Soriano v. Heirs of Magali
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-appellants Emigdio Soriano and Beatriz de Vera sought to recover a 25,000 square meter northeastern portion of a larger parcel of land. This larger parcel was originally registered in the names of spouses Domingo Magali and Modesta Calimlim. The disputed portion was sold by the Magalis to spouses Tomas Cerezo and Segunda Soriano on July 28, 1939 (Deed of Sale Exh. A), but this sale was not registered. The Cerezos then sold the same portion to Maximino Mamorno on January 7, 1941 (Deed of Sale Exh. B), which was also unregistered. On April 5, 1946, Francisca Reyes, as the surviving spouse and guardian of the minor children of Maximino Mamorno, sold the entire northeastern portion to the plaintiffs-appellants Emigdio Soriano and Beatriz de Vera (Deeds of Sale Exhs. C and D). These sales were registered under Act 3344 on April 9, 1946, but not annotated on the original certificate of title. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan rendered judgment for the defendants-appellees. The defendants' evidence showed that Maximino Mamorno verbally sold the northeastern portion back to Modesta Calimlim in January 1944 for P5,000.00. Instead of a formal deed, Mamorno delivered the muniments of title, including the original deeds of sale (Exhs. 1 and 2), to Modesta Calimlim. Modesta Calimlim has been in possession of the land since January 1944, paying real estate taxes thereon. The defendants, heirs of Domingo Magali, claim ownership of the entire parcel, including the disputed portion. The Petition: Plaintiffs-appellants appealed the decision, assigning three errors: (1) the lower court erred in not holding that their deeds of sale (Exhs. A & B) were valid and binding despite not being registered; (2) the lower court erred in not holding that there was no valid verbal sale from Mamorno to Modesta Calimlim; and (3) the lower court erred in not holding that the deeds of sale from Francisca Reyes to the appellants (Exhs. C & D) were valid and binding.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in admitting and giving probative value to Exhibit 3 (a sworn statement) to prove the 1944 verbal sale. Whether the registration of a deed of sale under Act No. 3344 for land covered by a Torrens title is effective under Article 1544 of the Civil Code. Whether the Statute of Frauds applies to a verbal sale of land that has been consummated by payment and delivery.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding that the defendants-appellees are the lawful owners of the disputed northeastern portion of the land. The Court ruled that the verbal sale to Modesta Calimlim was valid and consummated, and that her possession and claim were superior to the plaintiffs' registered deeds under Act 3344.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that while Exhibit 3 (a sworn statement by Ildefonso Mamorno) could have been objected to as hearsay because the affiant did not testify, the plaintiffs' failure to interpose a timely objection constituted a waiver of their right to cross-examination. Evidence that is otherwise inadmissible under the hearsay rule may be admitted and given probative value if no objection is raised at the time it is offered. The Court found that once admitted, the document served as categorical proof of the verbal sale, which was further corroborated by the defendants' actual possession of the land since 1944, their possession of the original muniments of title, and their payment of real estate taxes. This evidence outweighed the plaintiffs' reliance on mere copies of the previous deeds and their failure to declare the land for taxation purposes. On Issue 2: Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code (formerly Article 1473), when the same immovable property is sold to different vendees, ownership belongs to the one who first records the sale in the registry in good faith. However, the Court clarified that for land registered under the Torrens system, the 'registry' referred to is that provided under the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496). The plaintiffs' registration of their deeds under Act No. 3344 was legally ineffective because that registry is specifically for lands not registered under the Torrens system. Since neither party validly registered the sale in the proper registry, the second paragraph of Article 1544 applies, which awards ownership to the party who in good faith was first in possession. Because the defendants had been in possession since 1944 while the plaintiffs never obtained possession, the defendants have the superior right. On Issue 3: The Court rejected the application of the Statute of Frauds to the 1944 verbal sale. It is a fundamental principle in this jurisdiction that the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts, where the parties have yet to perform their respective obligations. In the case at bar, the sale was fully consummated in 1944 when the purchase price of P5,000 was paid, the documents of title were surrendered, and the physical possession of the property was delivered to Modesta Calimlim. Since the contract was executed and no longer executory, the requirement that it be in writing for enforceability no longer applies.
Main Doctrine
In cases of double sale of immovable property, ownership vests in the vendee who first recorded the sale in good faith in the registry of property. If there is no inscription, ownership pertains to the one who was first in possession in good faith. Registration under Act 3344 is not effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code if the property is covered by the Land Registration Act.