who may thereafter
exercise the rights of an owner over the same. 30 In the instant
case, vendor Roque delivered the owner's certificate of title to Evidently, petitioner cannot be considered as a buyer in good faith.
Hence, this petition for review. herein private respondent. It is not necessary that vendee be In the complaint for rescission filed by vendor Aurelio Roque on
physically present at every square inch of the land bought by him, August 20, 1980, herein petitioner filed a motion for intervention on
possession of the public instrument of the land is sufficient to May 20, 1982 but did not file her complaint in intervention, hence,
Petitioner raised the following issues for this Court's resolution:
accord him the rights of ownership. Thus, delivery of a parcel of the decision was rendered adversely against her. If petitioner did
land may be done by placing the vendee in control and possession investigate before buying the land on February 4, 1982, she should
I of the land (real) or by embodying the sale in a public instrument have known that there was a pending case and an annotation of
(constructive). The provision of Article 1358 on the necessity of a adverse claim was made in the title of the property before the
public document is only for convenience, not for validity or Register of Deeds and she could have discovered that the subject
WHETHER OR NOT THE ALLEGED SALE TO THE PRIVATE enforceability. It is not a requirement for the validity of a contract of property was already sold to the private respondents. It is
RESPONDENTS WAS MERELY EXECUTORY AND NOT A sale of a parcel of land that this be embodied in a public incumbent upon the vendee of the property to ask for the delivery of
CONSUMMATED TRANSACTION? instrument. 31 the owner's duplicate copy of the title from the vendor. A purchaser
of a valued piece of property cannot just close his eyes to facts
II which should put a reasonable man upon his guard and then claim
A contract of sale being consensual, it is perfected by the mere that he acted in good faith and under the belief that there were no
32
consent of the parties.   Delivery of the thing bought or payment of defect in the title of the vendor. 39 One who purchases real estate
WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A DOUBLE SALE AS the price is not necessary for the perfection of the contract; and with knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot claim
CONTEMPLATED UNDER ART. 1544 OF THE CIVIL CODE? failure of the vendee to pay the price after the execution of the that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as against the true
contract does not make the sale null and void for lack of owner of the land or of an interest therein; and the same rule must
consideration but results at most in default on the part of the be applied to one who has knowledge of facts which should have
III vendee, for which the vendor may exercise his legal remedies. 33 put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary
to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor. Good faith,
WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS A BUYER IN GOOD Article 1544 of the New Civil Code provides: or the want of it is not a visible, tangible fact that can be seen or
FAITH AND FOR VALUE? touched, but rather a state or condition of mind which can only be
judged of by actual or fancied tokens or signs. 40
If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
IV ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first
taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable In fine, petitioner had nobody to blame but herself in dealing with
property. the disputed property for failure to inquire or discover a flaw in the
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN title to the property, thus, it is axiomatic that — culpa lata dolo
GIVING WEIGHT AND CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE OF aequiparatur — gross negligence is equivalent to intentional wrong.
THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WHICH WERE NOT OFFERED? Should it be movable property, the ownership shall belong to the
person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry
of Property. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING PREMISES, this petition for review
Petitioner asseverates that the respondent Court of Appeals is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. No pronouncement as to
committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or excess costs.
of jurisdiction in affirming the appealed judgment considering (1) Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
that the alleged sale in favor of the private respondents Repuyan person who in good faith was first in the possession and in the
was merely executory; (2) that there is no double sale; (3) that absence thereof, to the person who present the oldest title, IT IS SO ORDERED.
petitioner is a buyer in good faith and for value; and (4) that private provided there is good faith.
respondents did not offer their evidence during the trial.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of
Contrary to petitioner's contention that the sale dated April 1, 1980 an immovable property, ownership shall be transferred (1) to the
in favor of private respondents Repuyan was merely executory for person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry
the reason that there was no delivery of the subject property and of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith
that consideration/price was not fully paid, we find the sale as was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who
consummated, hence, valid and enforceable. In a decision dated presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. 34
April 15, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch IV in
Civil Case No. 134131, the Court dismissed vendor's Aurelio Roque
complaint for rescission of the deed of sale and declared that the In the case at bar, vendor Aurelio Roque sold 6/10 portion of his
Sale dated April 1, 1980, as valid and enforceable. No appeal share in TCT No. 135671 to private respondents Repuyan on April
having been made, the decision became final and executory. It 1, 1980. Subsequently, the same lot was sold again by vendor
must be noted that herein petitioner Balatbat filed a motion for Aurelio Roque (6/10) and his children (4/10), represented by the
intervention in that case but did not file her complaint in Clerk of Court pursuant to Section 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of
intervention. In that case wherein Aurelio Roque sought to rescind Court, on February 4, 1982. Undoubtedly, this is a case of double
the April 1, 1980 deed of sale in favor of the private respondents for sale contemplated under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code.
non-payment of the P45,000.00 balance, the trial court dismissed
the complaint for rescission. Examining the terms and conditions of This is an instance of a double sale of an immovable property
the "Deed of Sale" dated April 1, 1980, the P45,000.00 balance is hence, the ownership shall vests in the person acquiring it who in
payable only "after the property covered by T.C.T. No. 135671 has good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Evidently,
been partitioned and subdivided, and title issued in the name of the private respondents Repuyan's caused the annotation of an
BUYER" hence, vendor Roque cannot demand payment of the adverse claim on the title of the subject property denominated as
balance unless and until the property has been subdivided and Entry No. 5627/T-135671 on July 21, 1980. 35 The annotation of the
titled in the name of private respondents. Devoid of any stipulation adverse claim on TCT No. 135671 in the Registry of Property is
that "ownership in the thing shall not pass to the purchaser until he sufficient compliance as mandated by law and serves notice to the
has fully paid the price" 26, ownership in thing shall pass from the whole world.
vendor to the vendee upon actual or constructive delivery of the
thing sold even if the purchase price has not yet been fully paid.
The failure of the buyer has not yet been fully paid. The failure of On the other hand, petitioner filed a notice of lis pendens only on
the buyer to make good the price does not, in law, cause the February 2, 1982. Accordingly, private respondents who first
ownership to revest to the seller unless the bilateral contract of sale caused the annotation of the adverse claim in good faith shall have
is first rescinded or resolved pursuant to Article 1191 of the New a better right over herein petitioner. Moreover, the physical