Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 109410 August 28, 1996
CLARA M. BALATBAT, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS a! S"ous#s $OSE REPU%AN a! AURORA
REPU%AN, respondents.

TORRES, $R. , J.:p
Petitioner Clara M. alatbat instituted this petition for revie! pursuant to Rule "# of the
Revised Rules of Court see$in% to set aside the decision dated &u%ust '(, '))( of the
respondent Court of &ppeals in C&*+R. CV No. ()))" entitled ,&le-andra alatbat and
Clara alatbat, plaintiffs*appellants versus .ose Repu/an and &urora Repu/an,
defendants*appellees,, the dispositive portion of !hich reads0
1
12ERE3ORE, the 4ud%5ent appealed fro5 is affir5ed !ith the
5odification that the a!ards of P'6,666.66 for attorne/7s fees and
P#,666.66 as costs of liti%ation are deleted.
SO ORDERED.
8he records sho! the follo!in% factual antecedents0
It appears that on .une '#, ')99, &urelio &. Ro:ue filed a co5plaint for partition
doc$eted as Civil Case No. '6)6;( a%ainst Cora<on Ro:ue, &lberto de los Santos,
3eliciano Ro:ue, Severa Ro:ue and Os5undo Ro:ue before the then Court of 3irst
Instance of Manila, ranch I=.
2
Defendants therein !ere declared in default and
plaintiff presented evidence ex-parte. On March (), ')9), the trial court rendered a
decision in favor of plaintiff &urelio &. Ro:ue, the pertinent portion of !hich reads0
&
3ro5 the evidence, it has been clearl/ established that the lot in
:uestion covered b/ 8ransfer Certificate of 8itle No. #';;6 !as
ac:uired b/ plaintiff &urelio Ro%ue and Maria Mesina durin% their
con4u%al union and the house constructed thereon !as li$e!ise built
durin% their 5arital union. Out of their union, plaintiff and Maria
Mesina had four children, !ho are the defendants in this case. 1hen
Maria Mesina died on &u%ust (>, ')??, the onl/ con4u%al properties
left are the house and lot above stated of !hich plaintiff herein, as the
le%al spouse, is entitled to one*half share pro-indiviso thereof. 1ith
respect to the one*half share pro-indiviso no! for5in% the estate of
Maria Mesina, plaintiff and the four children, the defendants here, are
each entitled to one*fifth @'A#B share pro-indiviso. 8he deceased !ife
left no debt.
1herefore, 4ud%5ent is hereb/ rendered orderin% the partition of the
properties, sub4ect 5atter of this case consistin% of the house and lot,
in the follo!in% 5anner0
'. Of the house and lot for5in% the con4u%al properties, plaintiff is
entitled to one*half share pro-indivisothereof !hile the other half
for5s the estate of the deceased Maria MesinaC
(. Of the Estate of deceased Maria Mesina, the sa5e is to be divided
into five @#B shares and plaintiff and his four children are entitled each
to one*fifth share thereof pro-indiviso.
Plaintiff clai5 for 5oral, e-e5plar/ and actual da5a%es and
attorne/7s fees not havin% been established to the satisfaction of the
Court, the sa5e is hereb/ denied.
1ithout pronounce5ent as to costs.
SO ORDERED
On .une (, ')9), the decision beca5e final and e-ecutor/. 8he correspondin% entr/ of
4ud%5ent !as 5ade on March (), ')9).
4
On October #, ')9), the Re%ister of Deeds of Manila issued a 8ransfer Certificate of
8itle No. ';#?9' in the na5e of the follo!in% persons in the follo!in% proportions0
'
&urelio &. Ro:ue ?A'6 share
Severina M. Ro:ue 'A'6 share
1
Os5undo M. Ro:ue 'A'6 share
3eliciano M. Ro:ue 'A'6 share
Cora<on M. Ro:ue 'A'6 share
On &pril ', ')>6, &urelio &. Ro%ue sold his ?A'6 share in 8.C.8. No. ';#?9' to spouses
&urora 8ua<on*Repu/an and .ose Repu/an as evidenced b/ .,Deed of &bsolute
Sale.,
6
On .ul/ (', ')>6, &urora 8ua<on Repu/an caused the annotation of her affidavit of
adverse clai5
(
on the 8ransfer Certificate of 8itle No. ';#?9',
8
to !it0
Entr/ No. #?(9A8*';#?9' D NO8ICE O3 &DVERSE CE&IM D 3iled
b/ &urora 8ua<on Repu/an, 5arried, clai5in% a5on% others that she
bou%ht ?A'6 portion of the propert/ herein described fro5 &urelio
Ro:ue for the a5ount of P#6,666.66 !ith a do!n pa/5ent of
P#,666.66 and the balance of P"#,666.66 to be paid after the
partition and subdivision of the propert/ herein described, other
clai5s set forth in Doc. No. )#", pa%e '>, oo$ )" of
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF ?" FFFFFFF PEDRO DE C&S8RO, Notar/
Public of Manila.
Date of instru5ent D .ul/ (', ')>6
Date of inscription D .ul/ (', ')>6 at ;0;# p.5.
On &u%ust (6, ')>6, &urelio &. Ro:ue filed a co5plaint for ,Rescission of Contract,
doc$eted as Civil Case No. ';"';' a%ainst spouses &urora 8ua<on*Repu/an and .ose
Repu/an before ranch IV of the then Court of 3irst Instance of Manila. 8he co5plaint
is %rounded on spouses Repu/an7s failure to pa/ the balance of P"#,666.66 of the
purchase price.
9
On Septe5ber #, ')>6, spouses Repu/an filed their ans!er !ith
counterclai5.
10
In the 5eanti5e, the trial court issued an order in Civil Case No. '6)6;( @Partition
caseB dated 3ebruar/ (, ')>(, to !it0
11
In vie! of all the fore%oin% and findin% that the a5ount of
P'66,666.66 as purchase price for the sale of the parcel of land
covered b/ 8C8 No. #';;6 of the Re%istr/ of Deeds of Manila
consistin% of >" s:uare 5eters situated in Calle4on Sulu, District of
Santa Cru<, Manila, to be reasonable and fair, and considerin% the
opportunities %iven defendants to si%n the deed of absolute sale
voluntaril/, the Court has no alternative but to order, as it hereb/
orders, the Deput/ Cler$ of this Court to si%n the deed of absolute
sale for and in behalf of defendants pursuant to Sec. '6, Rule ;) of
the Rules of Court, in order to effect the partition of the propert/
involved in this case.
SO ORDERED.
& deed of absolute sale !as e-ecuted on 3ebruar/ ", ')>( bet!een &urelio S.
Ro:ue, Cora<on Ro:ue, 3eliciano Ro:ue, Severa Ro:ue and Os5undo
Ro:ue and Clara alatbat, 5arried to &le4andro alatbat.
12
On &pril '", ')>(,
Clara alatbat filed a 5otion for the issuance of a !rit of possession !hich
!as %ranted b/ the trial court on Septe5ber '", ')>( ,sub4ect, ho!ever, to
valid ri%hts and interest of third persons over the sa5e portion thereof, other
than vendor or an/ other person or persons priv/ to or clai5in% an/ ri%hts or
interests under it., 8he correspondin% !rit of possession !as issued on
Septe5ber (6, ')>(.
1&
On Ma/ (6, ')>(, petitioner Clara alatbat filed a 5otion to intervene in Civil Case No.
';"';'
14
!hich !as %ranted as per court7s resolution of October (', ')>(.
1'
2o!ever,
Clara alatbat failed to file her co5plaint in intervention.
16
On &pril '#, ')>?, the trial
court rendered a decision dis5issin% the co5plaint, the pertinent portion of !hich
reads0
1
(
8he rescission of contracts are provided for in the la!s and no!here
in the provision of the Civil Code under the title Rescissible Contracts
does the circu5stances in the case at bar appear to have occurred,
hence, the pra/er for rescission is outside the a5bit for !hich
rescissible GsicH could be %ranted.
8he Intervenor D Plaintiff, Clara alatbat, althou%h allo!ed to
intervene, did not file her co5plaint in intervention.
Conse:uentl/, the plaintiff havin% failed to prove !ith sufficient
preponderance his action, the relief pra/ed for had to be denied. 8he
contract of sale deno5inated as ,Deed of &bsolute Sale, @E-h. 9 and
sub*5ar$in%sB bein% valid and enforceable, the sa5e pursuant to the
provisions of &rt. ''#) of the Civil Code !hich sa/s0
Obli%ations arisin% fro5 contracts have the force of
la! bet!een the contractin% parties and should be
co5plied !ith in %ood faith.
2
has the effect of bein% the la! bet!een the parties and should be
co5plied !ith. 8he obli%ation of the plaintiff under the contract bein%
to have the land covered b/ 8C8 No. ';#?9' partitioned and
subdivided, and title issued in the na5e of the defendant bu/er @see
pa%e ( par. C of E-h. 9*&B plaintiff had to co5pl/ thereto to %ive
effect to the contract.
12ERE3ORE, 4ud%5ent is rendered a%ainst the plaintiff, &urelio &.
Ro:ue, and the plaintiff in intervention, Clara alatbat, and in favor of
the defendants, dis5issin% the co5plaint for lac$ of 5erit, and
declarin% the Deed of &bsolute Sale dated &pril ', ')>6 as valid and
enforceable and the plaintiff is, as he is hereb/ ordered, to partition
and subdivide the land covered b/ 8.C.8. No. ';#?9', and to
a%%re%ate therefro5 a portion e:uivalent to ?A'6 thereof, and cause
the sa5e to be titled in the na5e of the defendants, and after !hich,
the defendants, and after !hich, the defendants, and after !hich, the
defendants, and after !hich, the defendants to pa/ the plaintiff the
su5 of P"#,666.66. Considerin% further that the defendants suffered
da5a%es since the/ !ere forced to liti%ate unnecessaril/, b/ !a/ of
their counterclai5, plaintiff is hereb/ ordered to pa/ defendants the
su5 of P'#,666.66 as 5oral da5a%es, attorne/7s fees in the a5ount
of P#,666.66.
Costs a%ainst plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
On March ;, ')>9, petitioner alatbat filed a notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No.
'6)6;( before the Re%ister of Deeds of Manila.
18
On Dece5ber ), ')>>, petitioner Clara alatbat and her husband, &le4andro alatbat
filed the instant co5plaint for deliver/ of the o!ners duplicate cop/ of 8.C.8. No.
';#?9' doc$eted as Civil Case No. >>*"9'9? before ranch (" of the Re%ional 8rial
Court of Manila a%ainst private respondents .ose Repu/an and &urora Repu/an.
19
On .anuar/ (9, ')>), private respondents filed their ans!er !ith affir5ative defenses
and co5pulsor/ counterclai5.
20
On Nove5ber ';, ')>), private respondents filed their 5e5orandu5
21
!hile
petitioners filed their 5e5orandu5 on Nove5ber (;, ')>).
22
On &u%ust (, '))6, the Re%ional 8rial Court of Manila, ranch (", rendered a decision
dis5issin% the co5plaint, the dispositive portion of !hich reads 0
2&
Considerin% all the fore%oin%, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have
not been able to establish their cause of action a%ainst the
defendants and have no ri%ht to the reliefs de5anded in the
co5plaint and the co5plaint of the plaintiff a%ainst the defendants is
hereb/ DISMISSED. On the counterclai5, the plaintiff are ordered to
pa/ defendants the a5ount of 8en 8housand Pesos b/ !a/ of
attorne/7s fees, 3ive 8housand Pesos as costs of liti%ation and
further to pa/ the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.
Dissatisfied, petitioner alatbat filed an appeal before the respondent Court of &ppeals
!hich rendered the assailed decision on &u%ust '(, '))(, to !it0
24
12ERE3ORE, the 4ud%5ent appealed fro5 is affir5ed !ith the
5odification that the a!ards of P'6,666.66 for attorne/7s fees and
P#,666.66 as costs of liti%ation are deleted.
SO ORDERED.
On March ((, '));, the respondent Court of &ppeals denied petitioner7s 5otion for
reconsideration.
2'
2ence, this petition for revie!.
Petitioner raised the follo!in% issues for this Court7s resolution0
I
12E82ER OR NO8 82E &EEE+ED S&EE 8O 82E PRIV&8E
RESPONDEN8S 1&S MEREEI E=ECJ8ORI &ND NO8 &
CONSJMM&8ED 8R&NS&C8IONK
II
12E82ER OR NO8 82ERE 1&S & DOJEE S&EE &S
CON8EMPE&8ED JNDER &R8. '#"" O3 82E CIVIE CODEK
3
III
12E82ER OR NO8 PE8I8IONER 1&S & JIER IN +OOD 3&I82
&ND 3OR V&EJEK
IV
12E82ER OR NO8 82E COJR8 O3 &PPE&ES ERRED IN +IVIN+
1EI+28 &ND CONSIDER&8ION 8O 82E EVIDENCE O3 82E
PRIV&8E RESPONDEN8S 12IC2 1ERE NO8 O33EREDK
Petitioner asseverates that the respondent Court of &ppeals co55itted %rave abuse of
discretion tanta5ount to lac$ or e-cess of 4urisdiction in affir5in% the appealed
4ud%5ent considerin% @'B that the alle%ed sale in favor of the private respondents
Repu/an !as 5erel/ e-ecutor/C @(B that there is no double saleC @;B that petitioner is a
bu/er in %ood faith and for valueC and @"B that private respondents did not offer their
evidence durin% the trial.
Contrar/ to petitioner7s contention that the sale dated &pril ', ')>6 in favor of private
respondents Repu/an !as 5erel/ e-ecutor/ for the reason that there !as no deliver/
of the sub4ect propert/ and that considerationAprice !as not full/ paid, !e find the sale
as consu55ated, hence, valid and enforceable. In a decision dated &pril '#, ')>? of
the Re%ional 8rial Court of Manila ranch IV in Civil Case No. ';"';', the Court
dis5issed vendor7s &urelio Ro:ue co5plaint for rescission of the deed of sale and
declared that the Sale dated &pril ', ')>6, as valid and enforceable. No appeal havin%
been 5ade, the decision beca5e final and e-ecutor/. It 5ust be noted that herein
petitioner alatbat filed a 5otion for intervention in that case but did not file her
co5plaint in intervention. In that case !herein &urelio Ro:ue sou%ht to rescind the &pril
', ')>6 deed of sale in favor of the private respondents for non*pa/5ent of the
P"#,666.66 balance, the trial court dis5issed the co5plaint for rescission. E-a5inin%
the ter5s and conditions of the ,Deed of Sale, dated &pril ', ')>6, the P"#,666.66
balance is pa/able onl/ ,after the propert/ covered b/ 8.C.8. No. ';#?9' has been
partitioned and subdivided, and title issued in the na5e of the JIER, hence, vendor
Ro:ue cannot de5and pa/5ent of the balance unless and until the propert/ has been
subdivided and titled in the na5e of private respondents. Devoid of an/ stipulation that
,o!nership in the thin% shall not pass to the purchaser until he has full/ paid the
price,
26
, o!nership in thin% shall pass fro5 the vendor to the vendee upon actual or
constructive deliver/ of the thin% sold even if the purchase price has not /et been full/
paid. 8he failure of the bu/er has not /et been full/ paid. 8he failure of the bu/er to
5a$e %ood the price does not, in la!, cause the o!nership to revest to the seller unless
the bilateral contract of sale is first rescinded or resolved pursuant to &rticle '')' of the
Ne! Civil Code.
2
(Non*pa/5ent onl/ creates a ri%ht to de5and the fulfill5ent of the
obli%ation or to rescind the contract.
1ith respect to the non*deliver/ of the possession of the sub4ect propert/ to the private
respondent, suffice it to sa/ that o!nership of the thin% sold is ac:uired onl/ fro5 the
ti5e of deliver/ thereof, either actual or constructive.
28
&rticle '")> of the Civil Code
provides that D !hen the sale is 5ade throu%h a public instru5ent, the e-ecution
thereof shall be e:uivalent to the deliver/ of the thin% !hich is the ob4ect of the
contract, if fro5 the deed the contrar/ does not appear or cannot be inferred.
29
8he
e-ecution of the public instru5ent, !ithout actual deliver/ of the thin%, transfers the
o!nership fro5 the vendor to the vendee, !ho 5a/ thereafter e-ercise the ri%hts of an
o!ner over the sa5e.
&0
In the instant case, vendor Ro:ue delivered the o!ner7s
certificate of title to herein private respondent. It is not necessar/ that vendee be
ph/sicall/ present at ever/ s:uare inch of the land bou%ht b/ hi5, possession of the
public instru5ent of the land is sufficient to accord hi5 the ri%hts of o!nership. 8hus,
deliver/ of a parcel of land 5a/ be done b/ placin% the vendee in control and
possession of the land @realB or b/ e5bod/in% the sale in a public instru5ent
@constructiveB. 8he provision of &rticle ';#> on the necessit/ of a public docu5ent is
onl/ for convenience, not for validit/ or enforceabilit/. It is not a re:uire5ent for the
validit/ of a contract of sale of a parcel of land that this be e5bodied in a public
instru5ent.
&1
& contract of sale bein% consensual, it is perfected b/ the 5ere consent of the
parties.
&2
Deliver/ of the thin% bou%ht or pa/5ent of the price is not necessar/ for the
perfection of the contractC and failure of the vendee to pa/ the price after the e-ecution
of the contract does not 5a$e the sale null and void for lac$ of consideration but results
at 5ost in default on the part of the vendee, for !hich the vendor 5a/ e-ercise his le%al
re5edies.
&&
&rticle '#"" of the Ne! Civil Code provides0
If the sa5e thin% should have been sold to different vendees, the
o!nership shall be transferred to the person !ho 5a/ have first
ta$en possession thereof in %ood faith, if it should be 5ovable
propert/.
Should it be 5ovable propert/, the o!nership shall belon% to the
person ac:uirin% it !ho in %ood faith first recorded it in the Re%istr/ of
Propert/.
Should there be no inscription, the o!nership shall pertain to the
person !ho in %ood faith !as first in the possession and in the
absence thereof, to the person !ho present the oldest title, provided
there is %ood faith.
4
&rticle '#"" of the Civil Code provides that in case of double sale of an i55ovable
propert/, o!nership shall be transferred @'B to the person ac:uirin% it !ho in %ood faith
first recorded it in the Re%istr/ of Propert/C @(B in default thereof, to the person !ho in
%ood faith !as first in possessionC and @;B in default thereof, to the person !ho
presents the oldest title, provided there is %ood faith.
&4
In the case at bar, vendor &urelio Ro:ue sold ?A'6 portion of his share in 8C8 No.
';#?9' to private respondents Repu/an on &pril ', ')>6. Subse:uentl/, the sa5e lot
!as sold a%ain b/ vendor &urelio Ro:ue @?A'6B and his children @"A'6B, represented b/
the Cler$ of Court pursuant to Section '6, Rule ;) of the Rules of Court, on 3ebruar/ ",
')>(. Jndoubtedl/, this is a case of double sale conte5plated under &rticle '#"" of the
Ne! Civil Code.
8his is an instance of a double sale of an i55ovable propert/ hence, the o!nership
shall vests in the person ac:uirin% it !ho in %ood faith first recorded it in the Re%istr/ of
Propert/. Evidentl/, private respondents Repu/an7s caused the annotation of an
adverse clai5 on the title of the sub4ect propert/ deno5inated as Entr/ No. #?(9A8*
';#?9' on .ul/ (', ')>6.
&'
8he annotation of the adverse clai5 on 8C8 No. ';#?9' in
the Re%istr/ of Propert/ is sufficient co5pliance as 5andated b/ la! and serves notice
to the !hole !orld.
On the other hand, petitioner filed a notice of lis pendens onl/ on 3ebruar/ (, ')>(.
&ccordin%l/, private respondents !ho first caused the annotation of the adverse clai5
in %ood faith shall have a better ri%ht over herein petitioner. Moreover, the ph/sical
possession of herein petitioners b/ virtue of a !rit of possession issued b/ the trial
court on Septe5ber (6, ')>( is ,sub4ect to the valid ri%hts and interest of third persons
over the sa5e portion thereof, other than vendor or an/ other person or persons priv/
to or clai5in% an/ ri%hts to interest under it.,
&6
&s bet!een t!o purchasers, the one
!ho has re%istered the sale in his favor, has a preferred ri%ht over the other !ho has
not re%istered his title even if the latter is in actual possession of the i55ovable
propert/.
&
( 3urther, even in default of the first re%istrant or first in possession, private
respondents have presented the oldest title.
&8
8hus, private respondents !ho ac:uired
the sub4ect propert/ in %ood faith and for valuable consideration established a superior
ri%ht as a%ainst the petitioner.
Evidentl/, petitioner cannot be considered as a bu/er in %ood faith. In the co5plaint for
rescission filed b/ vendor &urelio Ro:ue on &u%ust (6, ')>6, herein petitioner filed a
5otion for intervention on Ma/ (6, ')>( but did not file her co5plaint in intervention,
hence, the decision !as rendered adversel/ a%ainst her. If petitioner did investi%ate
before bu/in% the land on 3ebruar/ ", ')>(, she should have $no!n that there !as a
pendin% case and an annotation of adverse clai5 !as 5ade in the title of the propert/
before the Re%ister of Deeds and she could have discovered that the sub4ect propert/
!as alread/ sold to the private respondents. It is incu5bent upon the vendee of the
propert/ to as$ for the deliver/ of the o!ner7s duplicate cop/ of the title fro5 the vendor.
& purchaser of a valued piece of propert/ cannot 4ust close his e/es to facts !hich
should put a reasonable 5an upon his %uard and then clai5 that he acted in %ood faith
and under the belief that there !ere no defect in the title of the vendor.
&9
One !ho
purchases real estate !ith $no!led%e of a defect or lac$ of title in his vendor cannot
clai5 that he has ac:uired title thereto in %ood faith as a%ainst the true o!ner of the
land or of an interest thereinC and the sa5e rule 5ust be applied to one !ho has
$no!led%e of facts !hich should have put hi5 upon such in:uir/ and investi%ation as
5i%ht be necessar/ to ac:uaint hi5 !ith the defects in the title of his vendor. +ood
faith, or the !ant of it is not a visible, tan%ible fact that can be seen or touched, but
rather a state or condition of 5ind !hich can onl/ be 4ud%ed of b/ actual or fancied
to$ens or si%ns.
40
In fine, petitioner had nobod/ to bla5e but herself in dealin% !ith the disputed propert/
for failure to in:uire or discover a fla! in the title to the propert/, thus, it is a-io5atic
that D culpa lata dolo aequiparatur D %ross ne%li%ence is e:uivalent to intentional
!ron%.
IN VIE1 O3 82E 3ORE+OIN+ PREMISES, this petition for revie! is hereb/
DISMISSED for lac$ of 5erit. No pronounce5ent as to costs.
I8 IS SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Romero, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur
5