Case Digest - Tanedo v. CA.docx

G.R. No. 104482 January 22, 1996

ISSUES:
 1. Is the sale of a future inheritance valid?

BELINDA TAREDO, for herself and in representation of her brothers and sisters, and TEOFILA CORPUZ TANEDO, representing her minor daughter VERNA TANEDO, petitioners
 vs.
 THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO M. TAREDO AND TERESITA BARERA TAREDO, respondents

NO
 2. Was Ricardo’s registration of the deed of valid? YES

FACTS: October 20, 1962: Lazardo Tañedo executed a notarized deed of absolute sale 
 in favor of his eldest brother, Ricardo Tañedo, and the latter’s wife, Teresita Barera (private respondents) whereby he conveyed for P1,500 one hectare of his future inheritance from his parents. 
 February 28, 1980: Upon the death of his father Matias, Lazaro made another a davit to rea rm the 1962 sale. 
 January 13, 1981: Lazaro acknowledged therein his receipt of P 10,000.00 as consideration for the sale. 
 February 1981: Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children (petitioners) through a deed of sale dated December 29, 1980 
 On June 7, 1982, Ricardo recorded the Deed of Sale in their favor in the Registry of Deeds 
 Petitioners led a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of the deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of Ricardo. They contend that Lolo Matias desired that whatever inheritance Lazaro would receive from him should be given to his (Lazaro’s) children. Ricardo (private respondents) however presented in evidence a “Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale” wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in favor of his children for the reason that it was “simulated or ctitious without any consideration whatsoever.” LAZARO’S VERSION: He executed a sworn statement in favor of his children. BUT he also testi ed that he sold the property to Ricardo, and that it was a lawyer who induced him to execute a deed of sale in favor of his children after giving him ve pesos (P5.00) to buy a “drink”. LABO Trial court ruled in favor of Lazaro’s children. Ca a rmed TC’s decision.

HELD: SC rules in favor of Ricardo. Pursuant to Art 1347, the contract made in 1962 (sale of future inheritance) is not valid and cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties. (“No contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.) However, Article 1544 governs the preferential rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales. The property in question is land, an immovable, and ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it rst in the registry of property. Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of Ricardo was later than the one in favor of Lazaro’s children, ownership would vest with Ricardo because of the undisputed fact of registration. On the other hand, petitioners have not registered the sale to them at all. Lazaro’s children contend that they were in possession of the property and that Ricardo never took possession thereof. As between two purchasers, the one who 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. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.