Dauz v. Echavez

G.R. No. 152407 · 2007-09-21 · J. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: · Primary: Civil; Secondary: Remedial
REITERATION

Facts

The Antecedents: Spouses Albert Oguis, Sr. and Florencia Refuerzo Oguis owned a parcel of land. On January 12, 1982, they sold a portion (1,295 sq. m.) to respondents Spouses Eligio and Lorenza Echavez, which was registered. In July 1982, they sold the remaining portion to respondents, but this sale was not registered at the request of Albert Oguis, Sr. who intended to repurchase it. Upon their return in May 1987, the Oguis spouses informed respondents they were no longer interested in repurchasing. Respondents paid real property taxes for the entire property from 1983-1987. Florencia Oguis died in September 1987. In May 1988, Albert Oguis, Sr. and his children sold a portion of the land (7,616 sq. m.) to petitioners Spouses Florendo and Helen Dauz. Albert Oguis, Sr. represented that only 1,295 sq. m. had been sold to respondents and gave petitioners a xerox copy of the title, claiming the owner's copy was lost. Albert Oguis, Sr. died in August 1988. Petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of a new duplicate copy of the title. On January 25, 1989, respondents registered the sale of the remaining 7,616 sq. m. portion, leading to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new one in their names, covering the entire property. Petitioners Spouses Dauz subsequently sold 1,000 sq. m. of the 7,616 sq. m. portion to petitioners Spouses Ignacio and Francisca Reambonanza. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of ownership. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioners to vacate the land and pay damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners seek to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that respondents acted in bad faith by registering the sale of the 7,616 sq. m. portion only after petitioners filed a petition for the issuance of a new duplicate copy of the title.

Issue(s)

Whether respondents acted in bad faith in registering the sale of the remaining portion of the property, and whether Article 1544 of the Civil Code applies in this case.

Ruling

The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. Respondents are declared the owners of the entire property.

Ratio Decidendi

On the issue of bad faith and the application of Article 1544: The Court held that Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs cases of double sale of immovable property. This article provides that ownership shall belong to the person who in good faith first recorded the sale in the Registry of Property. If there is no inscription, ownership pertains to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. In this case, respondents registered the sale of the 1,295 sq. m. portion in April 1982 and the remaining 7,616 sq. m. portion on January 25, 1989. Petitioners, Spouses Dauz, failed to register their sale. The Court found no evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondents. The delay in registering the second sale was explained by the initial agreement that the Oguis spouses intended to repurchase the property, and it was Albert Oguis, Sr. himself who requested respondents not to register the sale at that time. Bad faith requires a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity, which were not present. The findings of good faith by the lower courts, being a question of fact, were not disturbed. Therefore, as respondents were the first to register the sale in good faith, they are deemed the owners of the entire property under Article 1544 of the Civil Code.

Main Doctrine

Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, in cases of double sale of immovable property, ownership transfers to the buyer who first recorded the sale in good faith in the Registry of Property. If there is no inscription, ownership belongs to the one who was first in possession in good faith; otherwise, to the one with the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

Access audio review, related cases, codal links, and more.

Open LexMatePH →