Carumba v. CA

CARUMBA v. CA Ponente: Reyes, J.B.L. Vendor: Spouses Amado Canuto & Nemesia Ibasco Vendee: (1) Spouses Amado Carumba & Benita Canuto; (2) Santiago Balbuena Point: Case exception to the rule that in the case of a double sale, registration in good faith prevails over possession. Facts: 1. Subject land: a parcel of “partly residential, partly coconut” land (with periphery area of 359.09 square meters) in Camarines Sur 2. April 12, 1955 – VENDOR sold subject land to VENDEE1 by virtue of a "Deed of Sale of Unregistered Land with Covenants of Warranty" for the sum of P350.00. The deed of sale was never registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur, and the Notary, Mr. Vicente Malaya, was not then an authorized notary public in the place. 3. January 21, 1957 – a complaint for sum of money was filed by VENDEE2 against the VENDOR before the Justice of the Peace Court of Iriga, Camarines Sur. Such complaint ripened into a civil case of which a decision was later on rendered dated April 15, 1957 in favour of VENDEE2 against the VENDOR. 4. Oct 1, 1968 -- the ex-officio Sheriff of Camarines Sur issued a "Definite Deed of Sale of the property in favour of VENDEE2. Such instrument of sale was registered before the Office of the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur. The aforesaid property was declared for taxation purposes in the name of VENDEE2. CFI: Ruled in favour of VENDEE1. The court, based on its findings, declared VENDEE1 the owner of the property under a consummated sale because after the execution of the sale, they immediately took possession of the land planting thereon bananas, coffee and other vegetables thereon. Also held as void the the execution levy made by the sheriff and nullified the sale in favour of VENDEE2. CA: Reversed CFI and ruled in favour of VENDEE2. There having been a double sale of the land, VENDEE2’s title was superior to that of VENDEE1 under Article 1544 of

the Civil Code of the Philippines, since the execution sale had been properly registered in good faith and the sale to VENDEE1 was not recorded. Issue/s: 1. Who is the real owner of the land? Held + Rationale: 1. VENDEE1 is the real owner. Article 1544 finds no application in the case at bar, even if VENDEE2, the later vendee, was ignorant of the prior sale made by his judgment debtor in favor of VENDEE1. Under Section 35 of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court, the purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriff's execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor, and merely acquires the latter's interest in the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon. While the time of the levy does not clearly appear, it could not have been made prior to 15 April 1957, when the decision against the former owners of the land was rendered in favor of Balbuena. But the deed of sale in favor of Canuto had been executed two years before, on 12 April 1955, and while only embodied in a private document, the same, coupled with the fact that the buyer (VENDEE1) had taken possession of the unregistered land sold, sufficed to vest ownership on the said buyer. When the levy was made by the Sheriff, therefore, the judgment debtor no longer had dominical interest nor any real right over the land that could pass to the purchaser at the execution sale. Hence VENDEE2 must yield to VENDEE1. Arrha De Leon