Facts:

In the case of Thos. D. Aitken vs. Julian La O, as Administrator of the Estate of Apolonia Remigio, a dispute arose over the ownership and rental rights of a building situated on a parcel of land owned by the deceased Apolonia Remigio. The events began when a Chinaman named To Jan Co erected a store building on Remigio's land under an agreement where he and Remigio would share the rental income equally. However, after failing to receive the agreed rents, Remigio initiated a legal action against To Jan Co on September 21, 1908, to recover the amount owed. The court ruled in Remigio's favor on that claim, granting her P3,425 and subsequently, on February 11, 1910, she bought the building at a sheriff's sale following the execution of the judgment.

Following her purchase, it was discovered that To Jan Co had executed an unregistered deed of sale of the house to another Chinaman named To Cun on October 6, 1908, reserving a right of repurchase within 90 days, a right whic

...

Facts:

Construction and Rental Agreement

• A building, more precisely a camarin with four doors or apartments, was erected by a Chinaman named To Jan Co on a parcel of land owned by Apolonia Remigio.
• The erection was based on an agreement whereby the rental income generated by the building was to be divided equally between Apolonia Remigio and To Jan Co.

Judicial Proceedings and Execution Sale

• On September 21, 1908, Apolonia Remigio initiated legal action against To Jan Co and one of the building’s occupants to recover the unpaid rental income, amounting to P3,425.
• A judgment was rendered in her favor, execution was entered, and eventually, on February 11, 1910, the house was sold at a sheriff’s sale, with Apolonia Remigio, as judgment creditor, taking immediate possession of both the house and the land.

Subsequent Instrumental Transactions

• On October 6, 1908, shortly after the commencement of the ejectment proceedings (filed on September 21, 1908), To Jan Co executed an unregistered deed of sale of the building to another Chinaman, To Cun, which contained a reserved right of repurchase within ninety days—a right which was never exercised.
• To Cun, despite acquiring the building under this unregistered deed, never took possession.
• On October 22, 1912, To Cun executed another unregistered deed of sale transferring the building to the plaintiff, Thos. D. Aitken.

Plaintiff’s Claims and Subsequent Actions

• Thos. D. Aitken, a practicing attorney, subsequently instituted legal proceedings on June 9, 1915, seeking possession of the building and an accounting of the rentals since September 1, 1908, claiming his one-half share amounted to P2,485.
• Aitken asserted that he was the owner of the building located at numbers 15, 17, 19, and 21 Calle Salazar in Binondo and was entitled to the rental proceeds therefrom.

Contrasting Positions of the Parties

• The plaintiff maintained that the deed executed by To Cun, though unregistered, had conveyed to him a valid interest in the building and its rentals.
• The defendant, Julian La O, in his capacity as administrator of Apolonia Remigio’s estate, contended that the building and the rentals rightfully belonged to the estate because the execution sale had restored possession to the judgment creditor, thereby invalidating subsequent unregistered conveyances.
• Evidence also surfaced of tax receipts in the name of To Cun for 1914 and 1915, despite his earlier disposal of the building through the October 22, 1912 deed.

Issue:

Validity and Effect of the Unregistered Deed of Sale from To Jan Co to To Cun

• Whether To Jan Co, having already been notified of the execution proceedings and rental recovery action, legally possessed the right to transfer the building through an unregistered deed featuring a reserved right of repurchase.
• Whether such a transaction, executed under the shadow of pending legal action and without subsequent redemption or registration, could confer any valid title or interest.

Legality of the Subsequent Unregistered Deed from To Cun to the Plaintiff

• Whether the transfer from To Cun to Thos. D. Aitken, being unregistered and following a non-exercised repurchase clause, created any valid or enforceable rights in the building or the rental income.
• Whether Aitken’s inaction—such as failing to pay taxes or timely assert possession—affected his claim to rights under the deed.

Priority of Possession Arising from the Execution Sale

• Whether the sale of the building at a sheriff’s sale to Apolonia Remigio, and the subsequent possession by her (and her estate), overrides the unregistered transactions made by To Jan Co and To Cun.
• How Article 1473 of the Civil Code, which prioritizes possession and registration, applies to determine the rightful owner amidst conflicting conveyances.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)