the sale to the whole world and hence, can defeat the right of the

second buyer in good faith. Thus, the Court ruled in favor of

THIRD DIVISION respondent Nogales.

[G.R. No. 138201. September 12, 2000.] SYLLABUS

FRANCISCO BAYOCA, NONITO DICHOSO and

1.CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; SALES; DOOUBLE SALE;
SPOUSES PIO DICHOSO and DOLORES
RULE IN CASE OF MULTIPLE SALES OF IMMOVABLE
DICHOSO and ERWIN BAYOCA, petitioners, vs.
PROPERTY. — Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential
GAUDIOSO NOGALES represented by HENRY
rights of vendees in cases of multiple sales. . . [I]n the double sales of
NOGALES, respondent.
immovables, ownership is transferred in the order hereunder stated to
— (a) the first registrant in good faith; (b) the first in possession in good
faith; and (c) the buyer who presents the oldest title in good faith.
Atty. Arnulfo L. Perete for petitioners.
Based on the foregoing, to merit protection under Article 1544, second
paragraph, of the Civil Code, the second buyer must act in good faith
Atty. Henry D. Diesta for respondent. in registering the deed. Thus, it has been held that in cases of double
sale of immovables, what finds relevance and materiality is not
whether or not the second buyer was a buyer in good faith but whether
SYNOPSIS or not said second buyer register such second sale in good faith, that
is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold.
Here in issue is the superiority of right to a parcel of land sold to AIaSTE
different buyers at different times by its former owners. According to
the records, respondent Nogales was the first to buy the subject 2.ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION BY FIRST BUYER UNDER ACT
property from Julia Deocareza, who in turn bought the same from the NO. 3344 CAN HAVE THE EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
Canino siblings. Petitioners, however, relied on the fact that they were TO THE SECOND BUYER. — [A]s stated in the Santiago case,
the first to register the sales of the different portions of the property registration by the first buyer under Act No. 3344 can have the effect
resulting in the issuance of new titles in their names. And as far as of constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as
petitioners Francisco and Nonito are concerned, they declared the such buyer. On account of the undisputed fact of registration under
properties they acquired respectively for taxation purposes. HEASaC Act No. 3344 by respondent Nogales as the first buyer, necessarily,
there is absent good faith in the registration of the sale by the
Art. 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees petitioners Erwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio and Lourdes Dichoso
in cases of multiple sales. Under the second paragraph of said law, for which they had been issued certificates of title in their names. It
ownership of an immovable property shall belong to the person follows that their title to the land cannot be upheld. As for petitioners
acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Francisco Bayoca and Nonito Dichoso, they failed to register the
Property. The undisputed fact is that respondent Nogales had the portions of the property sold to them, and merely rely on the fact that
Deed of Absolute Sale executed in his favor registered with the they declared the same in their name for taxation purposes. Suffice it
Registry of Deeds under Act No. 3344 long before the sale of portions to state that such fact, does not, by itself, constitute evidence of
of the property to petitioners. This constitutes constructive notice of
ownership, and cannot likewise prevail over the title of respondent DECISION
Nogales.

3.ID.; CERTIFICATES OF TITLE; FUNCTION. — [W]hile the

GONZAGA-REYES, J p:
certificates of title in the names of Erwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio
and Lourdes Dichoso are indefeasible, unassailable and binding
against the whole world, including the government itself, they do not Before us is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
create or vest title. They merely confirm or record title already existing Rules of Court, assailing the December 24, 1998 Decision of the Court
and vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true of Appeals, 1 which disposed as follows:
owner, nor can they be used as a shield for the commission of fraud;
neither do they permit one to enrich himself at the expense of others. "IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
The Torrens System is intended to guarantee the integrity and Appellants' appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision
conclusiveness of the certificate of registration but it cannot be used appealed from is AFFIRMED. With costs against
for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the registered the Appellants.
land.
SO ORDERED." 2
4.REMEDIAL LAW; REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; JURISDICTION;
WHEN PROPERTY DIVESTED FROM PUBLIC DOMAIN. — The decretal portion of the decision of the trial court affirmed by the
[P]etitioner's argument that the subject property is a public agricutural Court of Appeals, reads:
land over which the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction over is
clearly untenable. The prior grant of a free patent in favor of petitioners
"ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered:
Erwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio and Dolores Dichoso removed or
segregated the property subject thereof from the mass of the public
domain. So too, respondent Nogales had already registered the entire (1)Declaring the plaintiff the absolute
property under Act No. 3344. Indeed, registration with the Register of owner and entitled to the peaceful
Deeds of a parcel of land divests the government of title to the land. possession of the land in question
described in Paragraph 2 of the
Amended Complaint, and for the
5.ID.; APPEAL; JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES MAY BE RAISED
defendants to refrain from
ANYTIME EXCEPT WHEN ESTOPPEL HAS SUPERVENED. — disturbing the plaintiff in his
Petitioners, who raised [the] issue [of jurisdiction] only before this
peaceful possession thereof;
Court, are now estopped from claiming that the subject property is a
public agricultural land, considering that petitioners have actively
participated in the proceedings before the lower and appellate courts (2)Ordering defendants Francisco Bayoca
with their principal defense consisting of the certificates of titles in their and Nonito Dichoso to remove
names. While it is a rule that jurisdictional questions may be raised at their respective houses from the
any time, an exception arises where estoppel has supervened, as in premises in question within ten
the instant case. HTCISE (10) days after the Decision
becomes final and executory;
 (3)Ordering defendant Erwin Bayoca to In essence, the petition poses a challenge against the appellate
reconvey to the plaintiff TCT No. T- court's conclusion that the first sale of a parcel of land to respondent
27220, and defendant Nonito Gaudioso Nogales prevails over the second sale of the said property
Dichoso, who substituted to petitioners Francisco Bayoca, Nonito Dichoso and spouses Pio and
defendants Spouses Pio Dichoso Dolores Dichoso. As such, there is no dispute as to the following facts
and Lourdes Domasig as party- found by the Court of Appeals:
defendants, to reconvey OCT No.
P-11918 to the plaintiff within "When the Spouses Juan Canino and Brigida
fifteen (15) days after the Decision Domasig died intestate, before 1947, they were
becomes final and executory, survived by their legitimate children, namely,
failing in which, the Clerk of Court Preciosa Canino, married to Emilio Deocareza,
is ordered to execute the Deed of Consolacion Canino, Dolores Canino, Isidra Canino
Reconveyance in favor of the and Tomas Canino who inherited, from their father,
plaintiff; a parcel of land, located in Prieto-Diaz, Sorsogon
covered by Tax Declaration No. 9659, in an
(4)Ordering the defendants to assessed value of P500.00, with the following
proportionally reimburse plaintiff boundary owners abutting the same:
the produce of the property in
question, at 400 kilos of copra North— Vicente Dino;
every 45 days, or its equivalent in
money, from 1992, until they have
West— Genaro Menor and Roman Bayle
surrendered or turned over the
possession of the land in question
to the plaintiff; East— Pedro Vargas and Fely Detablan

(5)Ordering the defendants jointly and South— Bartolome Domalaon

severally to pay plaintiff the
amount of P8,000.00 as attorney's Each of the heirs, therefore, had a pro indiviso
fees, and the further sum of share of the property, Tomas Canino, being then
P3,000.00 as incidental litigation still a minor at 17 years of age, was under the care
expenses, and and custody of his sister, Preciosa Canino
Deocareza. She and her husband, Emilio
(6)To pay the costs. Deocareza, and Tomas Canino stayed in the said
property. cEaCAH
SO ORDERED." 3
On December 15, 1947, Preciosa Canino executed
an unnotarized "Deed of Sale of Real Property with
Also assailed by petitioners is the April 8, 1999 Resolution of the Court Right of Repurchase" over a portion of the above
of Appeals, which denied their Motion for Reconsideration. 4
property, with an area of 5,000 square meters, in
favor of her sister-in-law, Julia Deocareza, the
sister of her husband, Emilio Deocareza, for the 3344. On the basis of said deed, Tax Declaration
price of P200.00 (Exhibit "K"). Preciosa Canino No. 3489 was issued over the property, under the
reserved her right to repurchase the said property, name of Julia Deocareza. The latter allowed her
within five (5) years from the execution of the said brothers, Ambrosio Deocareza, married to Olympia
deed. Dolores and Maria Canino affixed the Dichoso, and Emilio Deocareza, the husband of
imprints of their thumbmarks on the deed (Exhibits Preciosa Canino, to occupy the said property.
"K-1" and "K-2"). On February 2, 1948, Tomas However, Preciosa Canino failed to repurchase the
Canino, who was then 17 years of age and property. In the meantime, Gaudioso Nogales, the
Preciosa Canino, who was then taking care of her Appellee in the present recourse, acquired the
brother, executed an unnotarized "Deed of Sale of property abutting the property of Preciosa Canino
Real Property with Right of Repurchase" covering and her siblings, on the east, and installed a tenant
a portion of said property, with an area of 5,330 thereon.
square meters, in favor of Julia Deocareza, for the
price of P60.00, with a right to repurchase the said On April 29, 1968, Julia Deocareza executed an
lot for the said amount, within one (1) year from the unnotarized "Compromise Agreement", in the local
execution of said deed (Exhibit "I"). On August 29, dialect, in favor of the Appellee, whereby she sold
1948, Preciosa Canino executed another to the Appellee, for the price of P3,500.00, the
unnotarized "Deed of Sale of Real Property with aforesaid property she earlier purchased from
Right to Repurchase" over the entirety of the Preciosa Canino, with an area of 21,080 square
property, in favor of Julia Deocareza, for the price meters (Exhibit "L") with the following boundary
of P270.00, with a right to repurchase the said lot owners abutting the property:
for the same price, within two (2) years from the
execution thereof. Consolacion Canino affixed her
"North— Vicente Dino
thumbmark on said deed (Exhibit "J-1").
Subsequently, Tax Declaration No. 9659 was
cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 189, under the East— Felix Detablan and Pedro Vargas
name of Juan Canino. (now Gaudioso Nogales)

West— Genaro Donor and Roman Balle

(now Gaudioso Nogales)
On January 31, 1951, Preciosa Canino executed a
notarized "Deed of Sale of Real Property with Right South— Bartolome Dumalaon (Exhibit "L")
to Repurchase" over the entirety of the
aforementioned property, in favor of Julia She promised, in said deed, to have her brothers,
Deocareza, for the price of P800.00, with a right to Ambrosio and Emilio Deocareza, and their families,
repurchase the same, for the same amount, within vacate the said property. On the same day, Julia
one (1) year from the execution of said deed, Deocareza executed a "Deed of Absolute Sale of
(Exhibit "H"). The parties covenanted, under said Realty Property" in favor of the Appellee over the
deed, that the property described therein was aforesaid parcel of land for the price of P3,000.00
unencumbered and to register the deed under Act (Exhibit "G"). The aforesaid deed was registered
with the Register of Deeds on May 3, 1968, (Exhibit SO ORDERED." (Exhibit "B")
"G-1"). For a time, the Appellee was abroad.
However, when the Appellee demanded that Emilio Deocareza, et al., interposed an appeal,
Ambrosio and Emilio Deocareza and their families from the said Decision, to this Court, which appeal,
vacate the property, Emilio Deocareza and was docketed as CA-G.R. NO. 15135-CV.
Preciosa Deocareza refused. The Appellee However, the Appellants therein belatedly paid the
forthwith filed a complaint, sometime in 1975, with docketing fee for their appeal. On March 23, 1988,
the Regional Trial Court of Sorgoson, against this Court promulgated a Resolution dismissing the
Emilio Deocareza, and Julia Deocareza for appeal. The Resolution of this Court became final
"Recovery of Possession" of property entitled and executory on June 2, 1988 (Exhibit "C")
"Gaudioso Nogales versus Emilio Deocareza, et
al." Civil Case No. 975." In his Amended Complaint,
After the remand of the records of said case to the
the Appellee impleaded Preciosa Canino, as party Court a quo, a Writ of Execution was issued by the
defendant, Julia Deocareza later filed a cross-claim Court a quo, dated, February 20, 1992 (Exhibit "D").
against Preciosa Canino over the property. Emilio Deocareza and Preciosa Deocareza vacated
the property. The Appellee, through Henry Nogales,
On February 7, 1983, the Regional Trial Court executed an "Acknowledgment" acknowledging
promulgated a Decision, in Civil Case No. 975 in actual possession of the aforesaid parcel of land
favor of the Appellee and against Emilio from the Sheriff (Exhibit "F"). However, the
Deocareza, et al., the decretal portion of which Appellee discovered that Francisco Bayoca, Nonito
reads as follows: Dichoso and the Spouses Pio Dichoso and Dolores
Dichoso, the Appellants in the present recourse,
"ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby claimed ownership of portion of the said property.
rendered (1) ordering the defendants Julia The Appellant Nonito Dichoso had constructed a
Deocareza and the spouses Emilio nipa hut on a portion of the property. The Appellant
Deocareza and Preciosa Canino to deliver Francisco Bayoca likewise constructed his house
possession of the land to plaintiff Gaudioso thereon.
Nogales; (2) ordering the defendants
spouses Emilio Deocareza and Preciosa In 1958, Tomas Canino, who was then about
Canino to pay the plaintiff the sum of twenty-eight years old, died intestate, without any
P1,500.00 every 45 days as actual issue: His pro-indiviso share in the property was
damages from the filing of the second inherited, in equal shares, by his four (4) surviving
amended complaint on November 12, 1976 sisters, namely, Preciosa Canino, Isabel Canino,
until possession of the land is delivered to Consolacion Canino and Dolores Canino who, on
the plaintiff and to pay attorney's fees to the June 2, 1971 executed a "Deed of Partition of Real
plaintiff in the sum of P500.00. Property", declaring that, although, under Tax
Declaration No. 9659, the property covering an
Costs against the defendants spouses Emilio area of 21,000 square meters that, as early as
Deocareza and Preciosa Canino. 1950, they had verbally partitioned the said
property, with an area of 29,645 square meters, into
five (5) parcels, namely Parcels "A" to "E" and said property, under their names, for taxation
adjudicated unto each of them, in equal shares of purposes, under Tax Declaration No. 05079
5,090 square meters, the said parcels as follows: (Exhibit "3") and paid the realty taxes due thereon.

"Parcel "A"— Consolacion Canino; In the interim, a cadastral survey was conducted in
Prieto Diaz. Parcel "A", adjudicated to Consolacion
Parcel "B"— Isidra Canino; Canino, under the "Deed of Partition" was
identified, as Lot 676, with an area of more or less
5,929 square meters; Parcel B, adjudicated to
Parcel "C"— Tomas Canino;
Isidra Canino, was identified as Lot 670; Parcel "C",
adjudicated to Tomas Canino, was identified as Lot
Parcel "D"— Preciosa Canino; 668; Parcel "D" adjudicated to Preciosa Canino,
was identified as Lot 669 but with an area of 6,550
Parcel "E"— Dolores Canino; square meters, covered by Tax Declaration No.
396; and Parcel "E", adjudicated to Dolores Canino,
(Exhibit "G") was identified as Lot 667.

However, neither Julia Deocareza nor the On July 6, 1971, Isidra Canino, Dolores Canino and
Appellee conformed to the "Deed of Partition". Consolacion Canino, executed a "Deed of Absolute
Sale of Real Property" over a portion of Lot 668
Preciosa Canino and her siblings expressly earlier adjudicated to Tomas Canino, under the
declared, in said deed, that the property was "Deed of Partition of Real Property", with an area of
declared for taxation purposes under the name of 3,374 square meters, in favor of Preciosa Canino
Julia Deocareza under Tax Declaration No. 3894 for the price of P500.00 (Exhibit "13").
(Exhibit "16").
In the meantime, Pio Diochoso and Lourdes Donor
On the basis of said deed, Isidra Canino declared applied for the issuance of a "Free Patent" over Lot
"Parcel "B", for taxation purposes, under her name, 670, the property they purchased from Isidra
with Tax Declaration No. 6094 effective 1972 Canino. On July 13, 1975, they were issued Free
(Exhibit "2"), which cancelled, in part, Tax Patent No. V-3-0770, over the property, on the
Declaration No. 3489, under the name of Julia basis of which Original Certificate of Title No. P-
Deocareza. On June 21, 1971, Isidra Canino 11918 was issued, under their names, by the
executed a "Deed of Absolute Sale" over Parcel Register of Deeds (Exhibit "4").
"D", with an area of 5,929 square meters, in favor
of Pio Dichoso and Lourdes Donor, two (2) of the On April 17, 1975, Preciosa Canino applied for and
Appellants in the present recourse, for the price of was issued Free Patent No. V-30829, over a portion
P750.00 (Exhibit "1"). Isidra Canino showed to the of Lot 668, with an area of 2,800 square meters. On
vendees a copy of the "Deed of Partition of Real the basis of said Patent, Original Certificate of Title
Property (Exhibit "6"). The vendees declared the No. P-25402 was issued under the name of
Preciosa Canino, on April 17, 1975, by the Register On September 8, 1992, the Appellee filed a
of Deeds. complaint against the Appellants Francisco
Bayoca, Nonito Dichoso and the Spouses Pio
On June 20, 1979, Preciosa Canino executed a Dichoso and Dolores Dichoso for "Accion
"Deed of Absolute Sale", over Lot 669, with an area Reivindicatoria with Damages", with the Regional
of 6,550 square meters, in favor of the Appellant Trial Court of Sorsogon. On February 15, 1994, Pio
Erwin Bayoca, for the price of P4,000.00 (Exhibit Dichoso died and was substituted by his son, the
"8"). On the basis of said deed, Tax Declaration No. Appellant Nonito Dichoso. With prior leave of Court,
05135 was issued, under the name of Erwin the Appellees filed an Amended Complaint,
Bayoca, over said property (Exhibit "9"). impleading Lourdes Dichoso and Erwin Bayoca, as
parties defendants, praying that:
On January 18, 1983, Consolacion Canino
executed a "Deed of Absolute Sale", over Lot 671",
with an area of 5,929 square meters, in favor of
Nonito Dichoso, one of the Appellants in the "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully
present recourse, and a son of the Spouses Pio prayed of the Honorable Court that pending
Dichoso and Lourdes Dichoso, for the price of hearing on the merits issue a writ of
P1,300.00 (Exhibit "5"). preliminary injunction, or in the alternative,
to appoint a receiver in the premises in
On August 3, 1987, Dolores Canino executed a question so that the produce be deposited
"Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property", over Lot in court to be disposed of after the
667, with an area of 7,090 square meters, in favor termination of this case, and that after due
of Appellant Francisco Bayoca, for the price of hearing, judgment issue: HSATIC
P5,000 (Exhibit "14"). On the basis of said deed,
Francisco Bayoca declared the said property, for (a)Making the injunction permanent;
taxation purposes, under his name (Exhibit "15").
(b)Declaring plaintiff the absolute owner of
On October 13, 1989, Preciosa Canino executed a the land in question and entitled to the
"Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property", over the peaceful possession thereof;
parcel of lot covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. P-25402, in favor of Appellant Erwin Bayoca, (c)Ordering the defendants to vacate the
the son of the Appellant Francisco Bayoca, for the premises within 10 days after the decision
price of P5,000.00 (Exhibit "10"). On the basis of has become final, and to perpetually refrain
said deed, Original Certificate of Title No. P-25402 from disturbing plaintiff in his peaceful
was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. possession thereof;
27220 was issued under the name of Appellant
Erwin Bayoca (Exhibit "11"). The latter forthwith
(d)Ordering the defendants to pay plaintiff
declared the said property, under his name, for
whatever produce they may have gathered
taxation purposes (Exhibit "12").
from the land in question until they have
 vacated or turned over the possession to of the Appellants respectively, and Free Patent
the plaintiff; Nos. V-3-0770 and V-30829 in favor of the Spouses
Pio Dichoso and Lourdes Dichoso and Preciosa
(e)Ordering defendants Erwin Bayoca, Pio Canino, respectively, were fraudulent and that the
Dichoso and Lourdes Dichoso to reconvey said Free Patent and Original Certificates of Title P-
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27220 25402 and P-11918 issued on the basis thereof and
and Original Certificate of Title No. P- derivative titles therefrom were null and void. The
11918 to the plaintiff, and should the said Appellants, in their Answer to the complaint,
defendants refuse to reconvey the said alleged, inter alia that Preciosa Canino and her
certificates of title, the Clerk of Court be siblings acquired just title over the property when
ordered to execute the deed of they executed their "Deed of Partition of Real
reconveyance in favor of the plaintiff within Property" and conveyed titles to the vendees, the
15 days the decision becomes final and Appellants in the present recourse, as buyers in
executory; good faith." 5

(f)Ordering defendants jointly and severally As mentioned at the outset, after hearing, the trial court ruled against
to pay plaintiff the amount of P12,000.00 as herein petitioners Francisco Bayoca, Nonito Dichoso, Erwin Bayoca,
attorney's fees, plus P500.00 for every and spouses Pio and Dolores Dichoso. The trial court found and
appearance of his lawyer in court, declared, under its Decision dated March 12, 1996, that Gaudioso
P3,000.00 as incidental litigation Nogales had acquired ownership over the property on the basis of the
expenses, and to pay the costs. "Compromise Agreement" (Exhibit "I") and the "Deed of Absolute
Sale", (Exhibit "G") executed by Julia Deocareza, who had previously
acquired ownership over the said property on the basis of the deeds,
Plaintiff further prays for such other relief
(Exhibits "H", "I", "J" and "K") as confirmed by the trial court under its
just and equitable in the premises." (at
pages 104-105, Records) Decision, Exhibit "G". Hence, the sales of portions of said property by
Preciosa Canino, who was no longer the owner thereof, to herein
petitioners were null and void. The trial court declared further that
The Appellee alleged, in his complaint, that he petitioners were purchasers in bad faith.
purchased the said property, with an area of 21,000
square meters, from Julia Deocareza, under the
deed, Exhibit "G", and thus acquired ownership On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC ruling.
Hence, this recourse to this Court.
thereof and that the Appellants respectively
purchased portions of said property, in bad faith
and through fraud, the Appellants knowing of the In their Memorandum, petitioners raise the following issues: 6
pendency of Civil Case No. 975, before the
Regional Trial Court, involving the said property. "WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONERS CLAIM
The Appellee further alleged that the "Deed of OF OWNERSHIP BY VIRTUE OF THEIR
Partition of Real Property" as well as the deeds of RESPECTIVE TITLE ISSUED AND/OR
sale executed by Preciosa Canino, Consolacion REGISTRATION WILL PREVAIL OVER THAT OF
Canino, Isidra Canino and Dolores Canino in favor RESPONDENT?
 WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL Should it be immovable property, the ownership
COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE SAME shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good
CASE WHEN THE SAME LAND SUBJECT OF faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.
THE CASE IS A PUBLIC LAND?"
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall
The petition lacks merit. pertain to the person who in good faith was first in
the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the
In fine, the main issue is who has the superior right to the parcel of person who presents the oldest title, provided there
land sold to different buyers at different times by its former owners. is good faith.

There is no question from the records that respondent Nogales was Following the above-quoted law, in the double sales of immovables,
the first to buy the subject property from Julia Deocareza, who in turn ownership is transferred in the order hereunder stated to —
bought the same from the Canino brothers and sisters. Petitioners,
however, rely on the fact that they were the first to register the sales (a)the first registrant in good faith;
of the different portions of the property, resulting in the issuance of
new titles in their names. Petitioners insist that they have a better right (b)the first in possession in good faith; and
over respondent Nogales considering the following circumstances: (1)
Pio and Lourdes Dichoso were issued Free Patent No. V-3-0770 over (c)the buyer who presents the oldest title in good
Lot 670, the property they purchased from Isidra Canino on the basis faith. 8
of which Original Certificate of Title No. P-11918 was issued under
their names by the Register of Deeds; (2) Erwin Bayoca acquired the
property covered by OCT No. P-25402 covering a portion of Lot 668 Based on the foregoing, to merit protection under Article 1544, second
from Preciosa Canino, on the basis of which TCT No. 27220 was paragraph, of the Civil Code, the second buyer must act in good faith
issued in his name. As far as Nonito Dichoso and Francisco Bayoca in registering the deed. 9 Thus, it has been held that in cases of double
are concerned they declared the properties they acquired, sale of immovables, what finds relevance and materiality is not
respectively, from Consolacion Canino and Dolores Canino, for whether or not the second buyer was a buyer in good faith but whether
taxation purposes. Petitioners also assail the conclusion of the Court or not said second buyer registers such second sale in good faith, that
of Appeals that they were purchasers in bad faith of the subject lots. is, without knowledge of any defect in the title of the property sold. 10

Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of Good faith on petitioners' part, as the second buyers of the subject
vendees in cases of multiple sales, as follows: 7 property, was not found by the appellate court, thus its decision
adverse to them. The Court of appeals ratiocinated thus:
"ARTICLE 1544.If the same thing should have been
sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be "Appellants' insistence that they were purchasers in
transferred to the person who may have first taken good faith is an exercise in futility. What, to our
possession thereof in good faith, if it should be mind, is decisive of the issue of who, between the
movable property. Appellee, on the one hand, and the Appellants, on
the other, is the owner of the property is Article 1544
of the New Civil Code . . .:
xxx xxx xxx of Appeals, et al., 247 SCRA 336, at page
346)
After all, the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon had
already decreed, under its Decision (Exhibit "B") On the other hand, the sales of portions of the
which the appellants did not assail, that the property to the Appellants, by Preciosa Canino and
Appellee was the owner of the property under the her siblings, occurred during the period from June
"Deed of Absolute Sale" (Exhibit "G") executed, by 21, 1971 to October 13, 1989 or long after the
Julia Deocareza, in his favor. Appellee had purchased the property (Exhibits "1",
"13", "8", "5", "14", and "10"). Inscrutably, too the
The evidence on record shows that, on January 31, sale to the Appellee was registered with the
1951, Preciosa Canino and her siblings sold the Registry of properties much earlier than the
property in favor of Julia Deocareza under the registration, if any, of the sales to the Appellants
"Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase" (Exhibit and that the Appellee took possession of the said
"H"), the culmination of the deeds of sale with right property much earlier than the Appellants
to repurchase (Exhibits "I", "J" and "K"). The latter, considering that the "Deed of Sale" (Exhibit "G") is
in turn, sold the said property to the Appellee under a public deed. It bears stressing that possession,
the "Deed of Absolute Sale", on April 29, 1968, under Article 1544 of the New Civil Code, includes
(Exhibit "G"), Julia Deocareza obliging herself to symbolic possession:
cause the eviction of her brothers, Ambrosio and
Emilio Deocareza and their families from the
property, who were at the time in possession of the
property by her and Appellee's tolerance (Exhibit "We are of the opinion that the possession
"L"). The appellee had the said "Deed of Absolute mentioned in article 1473 (for determining
Sale" (Exhibit "G") registered with the Registry of who has better right when the same piece
Deeds and entered in the Registry Records as of land has been sold several times by the
Entry No. 47052, page 51, Volume 14 of the same vendor) includes not only the
Registry Record under Act 3344 (Exhibit "G-1"). material but also the symbolic possession,
The registration of the deed, under Act 3344, which is acquired by the execution of public
constitutes constructive notice of said sale to the instrument." (Narcisa Sanchez versus
whole world: EaDATc Roque Ramos, 40 Phil. 614, at page 617,
emphasis supplied)."
"Registration, however, by the first buyer
under Act 3344 can have the effect of Verily, there is absence of prior registration in good faith by petitioners
constructive notice to the second buyer that of the second sale in their favor. As stated in the Santiago case,
can defeat his right as such buyer in good registration by the first buyer under Act No. 3344 can have the effect
faith (see Arts. 708-709, civil Code; see of constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as
also Revilla vs. Galindez, 107 Phil. 480; such buyer, 11 On account of the undisputed fact of registration under
Taguba vs. Peralta, 132 SCRA 700)." Act No. 3344 by respondent Nogales as the first buyer, necessarily,
(Spouses Honorio Santiago versus Court there is absent good faith in the registration of the sale by the
petitioners Erwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio and Lourdes Dichoso rights in good faith (see Carumba vs. Court of
for which they had been issued certificates of title in their names. It Appeals, 31 SCRA 558). Registration, however, by
follows that their title to the land cannot be upheld. As for petitioners the first buyer under Act 3344 can have the effect
Francisco Bayoca and Nonito Dichoso, they failed to register the of constructive notice to the second buyer that can
portions of the property sold to them, and merely rely on the fact that defeat his right as such buyer in good faith (see
they declared the same in their name for taxation purposes. Suffice it Arts. 708-709, Civil Code; see also Revilla vs.
to state that such fact, does not, by itself, constitute evidence of Galindez, 107 Phil. 480; Taguba vs. Peralta, 132
ownership, 12 and cannot likewise prevail over the title of respondent SCRA 700). . ." 13
Nogales.
It is worth mentioning that while the certificates of title in the names of
Enlightening in this regard is the following commentary: Erwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio and Lourdes Dichoso are
indefeasible, unassailable and binding against the whole world,
"The governing principle is prius tempore, potior including the government itself, they do not create or vest title. They
jure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge by merely confirm or record title already existing and vested. They cannot
the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the be used to protect a usurper from the true owner, nor can they be used
first buyer's rights except when the second buyer as a shield for the commission of fraud; neither do they permit one to
first registers in good faith the second sale (Olivares enrich himself at the expense of others. 14 The Torrens System is
vs. Gonzales, 159 SCRA 33). Conversely, intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the
knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first certificate of registration but it cannot be used for the perpetration of
sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register, fraud against the real owner of the registered land. 15
since such knowledge taints his registration with
bad faith (see also Astorga vs. Court of Appeals, Lastly, petitioners' argument that the subject property is a public
G.R. No. 58530, 26 December 1984). In Cruz vs. agricultural land over which the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction
Cabaña (G.R. No. 56232, 22 June 1984; 129 SCRA over is clearly untenable. The prior grant of a free patent in favor of
656), it was held that it is essential, to merit the petitioners Erwin Bayoca and the spouses Pio and Dolores Dichoso
protection of Art. 1544, second paragraph, that the removed or segregated the property subject thereof from the mass of
second realty buyer must act in good faith in the public domain. 16 So too, respondent Nogales had already
registering his deed of sale) citing Carbonell vs. registered the entire property under Act. No. 3344. Indeed, registration
Court of Appeals, 69 SCRA 99, Crisostomo vs. CA, with the Register of Deeds of a parcel of land divests the government
G.R. 95843, 02 September 1992). of title to the land. 17 We also find that petitioners, who raised this
issue only before this Court, are now estopped from claiming that the
xxx xxx xxx subject property is a public agricultural land, considering that
petitioners have actively participated in the proceedings before the
lower and appellate courts with their principal defense consisting of
Registration of the second buyer under Act 3344,
providing for the registration of all instruments on the certificates of titles in their names. While it is a rule that
land neither covered by the Spanish Mortgage Law jurisdictional questions may be raised at any time, an exception arises
where estoppel has supervened, 18 as in the instant case.
nor the Torrens System (Act 496), cannot improve
his standing since Act 3344 itself expresses that
registration thereunder would not prejudice prior
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed
DECISION of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.