Sales Digest
Art. 1544- Double Sale
G.R. No. L-19248 7 SCRA 452 February 28, 1963
ILUMINADO HANOPOL vs. PERFECTO PILAPIL,
BARRERA, J.:
Case Nature : APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First instance of Leyte.
Facts:
Hanopol claims ownership of the land by virtue of a series of purchases effected in 1938 by means of private instruments, executed by the former owners surnamed Siapo. Additionally, he invokes in his favor a decision by the CFI of Leyte (in Civil Case No. 412) rendered on September 21, 1958, declaring him as exclusive owner.
On the other hand, Pilapil asserts title to the property on the strength of a duly notarized deed of sale executed in his favor by the same owners on December 3, 1945, which deed of sale was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Leyte on August 20, 1948 under the provisions of Act No. 3344.
Issues:
1. Whether or not judgment in the former case No. 412 against the vendors Siapos is binding upon the Pilapil
2. Whether or not the registration of the second deed of sale in favor of Pilapil affects the right of Hanopol as the first vendee
Ruling:
1. The decision in that case is not binding as it appears from the documentary evidence that Pilapil derived his right to the land in 1945, long before the filing of the complaint against the vendors in 1948. He was not made a party in the case against the Siapos, and there was not even a claim that he had knowledge of said litigation. He cannot, therefore, be bound by such judgment in under the Rules of Court.
2. The registration of the second deed of sale in favor of Pilapil affects the right of Hanopol as the first vendee.
There appears to be no clear evidence of Hanopol's possession of the land. In fact, Siapos continued to occupy the land when they sold the same to Pilapil. Upon the execution of the notarial deed of sale, possession was constructively transferred to Pilapil. Thus, Hanopol cannot have a better right than Pilapil who "was not shown to be a
G.R. No. L-19248 7 SCRA 452 February 28, 1963
ILUMINADO HANOPOL vs. PERFECTO PILAPIL,
BARRERA, J.:
Case Nature : APPEAL from a decision of the Court of First instance of Leyte.
Facts:
Hanopol claims ownership of the land by virtue of a series of purchases effected in 1938 by means of private instruments, executed by the former owners surnamed Siapo. Additionally, he invokes in his favor a decision by the CFI of Leyte (in Civil Case No. 412) rendered on September 21, 1958, declaring him as exclusive owner.
On the other hand, Pilapil asserts title to the property on the strength of a duly notarized deed of sale executed in his favor by the same owners on December 3, 1945, which deed of sale was registered in the Registry of Deeds of Leyte on August 20, 1948 under the provisions of Act No. 3344.
Issues:
1. Whether or not judgment in the former case No. 412 against the vendors Siapos is binding upon the Pilapil
2. Whether or not the registration of the second deed of sale in favor of Pilapil affects the right of Hanopol as the first vendee
Ruling:
1. The decision in that case is not binding as it appears from the documentary evidence that Pilapil derived his right to the land in 1945, long before the filing of the complaint against the vendors in 1948. He was not made a party in the case against the Siapos, and there was not even a claim that he had knowledge of said litigation. He cannot, therefore, be bound by such judgment in under the Rules of Court.
2. The registration of the second deed of sale in favor of Pilapil affects the right of Hanopol as the first vendee.
There appears to be no clear evidence of Hanopol's possession of the land. In fact, Siapos continued to occupy the land when they sold the same to Pilapil. Upon the execution of the notarial deed of sale, possession was constructively transferred to Pilapil. Thus, Hanopol cannot have a better right than Pilapil who "was not shown to be a