Asencio v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Roman Bautista (defendant-appellant) originally owned a parcel of land. He executed a deed of sale for this land to Antonio Baladjay for P3,500, but Baladjay failed to pay the purchase price, and possession was not transferred. Subsequently, Baladjay, unable to pay, executed a private deed of reconveyance of the land back to Bautista. Later, Baladjay, indebted to Agustin Asencio (plaintiff-appellee), executed a public deed of conveyance of all his lands, including the land in question, to Asencio for P543, with a reserved right to repurchase. The period for repurchase had expired before the action was filed. None of the deeds were registered. Procedural History: The court below adjudicated title to the parcel of land in favor of the plaintiff, Agustin Asencio, and against the defendant, Roman Bautista. The Appeal: Roman Bautista appealed the judgment of the court below insofar as it adjudicated title to the parcel of land described in subsection (a) of section 2 of the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, Agustin Asencio. The appellant contends that he is the rightful owner of the land based on the reconveyance deed and prior possession.
Issue(s)
Whether Roman Bautista, who had a deed of reconveyance and prior possession of the land, is the rightful owner as against Agustin Asencio, who received a subsequent deed of conveyance, when neither deed was registered. Whether a recital of payment in a deed of conveyance is conclusive evidence of payment, even when contradicted by other evidence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court below insofar as it affected the parcel of land described in subsection (a) of section 2 of the complaint, dismissing the complaint with respect to this parcel. The Court held that Roman Bautista is the owner of the land.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Roman Bautista is the rightful owner: The Court held that since none of the deeds were recorded, and the defendant Bautista secured a deed of reconveyance of the land in question and had been in possession thereof before the deed of conveyance was executed in favor of the plaintiff Asencio, Bautista must be held to be the owner of this land under the provisions of Article 1473 of the Civil Code. This article governs the ownership of immovable property in cases of double sale, prioritizing the buyer who first registers the sale in good faith, or in the absence of registration, the buyer who first takes possession in good faith, or in the absence of both, the buyer who presents the oldest title. In this case, Bautista's prior reconveyance and possession, coupled with the fact that Asencio's deed was also unregistered, established his superior claim. On the conclusiveness of a recital of payment: The Court stated that it cannot agree with the contentions that a mere recitation in a deed of conveyance that the purchase price has been received is conclusive against the vendor and his successor in interest. While such a statement strongly tends to confirm payment, it is not conclusive. The Court cited 17 Cyclopedia, 656, which states that a recital of payment is merely in the nature of a receipt and may be contradicted, unless such contradiction would have the effect of rendering nugatory some substantial and contractual provision of a valid written contract or undertaking, or in the case of a conveyance where the grantor or those claiming under him attempt, by contradicting the consideration clause, to defeat the operation of the deed or establish a resulting trust in the grantee. In the present case, the evidence was overwhelmingly to the contrary, and thus, the recital of payment was not held to be conclusive against the vendor.
Main Doctrine
In cases involving conflicting claims over immovable property where deeds are unregistered, the party who has secured a deed of reconveyance and has been in possession thereof prior to the execution of a subsequent deed of conveyance to another party, and where the subsequent deed is also unregistered, will be held to be the owner of the land. Furthermore, a recital of payment in a deed of conveyance is not conclusive and may be contradicted by evidence, especially when the evidence overwhelmingly shows otherwise and such contradiction does not defeat a substantial contractual provision or the operation of the deed.