Spouses Danilo and Clarita German Vs. Spouses Benjamin and Editha Santuyo and Helen S. Mariano, Deceased, Substituted By Her Heirs Namely, Jose Mario S. Mariano, Ma. Catalina Safira S. Mariano, et al. G.R. No. 210845. January 22, 2020

Spouses Danilo and Clarita German Vs. Spouses Benjamin and Editha Santuyo and Helen S. Mariano, Deceased, Substituted By Her Heirs Namely, Jose Mario S. Mariano, Ma. Catalina Safira S. Mariano, et al. G.R. No. 210845. January 22, 2020

https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66145

Leonen

When circumstances are present that should prompt a potential buyer of registered real property to be on guard, it is expected that they inquire first into the status of the property and not merely rely on the face of the certificate of title.

Issues
ARTICLE 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession there o f 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.

If indeed the registered owner Bautista has sold the lot in question to defendants Santuyo, why should defendant Helen sign a letter of guarantee (Exh. "2") before Bautista signed the deed of sale. Defendant Editha claimed that Bautista allegedly told her that the lot was previously mortgaged to him (Bautista) by Jose Mariano. If it was the reason then why was it not told to defendant Helen? Why would also defendant Helen sign a letter of guarantee without any question? Or probably, this letter of guarantee gives relevance to the receipt (Exh. "4") mentioning about the "lot sold to her by Jose Mariano"? These foregoing documents give semblance on the verified answer of Francisco Bautista (Exh. "H") to the third party compliant in the case docketed as Civil case No. 92-2620 before Branch 27 of RTC Naga City, for the "Recovery of Ownership with Damages" filed by defendants Santuyo as against the herein plaintiffs German. In the said pleading, the Bautistas claimed that the sale between them and the Santuyos is fictitious since the former did not receive any payment or consideration thereon.

Due to respondents' lack of good faith, they cannot rely on the indefeasibility of their Transfer Certificate of Title. Thus, in accordance with Article 1544 of the Civil Code, it is the first buyer, namely the Mariano Spouses, who had a better right of ownership, and no ownership could pass on to the respondents Santuyo Spouses as a result.

Decisions
 WHEREFORE,  the Petition for. Review is '''GRANTED. ''' The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Manila, in CA-G.R. CV. No. 93628 are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The January 30, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Naga City, Branch 61 in Civil Case No. 2001-0200 is REINSTATED.