G.R. No. 135900 - SPOUSES AVELINO AND EXALTACION SALERA, VS. SPOUSES CELEDONIO AND POLICRONIA RODAJE.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the decision, dated July 17, 1995, of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 11) in Calubian, Leyte is hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Therewithal, another judgment is rendered declaring the order of the trial court null and void, hereby: declaring the defendants-appellants to have the superior right to the property in question and to be the true and lawful owners thereof; directing the Register of Deeds of Leyte to cancel the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated June 23, 1986, in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and to reinstate the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the defendants-appellants and Tax Declaration No. 2408 be issued in favor of spouses Celedonio Rodaje and Policronia Rodaje; and directing the plaintiffs-appellees and other persons claiming rights under them, and residing in the premises of the land in question, to immediately vacate the same and to remove whatever improvements they had placed in the premises. No pronouncement as to costs. Hence, this petition. The issue before us is which of the two contracts of sale is valid. Petitioners contend that the sale between Catalino and respondents is void because the former was not the owner of the lot, hence "had no legal capacity to sue." The true owner was Brigido as shown by Tax Declaration No. 2994 (R-5) in his name. Thus, his spouse and children, being his successors-in-interest, could validly sell the property to them (petitioners). On the other hand, respondents insist that they are buyers in good faith. They bought the property, had the deed of sale registered, and took possession thereof ahead of petitioners. They also constructed a house thereon which they used as a store. They paid the real estate taxes corresponding to the period from 1974 up to 1993. The Court of Appeals, in upholding the validity of the sale in favor of respondents, relied on Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale, thus: As between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property (Tañedo v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80). A fortiori . the defendants-appellants have a superior right over the contested property inasmuch as they have both actual possession and prior registration of the conveyance (Exhibit "2"; page 6, TSN, August 9, 1994; page 5, TSN, August 23, 1994). Dominium a possessione cepisse dicitur. Right is said to have its beginning from possession. The applicable provision of the New Civil Code provides: Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property. Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good