7/31/2019 Ulep v CA

1/2

Ulep v CAG.R. No. 125254October 11, 2005

NATURE: Petition for Review under Rule 45 seeking the reversal and settingaside of the decision of the Court of Appeals.

FACTS:

1. Valentin Ulep sold the one-half (1/2) eastern portion of Lot 840, comprisingan area of 1,635 square meters, to respondent Maxima Rodico, while theremaining one-half (1/2) western portion with the same area, to his son

Atinedoro Ulep married to Beatriz Ulep, and to his other daughter ValentinaUlep.

2. On June 1971, Atinedoro Ulep, his wife Beatriz and sister Valentina Ulepsold the one-half (1/2) portion of the area sold to them by their father to theirbrother Samuel Ulep and the latters wife, Susana Repogia-Ulep. The sale wasregistered in the Office of Registry of Pangasinan on February 1973.

3. Later, an area of 507.5 square meters of the western portion of Lot 840 wassold by the spouses Atinedoro Ulep and Beatriz Ulep to respondent WarlitoParingit and the latters spouse Encarnacion Gante

4. All the foregoing transactions were done and effected without an actualground partition or formal subdivision of Lot 840

5. In June 1977, respondent Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) begun constructing itschapel on Lot 840. In the process, INC encroached portions thereof allegedlypertaining to petitioners and blocked their pathways

6. This prompted Samuel Ulep and sister Rosita Ulep to makeinquiries with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan. Theydiscovered from the records of said office that a deed of sale bearing dateDecember 21, 1954, was purportedly executed by their brother AtinedoroUlep his, wife Beatriz and their sister Valentina Ulep in favor of INC over aportion of 620 square meters, more or less, of Lot 840

7. They also discovered that on July 9, 1975, an affidavit of subdivision wasexecuted by respondents INC, Maxima Rodico and the spouses WarlitoParingit and Encarnation Gante, on the basis of which affidavit Lot 840 wassubdivided into four lots.

8. The petitioners filed a complaint forQuieting of Title, Reconveyance andDeclaration of Nullity of Title and Subdivision Plan with Damages against

respondents INC, Maxima Rodico and the spouses Warlito Paringit and

Encarnacion Gante. They allege that they and the respondents are co-ownersof Lot 840.

9. The spouses Atinedoro Ulep and Beatriz Ulep and their sister ValentinaUlep denied having executed a deed of sale in favor of INC over a portionof620 square meters of Lot 840, claiming that their signatures appearing onthe deed were forged. They claimed that at the most, they sold to INC only 100square meters and not 620 square meters. Samuel and Valentina Ulep also

averred that lot was subdivided without their knowledge and consent.

10. INC asserted that it purchased from the spouses Atinedoro Ulep andBeatriz Ulep and their sister Valentina Ulep the portion containing 620 squaremeters of Lot 840 on December 21, 1954, as evidenced by a deed of saleduly registered with the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan.

11. The trial court renders judgment in favor of the petitioners, ordering INC tovacate and surrender 520 square meters of the land in favor of the SpousesSamuel Ulep. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision

ISSUE: Who has a better right over the 620 square meters of landthespouses Samuel Ulep or INC?

HELD: The INC has a better right over the 620 square meters.

As the Court sees it, the present controversy is a classic case of double sale.On December 21, 1954, Atinedoro Ulep, his wife Beatriz Ulep and sisterValentina Ulep sold the disputed area (620 square-meter) of Lot 840 to INC.Subsequently, on January 18, 1971, a second sale was executed by the samevendors in favor of spouses Samuel Ulep and Susana Ulep. The Court is,therefore, called upon to determine which of the two groups of buyers has abetter right to the area in question. x x x

The law provides that a double sale of immovable transfers ownership to (1)the first registrant in good faith; (2) then, the first possessor in good faith; and(3) finally, the buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title.

Jurisprudence teaches that the governing principle isprimus tempore, potiorjure (first in time, stronger in right). Knowledge gained by the first buyer of thesecond sale cannot defeat the first buyers rights except where the secondbuyer registers in good faith the second sale aheadof the first, as provided bythe aforequoted provision of the Civil Code.

Such knowledge of the first buyer does not bar him from availing of his rightsunder the law, among them to registerfirsthis purchase as against the secondbuyer. In converso, knowledge gained by the second buyer of the first sale

defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale, since such

7/31/2019 Ulep v CA

2/2

knowledge taints his prior registration with bad faith. This is the price exactedby the same provision of the Civil Code for the second buyer to be able todisplace the first buyer; before the second buyer can obtain priority over thefirst, he must show that he acted in good faith throughout (i.e. ignorance of thefirst sale and of the first buyers rights) from the time of acquisition until the titleis transferred to him by registration, or, failing registration, by delivery ofpossession

Per records, the sale of the disputed 620 square-meter portion of Lot 840 torespondent INC was made on December 21, 1954 and registered with theRegistry of Deeds of Pangasinan on January 5, 1955. In fact, INC was issueda title over the same portion on September 23, 1975. On the other hand, theconveyance to the spouses Samuel Ulep and Susana Repogia-Ulep happenedon January 18, 1971 and the spouses registered their document ofconveyance only on February 22, 1973Clearly, not only was respondent INC the first buyer of the disputed area. Itwas also the first to register the sale in its favor long before petitionersSamuels and Susanas intrusion as second buyers. Although Samuel andSusana thereafter registered the sale made to them, they did so only after18years from the time INC caused the registration of its own document of sale

In the instant case, the registration made by respondent INC of its deed of salemore than satisfies this requirement. The same thing cannot be said ofpetitioners Samuel Ulep and Susana Ulep. Said petitioners, by their ownadmission, were aware that there existed an agreement between INC andvendors Atinedoro Ulep, his wife Beatriz and sister Valentina Ulep involving aportion of 100 square meters of Lot 840. Knowledge of such transactionshould have put the spouses Samuel Ulep and Susana Ulep upon such inquiryor investigation as might be necessary to acquaint them with the possibledefects in the title of their vendors.

Petitioners insist that the conveyance of only 100 square meters to INC was infact evidenced by a deed of sale notarized by a certain Atty. BenjaminFernandez.[19] However, they sorely failed to produce in court the said allegeddeed of sale. They could have, at the very least, presented Atty. Fernandez toprove the existence of that deed, but they did not. The only plausibleconclusion is that no such deed exists.

On the other hand, to bolster its claim of ownership, respondent INC presentedthe December 21, 1954 deed of sale executed in its favor by the spouses

Atinedoro and Beatriz Ulep and Valentina Ulep over a portion of 620 squaremeters of Lot 840. To be sure, INCs deed of sale was duly notarized by Atty.Bernabe Salcedo Calimlim

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/125254.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/125254.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/oct2005/125254.htm#_ftn19