ABRIGO V.
DE VERA ● October 16, 1997 – Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, sold the house and
LRC and Registries of Deeds | June 21, 2004 | Panganiban, J. lot to the herein Petitioner-Spouses Noel and Julie Abrigo.
● October 23, 1997 – Villafania sold the same house and lot to
SUMMARY: The Sps. Abrigo purchased a parcel of disputed land from a Romana de Vera
party who had bought it from Villafania. Unbeknownst to the party who sold ○ Romana de Vera registered the sale and as a consequence,
them the land, Villafania had registered the land under the Torrens system TCT No. 22515 was issued in her name.
and subsequently sold the property to de Vera, who then had the Torrens ● De Vera filed an action for Forcible Entry and Damages against Sps.
title registered in her name. Due to this double sale, Sps. Abrigo filed a suit Abrigo before the MTC.
to annul the sale to de Vera. The SC upheld the CA’s decision that de Vera ○ Both parties then submitted a Motion for Dismissal in in view
had the better right over the property as she relied on the Torrens title in of their agreement in the instant case that neither of them
good faith and registered the property in her name under the Torrens can physically take possession of the property in question
system as a purchaser in good faith and for value. until the instant case is terminated.
○ Hence the ejectment case was dismissed.
DOCTRINE: ● Spouses Abrigo filed a case with the RTC for annulment of
Between two buyers of the same immovable property registered under documents, injunction, preliminary injunction, restraining order and
the Torrens system, the law gives ownership priority to (1) the first damages against de Vera and Villafania.
registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and (3) ○ The RTC awarded the properties to the Sps. Abrigo and
finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title. This provision, ordered Villafania to pay damages to de Vera and the Sps.
however, does not apply if the property is not registered under the Torrens Abrigo.
system. ○ Both parties appealed. (Sps. Abrigo wanted moral and
A Torrens title, once registered, serves as a notice to the whole world. exemplary damages)
All persons must take notice, and no one can plead ignorance of the ● The CA held that a void title could not give rise to a valid one and
registration. hence dismissed the appeal of de Vera. Since Villafania had already
transferred ownership to Tigno-Salazar and Cave-Go, the
subsequent sale to De Vera was deemed void.
FACTS: ○ The CA also found no sufficient basis to award the Sps.
● May 27, 1993 – Gloria Villafania sold a house and lot located at Abrigo moral and exemplary damages.
Banaoang, Mangaldan, Pangasinan and covered by Tax Declaration ● However, upon reconsideration, the CA found de Vera to be a
No. 1406 to Rosenda Tigno-Salazar and Rosita Cave-Go. purchaser in good faith and for value and that she had relied in good
○ The said sale became a subject of a suit for annulment of faith on the Torrens title of her vendor and must this be protected.
documents between the vendor and the vendees. ○ The Sps. Abrigo filed a Petition for Review with the SC.
● December 7, 1993 – The RTC rendered judgment approving the ■ They contend that Villafania could not have
Compromise Agreement submitted by the parties. transferred the property to De Vera as it no longer
○ Villafania was given one year from the date of the belonged to her. They further claim that the sale
Compromise Agreement to buy back the house and lot, and could not be validated since de Vera was not a
failure to do so would mean that the sale in favor of Tigno- purchaser in good faith and for value.
Salazar and Cave-Go shall remain valid and binding and the ○ De Vera contends that her registration under the Torrens
plaintiff shall voluntarily vacate the premises without need of system should prevail over that of petitioners who recorded
any demand. theirs under Act 3344. She relies on the statement of Justice
○ Villafania failed to buy back the house and lot, so the Paras that:
vendees declared the lot in their name. ■ “If the land is registered under the Land Registration
● Unknown to said vendees, Villafania obtained a free patent over the Act (and has therefore a Torrens Title), and it is sold
parcel of land involved on March 15, 1988 as evidenced by OCT No. but the subsequent sale is registered not under the
P-30522. Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, as
○ The said free patent was later on cancelled by TCT No. amended, such sale is not considered
212598 on April 11, 1996. REGISTERED xxx”
o A Torrens title, once registered, serves as a notice to the
ISSUES & RATIO whole world. All persons must take notice, and no one can
W/N de Vera had a better right to the property – YES. plead ignorance of the registration.
Article 1544 of the Civil Code states the law on double sale. o “Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting
o The law provides that a double sale of immovables transfers unregistered lands is ‘without prejudice to a third party with a
ownership to (1) the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the better right.’ This has been held to mean that the mere
first possessor in good faith; and (3) finally, the buyer who in registration of a sale in one’s favor does not give him any
good faith presents the oldest title. There is no ambiguity in right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner
the application of this law with respect to lands registered of the land having previously sold the same to somebody
under the Torrens system. else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.” (Radiowealth
This principle is in full accord with Section 51 of PD 1529 which Finance Co. vs. Palileo)
provides that no deed, mortgage, lease or other voluntary instrument The Court also found that de Vera was an innocent purchaser for
-- except a will -- purporting to convey or affect registered land shall value, adopting the CA’s findings that she was in good faith, as there
take effect as a conveyance or bind the land until its registration. was no evidence showing that she knew or had notice that the same
Thus, if the sale is not registered, it is binding only between the seller was under litigation or that the Sps. Abrigo had a claim on it.
and the buyer but it does not affect innocent third persons.
The Court agrees with the contention of de Vera that her registration Ruling/Dispositive Portion:
under the Torrens system should prevail.
o In the instant case, both Sps. Abrigo and de Vera registered WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed
the sale of the property. Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
o Since neither Sps. Abrigo nor their predecessors (Tigno-
Salazar and Cave-Go) knew that the property was covered
by the Torrens system, they registered their respective sales
under Act 3344.
o For her part, de Vera registered the transaction under the
Torrens system because, during the sale, Villafania had
presented the TCT covering the property.
Soriano v. Heirs of Magali held that registration must be done in the
proper registry in order to bind the land. Since the property in dispute
in the present case was already registered under the Torrens
system, petitioners’ registration of the sale under Act 3344 was not
effective for purposes of Article 1544 of the Civil Code.
In Naawan Community Rural Bank v. Court of Appeals, the Court
upheld the right of a party who had registered the sale of land under
the Property Registration Decree, as opposed to another who had
registered a deed of final conveyance under Act 3344. In that case,
the "priority in time" principle was not applied, because the land was
already covered by the Torrens system at the time the conveyance
was registered under Act 3344.
o For the same reason, inasmuch as the registration of the
sale to Respondent De Vera under the Torrens system was
done in good faith, this sale must be upheld over the sale
registered under Act 3344 to Sps. Abrigo.
Sps. Abrigo cannot validly argue that they were fraudulently misled
into believing that the property was unregistered
