Sunday, November 20, 2016

Double Sales

Outline in “Double Sales”
Article 1544, New Civil Code
By: Atty. Ed Reyes III

(For Section 4-c. Univ. of San Agustin
School of Law, SY 2015-2016 2nd sem,
Civil Law Review II)

I.Main Rule

Primus tempore, potior jure (First in time, priority in right).

Corollary to Legal truism that: “You cannot give what you do not have”.

II. Article 1544;
Rules only apply when the following requisites concur:

a)     The two (or more) sales transactions must constitute valid sales
b)    The two (or more) sales transactions must pertain to exactly the same subject matter
c)     The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each represent conflicting interests; and
d)    The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each have bought from the very same seller[1]

III. Two Sales Must be Valid Transactions

3.1. Espiritu v. Valerio, 9 SCRA 761 (1963)- Where one sale involved a forged signature of the seller, Art. 1544 does not apply.

3.2. Carbonell v. Court of Appeals[2]; Coronel v. Court of Appeals[3]
- Art 1544 applies to Conditional Deeds of Sale (Because fulfillment of condition retroacts)
BUT NOT TO Contracts to Sell
- Remedy when a property was subject of contract to sell but sold via absolute sale is for damages

IV. Same Subject matter
4.1. Sale v. Right of Redemption

V. Same seller
-         Buyer 1 bought the thing from Mr. X who in turn bought it from Mr. Seller, while Buyer 2 bought the same subject matter from Mr. Seller, Art. 1544 DOES NOT APPLY- Rule on successors-in-interest and predecessors-in-interest have no place in Art. 1544[4]

VI. Registration v. Actual Possession
-         “As between two purchasers, the one who has registered the sale in his favor, has a preferred right over the other who has not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property”.[5]

6.1. Registration; Meaning

-         Tolentino: Deed of sale must be inscribed in the registry of property, and the register of deeds made a memorandum upon said document to the effect that “the foregoing instrument annotated, etc.” and another note to the same effect was made thereon about five months later, a marginal memorandum of the said annotations being made on the original document itself, it was held that what was done with respect to said entries or annotations and marginal notes amounted to a registration of the sale”.[6]

-         Villanueva- “Registration” means any entry made in the books of the registry, including both registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and cancellation, annotation, and even marginal notes. It is the entry made in the registry which records solemnly and permanently the right of ownership and other real rights”.[7]

VII. Purchaser in Good Faith; Concept

6.1. Burden of proof or onus is on person asserting that he is a purchaser in good faith. Mere reliance on presumption of good faith is not enough. [8]

6.2. Requisite of Full payment – “payment of FULL and FAIR PRICE for the same at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property”.[9]

6.3. Obligation to Investigate Known Facts.
- Mirror principle circumscribed

6.4. Length of time required for buyer to keep good faith pristine

-“ This is the price exacted by Article 1544 of the Civil Code for the second buyer being able to displace the first buyer: That before the second buyer can obtain priority over the first, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. ignorance of the first sale and of the first buyer’s rights)- from the time of acquisition until the tile is transferred to him by registration or failing registration, by delivery of possession). The second buyer must show CONTINUING good faith and innocence or lack of knowledge of the first sale until his contract ripens into full ownership through prior registration as provided by law”.[10]

VIII. Does Art. 1544 contemplate of a race to the ROD between 1st and 2nd buyers?
7.1. Does “bad faith” on the part of the first buyer foreclose his right to register the first sale?


-“The governing principle here is prius tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s rights except only as provided the Civil Code and that is where the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale ahead of first buyer. Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar her from availing of her rights under the law, among them, to register first her purchase as against the second buyer. But in CONVERSO, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since such knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith”[11] 

IX. First buyer is winner of the race without doing anything but only by the fact that he is the first buyer.

Reasons:

a)     First in time, priority in right
b)    Knowledge by second buyer of the first sale is equivalent to registration in favor of first buyer
c)     Knowledge of the first sale makes the second buyer one in bad faith, and only good faith second buyer is qualified to run the race[12]

X. First buyer can practically watch the second buyer: 1. Transact, haggle with same seller; 2. make installment payments; 3. Same seller to execute deed of sale; and 4. Second buyer to bring the deed of sale to Register of Deeds. AND YET STILL, second buyer cannot dislodge the first buyer. Until and unless, the second buyer goes through the entire process of REGISTRATION and maintains innocence or good faith all throughout. Then and only then is the first buyer defeated.

-END of Story.




[1] Cesar Villanueva, Law on Sales p. 277, Cheng v. Genato, 300 SCRA 722 (1988)
[2] 69 SCRA 99 (1976)
[3] 263 SCRA 15 (1996)
[4] Cesar Villanueva, p. 282, ibid.
[5] Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, Volume V p. 97 citing Mendiola v. Pacalda, 10 Phil. 705
[6] P. 98 Tolentino, Id.
[7] P. 295 Villanueva, Id. Citing Cheng v. Genato, 300 SCRA 722 (1998)
[8] Mathay v. Court of Appeals, 295 SCRA 556 (1998)
[9] Ibid.
[10] Carbonel v. Court of Appeals, Ibid
[11] Id.
[12] Villanueva, Ibid.

No comments:

Post a Comment