Mamuyac v. Abena
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Gregoria Pimentel sold two parcels of land to Pedro Abena on June 1, 1926. Subsequently, on January 27, 1927, Gregoria Pimentel sold the same parcels of land to Tiburcio Mamuyac. Procedural History: The sale to Abena was duly inscribed in the registry of property on January 31, 1927, and the parcels were declared for taxation in his name. The sale to Mamuyac was neither inscribed nor declared for taxation. Mamuyac filed an action for recovery of the lands. The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of Abena. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. The Petition: Mamuyac filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. Whether Mamuyac has a better right to the land based on a subsequent alleged private contract of mortgage. Whether Article 1473 of the Civil Code applies to the conflict between a sale and a mortgage.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewing findings of fact: The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing errors of law, not errors of fact. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final. This is in accordance with Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending Section 138 of the Administrative Code, in relation to Section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution. On the issue of a better right based on a private mortgage contract: A mortgage, to be legally constituted, must be in a public document and recorded in the property register. A private document does not constitute a mortgage in legal form. Even if the mortgage were valid, Article 1473 of the Civil Code, which determines preference between two sales, does not apply to a conflict between a sale and a mortgage. Therefore, Mamuyac's claim based on the alleged private mortgage is without merit. On the applicability of Article 1473 of the Civil Code: Article 1473 of the Civil Code applies only to determine preference between two or more sales of the same property. It is not applicable to a case involving a conflict between a buyer and a creditor with a mortgage on the property. The Supreme Court has previously held that this article is inapplicable when the property is not inscribed in the name of the claimant, nor is the claimant in possession in good faith, and is aware of prior encumbrances. Therefore, Mamuyac cannot invoke this article to assert his right against Abena's registered sale.
Main Doctrine
The registration of a deed of sale in the property registry is a superior right over an unregistered deed of sale, even if the latter was executed earlier. The execution of a public document of sale is equivalent to the delivery of the realty sold.