Dear PAO,

My father bought a certain piece of land from the registered owner, Dino. Julio appeared as claimant of said land. He presented an alleged contract of sale, which was signed by him and the previous owner, Anton. Upon examination of the document, Anton sold the same land to Julio on installment basis. Julio is now claiming that there is a double sale; thus, his ownership should be respected. Please guide me.

Aurely

Dear Aurely,

Based on the facts you provided in your letter, it appears that Julio had no better title than your father considering that his claim for ownership was derived from an unregistered owner. Julio also mistakenly relied on the provisions of double sale to bolster his claim. The exact provision of the New Civil Code governing double sale is found under Article 1544, which states that:

“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 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 faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.”

The requirements for double sale were mentioned in the case of Spouses Roque vs. Aguado, et al. (G.R. 193787, April 7, 2014), where the Supreme Court speaking through Honorable Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe stated that:

“There is no double sale in such a case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because there is no defect in the owner-seller’s title per se, but the latter, of course, may be sued for damages by the intended buyer. (Emphasis supplied)

On the matter of double sales, suffice it to state that Sps. Roque’s reliance on Article 1544 of the Civil Code has been misplaced since the contract they base their claim of ownership on is, as earlier stated, a contract to sell, and not one of sale. In Cheng v. Genato, the court stated the circumstances, which must concur in order to determine the applicability of Article 1544, none of which are obtaining in this case, viz.:

(a) The two (or more) sales transactions in issue must pertain to exactly the same subject matter and must be valid sales transactions

(b) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each represent conflicting interests

(c) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each have bought from the same seller.”

Applying the above-quoted decision in your situation, Julio has no legal basis for his claim that double sale exists because the requirements enumerated above were not met. Julio and your father did not buy the same property from the same seller. Further, the transaction of Julio with Anton is deemed not valid considering that the ownership of the latter cannot be established, whereas, the title of Dino pertaining to the same property was clear considering that he is the registered owner.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.