Title
Berico vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 96306
Decision Date
Aug 20, 1993
Jose de los Santos sold land twice: first to Flores and Bareja (1961), then to Berico (1963). Berico, aware of the prior sale, registered it in 1968. Flores and Bareja sued in 1978. SC ruled for Flores and Bareja, citing bad faith by Berico and timely filing under fraud discovery.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 96306)

Core Issue

The primary issue involves whether prescription bars the action of the first vendees to annul the transfer certificate of title obtained by the second vendee, who was aware of the initial sale and the possession of the first vendees.

Factual Background

Jose de los Santos sold a portion of his property to private respondents (Flores and Bareja) in 1961. In 1963, he sold the remaining portion of the property to petitioner Berico, who was aware of the earlier sale and the respondents' possession. Despite this knowledge, Berico registered the property in 1968 and obtained a new title.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court ruled that Berico acted in bad faith when he registered the property, given his awareness of the private respondents' prior sale and possession. It concluded that Berico's registration was ineffective under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, emphasizing that good faith is a fundamental requirement for property registration.

Appeal and Decision

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling, reiterating that Berico's registration was invalid due to his bad faith. It clarified that the private respondents' action for annulment was not barred by prescription because they only discovered the fraud in 1978, within the four-year prescription period for fraud-related actions.

Legal Principles Applied

  • Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the rights in cases of double sale; the ownership belongs to the party who in good faith first recorded the sale.
  • Bad Faith in Registration affects the validity of the title, as mere registration without good faith does not confer ownership rights.
  • The concept of prescription was addressed, with the Court emphasizing that the registration resulting from bad faith does not constitute constructive notice.

Conclusion and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.