Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2397 August 9, 1950
TOMASA QUIMSON and MARCOS SANTOS, petitioners,
vs.
FRANCISCO ROSETE, respondent.
Marcelino Lontok for petitioners.
Ignacio Mangosing for respondent.
TUASON, J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zambales. The case involves s dispute over a parcel of land sold to two different persons.
The Facts as found by the Court of Appeals are these:
Esta finca pertenecia originalmente al hoy difunto Dionisio Quimson, quien, en 7 de junio de 1932, otorgo la escritura Exhibit A de trespaso de la misma a favor de su hija Tomasa Quimson, pero continuo en su posesion y goce. La vendio a los esposos Magno Agustin y Paulina Manzano en 3 de Mayo de 1935, con pacto de recomprar dentro del plazo de seis años; y dos años escasos despues, en 5 de abril de 1937, la volvio a vender a Francisco Rosete, tambien con pacto de retro por el termino de cinco años, despues de haber verificado su recompra de Agustin y Manzano, con dinero que le habla facilitado Rosete, otorgandose a este facto la escritura de venta Exhibit 1. Desde entoces Rosete es el que esta en su posesion y disfrute, de una manera pacifica y quieta, aun despues de la muerte de Dionisio Quimson, ocurrida en 6 de junio de 1939, hasta el enero de 1943, en que Tomasa Quimson acudio al Juez de Paz de San Marcelino , Zambales, para que este interviniera en un arreglo con Rosete sobre dicha finca, cuyo fracaso motivo una carrera hacia Iba, la capital de Zambales, para ganar la prioridad del registro e inscripcion de las escrituras de venta Exhibits A y 1 que Dionisio Quimson otorgara a favor de Tomasa Quimson y Francisco Rosete, respectivamente, carreraque aquella gano por haber llegado a la meta una hora antes, a las 9:30 a.m. del 17 de febrero de 1943, en tanto que este la alcanzo a las 10:30 a.m. de ese mismo dia.
Two questions are raised: (1) What were the effects of the registration of plaintiff's document? and (2) Who was prior in possession? The Court of Appeals' answer to the question is , None, and to the second, the defendant or second purchaser.
We do not deem it necessary to pass upon the first issue in the light of the view we take of the last, to which we will address ourselves presently.
Articles 1462 and 1473 of the Civil Code provide:
ART. 1462. The thing sold shall be deemed delivered, when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee.
When the sale is made by means of a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the said instrument the contrary does not appear or may not be clearly inferred.
ART. 1473. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who first recorded it in the registry.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall belong to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence of this, to the person who represents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
In the case of Buencamino vs. Viceo (13 Phil., 97), Mr. Justice Willard, speaking for the court and citing article 1462 says: "Upon a sale of real estate the execution of a notarial document of sale is a sufficient delivery of the property sold.".
In the case of Florendo vs. Foz (20 Phil., 388), the court, through Mr. Chief Justice Arellano, rules that "When the sale is made by menas of a public instrument, the execution thereof is tantamount to conveyance of the subject matter, unless the contrary clearly follows or be deduced from such instrument itself, and in the absence of this condition such execution by the vendor is per se a formal or symbolical conveyance of the property sold, that is, the vedor in the instrument itself authorizes the purchaser to used the title of ownership as proof that latter is thenceforth the owner of the property."
More decisive of the case at the bar, being almost on all fours with it, is the case of Sanchez vs. Ramon (40 Phil., 614). There. appeared that one Fernandez sold a piece of land to Marcelino Gomez and Narcisa Sanchez under pacto de retro in a public instrument. The purchasers neither recorded the deed in the registry of property nor ever took materials possession of the land. Later, Fernandez sold the same property by means of a private document to Ramos who immediately entered upon the possession of it. It was held that, according to article 1473 of the Civil Code, Gomez and Sanchez were the first in possession and. consequently, that the sale in their favor was superior. Says the court, through Mr. Justice Avanceña, later chief justice:
To what kind of possession is acquired by the materials occupancy of the thing or right possessed, or by the fact that the latter is subjected to the action of our will, or by the appropriate acts and legal formalities established for acquiring possession (art. 438, Civil Code). by a simple reasoning, it appears that, because the law does not mention to which of these kinds of the possession the article refers, it must be understood that it refers to all of these kinds. The proposition that this article, according to its letter, refers to the materials possession and excludes the symbolic does not seem to be founded upon a solid ground. It is said that the law, in the first possession and then the date of the date of the title and as a public instruments is a title, it is claimed that the inference is that the law has deliberately intented to place the symbolic possession, which the execution of the public document implies, after the materials possession. This argument, however, would only be forceful if the title, mentioned by this article, includes public instruments, and this would only be true if public instruments are not included in the idea of the possession spoken of in said article. In other words the strength of the arguments rests in that this possession is precisely the materials and does not include the symbolic. Consequently, the argument is deficient for it is begging the same question, because if this possession includes the symbolic, which is acquired by the execution of a public instruments, it should be understood that the title, mentioned by the law as the next cause of preference, does not include instruments.
Furthermore, our interpretation of this article 1473 is more in consonance with the principles of the justice. The execution of the public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the realty sold (art. 1462, Civil Code ) and its possession by the vedee (art. 438).Under these conditions the sale is considered consummated and completely transfers to the vendee all of the thing. the vendee by virtue of this sale has acquired everything and nothing, absolutely nothing, is left to the vendor. Form this moment the vendor is a stranger to the thing sold like any other who has never been its owner. As the obligation of even delivering it. If he continues taking materials possession of it, is simply on account of the vendee's tolerance and, in this sense, his possession is vendor's possession. And if the latter should have to ask him for the delivery of this materials possession it would not be by virtue of the sale, because this has been already consummated and has produced all its effects, but by virtue of the vendee's ownership, in the same were not the vendor. This means that after the sale of the realty by means of a public instruments, the vendor, who resells it to another, does not transmitted anything to this second sale, takes materials possession of the thing, he does it as mere detainer, and it would be unjust to protect this detention against the rights to the thing lawfully acquired by the first vendee.
We are of the opinion that the possession mentioned in the article 1473 (for determining who has better right when the same piece of land has been sold several times by the vendor ) includes not the materials but also the symbolic possession, which is acquired by the execution of a public instrument.
The Supreme Court of Spain and Mr. Manresa are of the same opinion. On pp. 157 ,158 Vol. X, of his treatise on the Spanish Civil Code. Manresa comments:
II. Observacion comun a la venta de muebles y a la de inmuebles. — Hemos interpretado el precepto de articulo 1.473, en sus parrafos 1. y 3. en el sentido mas racional mas racional, aunque no tal vez en el mas adecuado a las palabras que se emplean. Las palabras tomar posesion, y primero en la posesion las hemos considerado como equivalentes a la de la tradicion real o fingida a que se refieren los articulos 1.462 al 1. 464 porque si la posesion materials del objeto puede otorgar preferencia e cuestiones de possesion y asi lo re-conoe el articulo 445. no debe darla nunca en cuestiones de propiedad y de la propiedad habla expresamente el articulo 1.473. Asi en nuestra opinion, robustecida por la doctrine que rectamente se deriva de la sentencia de 24 de Novembre de 1894, vendida una finca A. en escritura publica despues a B., aunque se incate materialmente este del inmueble, la etrega de la cosa elvendedor carecia ya de la facultad de disponer de ella .
The statement of Sr. Manresa which is said to sustain the theory of the Court of Appeals, expresses, as we under stand that statement, the literal meaning of article 1473, for the decision of November 24, 1894 reflects, according to the learned author, the intention of the lawmaker and is in the conformity with the principles of justice. now under both the a Spanish and Philippine rules of interpretation, the spirit, the intent, the law prevails over its letter.
Counsel for defendant denies that the land was sold to plaintiff's Tomasa Quimson or that the Court of Appeals so founds. All that latter court declared, he says, was that a deed of the land was executed by the original owner on June 7, 1932.
The findings that a deed of conveyance was made by Dionisio Quimson in favor of his daughter could have no other meaning, in the absence of any qualifying statement , that the land was sold by the father to his daughter. Furthermore, this was the trial court's explicit finding which was not reversed by the Court of Appeals and stand as the fact of the case. Looking into the documents itself Exhibits A states categorically that the vendor received form the vendee the consideration of sale, P 250, acknowledge before the notary public the notary public having executed the instruments of his own free will.
The expression in the court's decision in the case of Cruzado vs. Escaler (34 Phil., 17), cited by the Court of Appeals, Apparently to the effect that physical possession by the purchaser is essential to the consummation of a sale of real of estate, is at best obiter dictum; for the court distinctly found that the sale to plaintiff's Cruzado's father was a sham, execution with the sole purpose of enabling the senior Cruzado to mortgage the property and become procurador. And with reference to the failure of the second vendee, Escaler, to register his purchase, the court disregarded the omission as well as the entry of the first sale in the registry because that entry was made by the plaintiff, son and heir of the first supposed vendee, more than a score years after the alleged transaction, when the plaintiff was no longer or had any right therein (in the land). Because it already belonged to the defendant Escaler, its lawful owner." When Escaler, the second purchase was sued he had become the owner of the land by prescription. The defendant's possession in the present case fell far short of having ripened into title by prescription when the plaintiff commenced her action.
For the reasons above stated, we are constrained to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. Because the Appellate Court found for the defendant, it made no findings on damages for the latter's used of the property in controversy. Not being authorized in this appeal to examine the evidence we have to accept the trials court's appraisal of the damages. Judge Llanes assessed the damages of P 180 for the occupation of the agricultural years 143-44,1944-45 and 1945-46, and P 60 a year thereafter until the possession of the property was restituted to the plaintiffs.
Let judgment be entered in accordance with the tenor of this decision, with costs against the defendant.
Moran, C.J., Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon and Montemayor, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
