BAYOCA v. NOGALES

G.R. No.
138201 September 12, 2000
FRANCISCO BAYOCA v. GAUDIOSO NOGALES
FACTS: The petition poses a challenge against the appellate court’s conclusion that the first sale of a parcel of
land to respondent Gaudioso Nogales prevails over the second sale of the said property to petitioners Francisco
Bayoca, Nonito Dichoso and spouses Pio and Dolores Dichoso.
Following the unnotarized “Deed of Sale of Real Property with Right to Repurchase” executed by
Preciosa Canino, one of heirs of the spouses Canino,in favor of Julia Deocareza on December 15, 1947, the
former executed a notarized "Deed of Sale of Real Property with Right to Repurchase" on January 31, 1951
over the property, in favor of the latter with a right to repurchase the same within one (1) year from the execution
of said deed. However, Preciosa failed to repurchase the property leading Gaudioso Nogales, the Appellee, to
acquire the property on the basis of an unnotarized “Compromise Agreement” and “Deed of Absolute Sale” which
was executed on April 29, 1968 by Julia Deocareza. Despite such fact, Preciosa sold at different times portions of
the property in issue to the appellants, Francisco Bayoca, Nonito Dichoso and the Spouses Pio Dichoso and
Dolores Dichoso and Erwin Bayoca.
Gaudioso then filed a complaint against the appellants "Accion Reinvindicatoria with Damages" alleging
that he purchased the said property from Julia Deocareza and thus acquired ownership thereof and that the
Appellants respectively purchased portions of said property, in bad faith and through fraud since they knew of
the pendency of a civil case involving the said property. In their answer, the Appellants alleged that Preciosa
Canino and her siblings acquired just title over the property when they executed their " Deed of Partitition of
Real Property" and conveyed titles to the vendees hence they are buyers in good faith.
ISSUE: Who has the superior right to the parcel of land sold to different buyers at different times by its former
owners?
RULING: Gaudioso Nogales has superior right to the said parcel of land.
The evidence on record shows that, on January 31, 1951, Preciosa Canino and her siblings sold the
property in favor of Julia Deocareza under the "Deed of Sale with Right to Repurchase ." The latter, in turn,
sold the said property to the Appellee under the "Deed of Absolute Sale", on April 29, 1968. The appellee had the
said "Deed of Absolute Sale registered with the Registry of Deeds and entered in the Registry Records. The
registration of the deed, under Act 3344, constitutes constructive notice of said sale to the whole world . This was
illustrated in the case of Santiago v. CA wherein the Supreme Court ruled that "Registration, however, by the first
buyer under Act 3344 can have the effect of constructive notice to the second buyer that can defeat his right as
such buyer in good faith.”
On the other hand, the sales of portions of the property to the Appellants, by Preciosa Canino and her
siblings, occurred during the period from June 21, 1971 to October 13, 1989 or long after the Appellee had
purchased the property. Inscrutably, the sale to the Appellee was registered with the Registry of properties much
earlier than the registration, if any, of the sales to the Appellants and that the Appellee took possession of the
said property much earlier than the Appellants.
On account of the undisputed fact of registration under Act No. 3344 by Nogales as the first buyer,
necessarily, there is absent good faith in the registration of the sale by the petitioners Erwin Bayoca and the
spouses Pio and Lourdes Dichoso for which they had been issued certificates of title in their names. It follows that
their title to the land cannot be upheld. As for petitioners Francisco Bayoca and Nonito Dichoso, they failed to
register the portions of the property sold to them, and merely rely on the fact that they declared the same in their
name for taxation purposes. Suffice it to state that such fact, does not, by itself, constitute evidence of
ownership,and cannot likewise prevail over the title of Nogales.
In addtion, it is worth mentioning that while the 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 create or vest title. They merely confirm or record title already existing and
vested. They cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true 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. 14 The Torrens System
is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of registration but it cannot be used for
the perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the registered land.

BAYOCA v. NOGALES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYOCA v. NOGALES

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BAYOCA v. NOGALES

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

138201 September 12, 2000

FRANCISCO BAYOCA v. GAUDIOSO NOGALES

You might also like