4. CAMPILLO vs. COURT OF APPEALS.
docx 1
LTD - Module 7 - by MBC
4. Sostenes CAMPILLO, petitioner, vs. Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and Zenaida Diaz
Vda. De Santos, in her capacity as Administratrix of the Intestate Estate of the late
Simplicio S. Santos, respondents.
G.R. No. L-56483, 1984 May 29
FACTS:
On February 27, 1961, Tomas de Vera and his wife Felisa Serafico sold two parcels
of land in Tondo, Manila to Simplicio Santos, now deceased and is represented by
Zenaida Diaz Vda. de Santos, the herein private respondent. Said sale was however
never presented for registration in the office of the Registry of Deeds of Manila nor
noted in the title covering the property.
On January 27, 1962, petitioner Sostenes Campillo obtained a judgment for a sum
of money against Tomas de Vera in a Civil Case. The City Sheriff levied on three parcels
of land covered by TCT No. 63559 in the name of Tomas de Vera, including the two
parcels of land which the latter previously sold to Simplicio Santos.
On July 25, 1962, the three parcels of land were sold at public auction for
P17,550.81 in favor of petitioner Campillo who was issued the corresponding certificate
of sale. After the lapse of one year, the City Sheriff executed the final deed of sale in
favor of petitioner over the three parcels of land levied and sold on execution. On
February 4, 1964, TCT No. 63559 was cancelled and in lieu of it, TCT No. 73969 was
issued in the name of petitioner Sostenes Campillo. Upon petition by the latter, the
Registry of Deeds canceled TCT No. 73969 and issued TCT Nos. 74019 and 74020 over
the disputed Lots 1 and 2, respectively.
Claiming to be the owner of the two parcels of land by reason of the previous sale
to him by Tomas de Vera, Simplicio Santos filed an action to annul the levy, notice of
sale, sale at public auction and final deed of sale of Lots 1 and 2 in favor of petitioner
Campillo, with damages. In resisting the complaint, petitioner Campillo alleged that he
is an innocent purchaser for value and that the supposed previous sale could not be
preferred over the levy and sale at public auction because it was not registered.
ISSUE:
4. CAMPILLO vs. COURT OF APPEALS.docx 2
Who has a better right or title to the disputed two parcels of land — Simplicio
Santos who earlier purchased them in a private sale but failed to register his sale, or
Sostenes Campillo (petitioner) who subsequently purchased them at an execution
sale and obtained a certificate of title?
HELD:
Petitioner Campillo has a better right or title because he registered said lands to the
Registry of Deeds. It is settled in this jurisdiction that a sale of real estate, whether
made as a result of a private transaction or of a foreclosure or execution sale,
becomes legally effective against third persons only from the date of its
registration. Consequently, and considering that the properties subject matter hereof
were actually attached and levied upon at a time when said properties stood in the
official records of the Registry of Deeds as still owned by and registered in the name of
the judgment debtor, Tomas de Vera, the attachment, levy and subsequent sale of said
properties are proper and legal. The net result is that the execution sale made in favor
of the herein petitioner transferred to him all the rights, interest and participation of the
judgment debtor in the aforestated properties as actually appearing in the certificate of
title, unaffected by any transfer or encumbrance not so recorded therein.
PRINCIPLES AND ANALYSIS:
Section 51 of PD No. 1529:
Section 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner. — An owner of
registered land may convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in
accordance with existing laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or
other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law. But no deed, mortgage, lease or
other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect registered land
shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract
between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make
registration.
The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land
insofar as third persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the
registration shall be made in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city
where the land lies.
4. CAMPILLO vs. COURT OF APPEALS.docx 3
A person dealing with registered land is not required to go behind the register to
determine the condition of the property. He is only charged with notice of the burdens
on the property which are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of title. To
require him to do more is to defeat one of the primary objects of the Torrens system. A
bona fide purchaser for value of such property at an auction sale acquires good title as
against a prior transferee of same property if such transfer was unrecorded at the time
of the auction sale. (Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 98 SCRA 207)
cf. Campillo vs. Court of Appeals
The sale of property from Tomas and Felisa to Simplicio Santos was never
presented for registration nor noted in the title covering the property. On the other
hand, the sale to petitioner Sostenes Campillo by the same spouses was duly registered
as required by law. The act of registration is the operative act to convey or affect the
land insofar as third persons are concerned. Thus, petitioner Campillo has a better
right or title to the disputed two parcels of land.
Importance of Registration
Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides that if the same immovable property is sold
to different vendees, “the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in
good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.”
cf. Campillo vs. Court of Appeals
Since the sale to Santos by spouses Tomas and Felisa of the same properties was
not registered when they bought it on February 27, 1961, then the duly registered sale
on July 25, 1962 to petitioner Campillo makes Campillo the first who registered it in
good faith.
