Case Digest (G.R. No. 200173)
Facts:
Spouses Esmeraldo D. Vallido and Arsenia M. Vallido, Rep. by Atty. Sergio C. Sumayod, Petitioner, v. Spouses Elmer Pono and Juliet Pono, and Purificacion Cerna-Pono and Spouses Marianito Pono and Esperanza Mero-Pono, Respondents, G.R. No. 200173, April 15, 2013, Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns a parcel of land in Kananga, Leyte originally owned by Martino Dandan, who received Homestead Patent No. V-21513 (OCT No. P-429) in 1953. On January 4, 1960 Martino executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of an 18,214-square-meter portion of the property to Purificacion Cerna and delivered the owner's copy of OCT No. P-429 to her; that sale was not annotated in the Registry of Deeds.
On May 4, 1973 Purificacion sold that 18,214-square-meter portion to Marianito Pono, delivering the same owner's duplicate; Marianito registered the parcel for taxation, paid taxes, took possession, and permitted his son Elmer Pono and daughter-in-law Juliet Pono to build a house thereon. That transfer likewise was not recorded in the Registry of Deeds.
Martino later moved to Noveleta, Cavite. On June 14, 1990 he sold the whole subject property to his grandson Esmeraldo Vallido. Because Martino had earlier given the owner's duplicate to Purificacion, he no longer had the title copy to deliver. On May 7, 1997 Martino petitioned the RTC for issuance of a new owner's duplicate of OCT No. P-429, claiming loss; the RTC granted the petition on June 8, 1998. On September 17, 1999 Esmeraldo registered his deed of sale and TCT No. TP-13294 was issued in the petitioners' names.
The petitioners sued in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Ormoc City, for quieting of title, recovery of possession and damages. The RTC, in a July 20, 2004 decision, found a double sale, deemed the petitioners (second buyers) purchasers and registrants in good faith and favored them, relying on registration and the absence of encumbrances on OCT No. P-429 and TCT No. TP-13294. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, in a December 8, 2011 decision, reversed the RTC. The CA agreed there was a double sale but held the petitioners were not buyers or registrants in good faith because the land was in the respondents' possession and the petitioners should have inquired further; registration alone, without accompanying good faith, did not prevail over prior possession arising from the 1960 sale...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in deeming the respondents' Appellants Brief to have been filed within the reglementary period?
- Are the petitioners buyers and registrants in good faith such that their later-registered TCT has priority over the respondents' earlier unregistered sale...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)