G.R. No.

83432 May 20, 1991

RADIOWEALTH

FINANCE

COMPANY,

petitioner,

vs.
MANUELITO S. PALILEO, respondent.
FACTS:
On 1970, Spouses Castro sold to private respondent Palileo a parcel of unregistered coconut land
situated in Candiis, Mansayaw, Mainit, Surigao del Norte. The sale was evidenced by a notarized
deed of absolute sale. The deed was not registered in the Registry of Property for unregistered
lands in the province of Surigao del Norte. Since the execution of the deed of sale, appellee
Manuelito Palileo who was then employed at Lianga Surigao del Sur, exercised acts of ownership
over the land through his mother Rafaela Palileo, as administratrix or overseer. Appellee has
continuously paid the real estate taxes on said land from 1971 until the present. On 1976, a
judgement rendered against defendant in a civil case by the CFI of Manila to pay petitioner
Radiowealth. Upon finality of the judgement, a writ of execution was issued. The subject land
which sold to Palileo, was sold in a public auction by the sheriff in favor of radiowealth being the
only bidder. Then a certificate of sale and the deed of final sale was registered with the registry of
deeds in the name of radiowealth.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the rule provided in Article 1544 of the Civil Code is applicable to a parcel of
unregistered land purchased at a judicial sale.
HELD:
The Court held that Article 1544 of the Civil Code cannot be invoked to benefit the purchaser at
the execution sale though the latter was a buyer in good faith and even if this second sale was
registered. It was explained that this is because the purchaser of unregistered land at a sheriffs
execution sale only steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor, and merely acquires the latter's
interest in the property sold as of the time the property was levied upon.

G.R. No. L-18497

DAGUPAN

May 31, 1965

TRADING

COMPANY ,

petitioner,

vs.
RUSTICO MACAM, respondent.
FACTS:
Sammy Maron and his 7 brothers were co-owners of a parcel of land for which they applied for
registration. Pending the proceedings, they sold the same to Macam, who thereafter introduced
substantial improvements thereon. Later on, the property was levied upon and sold in favor of
Dagupan Trading, which thereafter registered the Sheriffs Final Certificate of Sale.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Macam has a better right
HELD:
Yes. In this case, the sale in favor of Macam was executed before the land was registered, while
the sale in favor of Dagupan was made after the registration. In such a case, the Rules of Court
will apply such that the delivery of the Sheriffs Final Certificate of Sale in favor of Dagupan
merely substitutes the latter into the shoes of the seller Maron and acquires all rights, interests, and
claims of the latter. Considering that at the time of the levy, Maron was no longer the owner of the
land, then no title can thereafter pass in favor of Dagupan. Macams title is thus sustained.

G.R. No. L-27587 February 18, 1970

AMADO

CARUMBA,

petitioner,

vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, SANTIAGO BALBUENA and ANGELES BOAQUIA as
Deputy Provincial Sheriff,respondents.
FACTS:
Canuto sold a parcel of land to Carumba by Virtue of Deed of Sale of Unregistered land. The sale
was never registered. Thereafter, canuto was sued for collection of money, and the said land was
sold to Balbuena, who registered it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Carumba has a better right.
Held:
Yes. Article 1544 does not apply in this case. Instead, the rules of court are applicable. Balbuena,
the later vendee, merely steps into the shoes of the judgment debtor and acquires all the rights and
interests of the latter. By the time the lot was sold through the foreclosure proceedings, it was no
longer owned by Canuto by virtue of a prior sale to Carumba-who has a better right.

G.R. No. L-16483 December 7, 1921

PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY, as assignee of Salvador Hermanos, insolvent, plaintiffappellant,
vs.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK , defendant-appellee.
FACTS:
17 parcels located in Guiguinto, Bulacan, were part of the properties inherited by Mariano L.
Bernardo from his father, Marcelo Bernardo, deceased. In view of his minority, guardianship
proceedings were instituted, wherein Socorro Roldan was appointed his guardian. She was the
surviving spouse of Marcelo Bernardo, and the stepmother of said Mariano L. Bernardo.
On July 27, 1947, Socorro Roldan filed in said guardianship proceedings (Special Proceeding
2485, Manila), a motion asking for authority to sell as guardian the 17 parcels for the sum of
P14,700 to Dr. Fidel C. Ramos, the purpose of the sale being allegedly to invest the money in a
residential house, which the minor desired to have on Tindalo Street, Manila. The motion was
granted.
On August 5, 1947 Socorro Roldan, as guardian, executed the proper deed of sale in favor of her
brother-in-law Dr. Fidel C. Ramos (Exhibit A-1), and on August 12, 1947 she asked for, and
obtained, judicial confirmation of the sale. And on October 21, 1947 Socorro Roldan sold four
parcels out of the seventeen to Emilio Cruz for P3,000, reserving to herself the right to repurchase
The Philippine Trust Company replaced Socorro Roldan as guardian, on August 10, 1948. And
this litigation, started two months later, seeks to undo what the previous guardian had done. The
step-mother in effect, sold to herself, the properties of her ward, contends the Plaintiff, and the sale
should be annulled because it violates Article 1459 of the Civil Code prohibiting the guardian from
purchasing either in person or through the mediation of another the property of her ward.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale is void

HELD:
Hence, from both the legal and equitable standpoints these three sales should not be sustained: the
first two for violation of article 1459 of the Civil Code; ryand the third because Socorro Roldan
could pass no title to Emilio Cruz. The annulment carries with is (Article 1303 Civil Code) the
obligation of Socorro Roldan to return the 17 parcels together with their fruits and the duty of the
minor, through his guardian to repay P14,700 with legal interest.

G.R. No. L-34655

March 5, 1932

SIY

BIENG

CONG

&

CO.,

INC.,

plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
Otto Ranft called at the office of the herein plaintiff to purchase hemp (abaca), and he was offered
the bales of hemp as described in the quedans above mentioned. The parties agreed to the aforesaid
price, and on the same date the quedans, together with the covering invoice, were sent to Ranft by
the plaintiff, without having been paid for the hemp, but the plaintiff's understanding was that the
payment would bemade against the same quedans, and it appear that in previous transaction of the
same kind between the bank and the plaintiff, quedans were paid one or two days after their
delivery to them. However, on the day the Quedan was supposed to be delivered, Ranft died.
Thereupon, Siy discovered that Ranft delivered such quedans to the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank to
whom Ranft was indebted to. Siy then filed before the estate proceedings to collect the debt of
Ranft and filed an action against HSBC to demand for the recovery of possession of the quedans.
Siy further argued that there was negligence in the part of HSBC, because Ranft had not yet
acquired ownership over the quedans at the time of its indorsment to HSBC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not HSBC acquired the quedans in good faith
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the quedans is now owned by HSBC, and not by Ranft nor by Siy so as
he claims. Ranft delivered to HSBC the quedans for a valuable consideration, which is valid, and
that as it appears as well, those quedans were negotiable in form and endorsed in blank. So, upon
delivery, it no longer becomes property of the indorser but the indorsee as it appears in this case,
unless he pays for his indebtedness. For a warehouse receipt to be negotiated, it should be properly
indorsed and delivered which is evident in this case. Since it was a blank warehouse receipt, it may
be delivered to any person, and the bearer thereon becomes the owner of the receipt.

G.R. No. 75111 November 21, 1991

MARGARITO ALMENDRA, DELIA ALMENDRA, BERNARDINA OJEDA and
MELECIA

CENO,

petitioners,

vs.
THE HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ANGELES ALMENDRA, ROMAN
ALMENDRA and MAGDALENO CENO, respondents.
Facts:
During the two marriages of Aleja, she and her respective husbands acquired parcels of land. The
lands from the first marriage were duly partitioned. After the death of her second husband, Aleja
sold to her son Roman, and daughter Angeles, parcels of land. After Alejas death, her other
children filed a complaint against Roman & Angeles for the annulment of the deeds of sale in their
favor executed by Aleja; and to partition the properties. Among the questioned sales was the one
executed in favor of Angeles which is a half portion of the conjugal property of Aleja and her
2nd husband, the hilly portion was specifically marked in a sketch.
Issue:
Whether or not Aleja may validly sell a one half portion of a conjugal property, the hilly portion
of which had been specifically marked in a sketch.
Held:
Yes, she may validly sell one-half portion of a lot, the hilly portion of which had been specifically
identified/marked in a sketch, but there must be proof that the conjugal property had been
partitioned after the death of the 2ndhusband. Otherwise, the sale may be considered valid only as
Alejas one half interest therein.
Aleja could not have sold particular hilly portion specified in the deed of sale in absence of proof
that the conjugal partnership property had been partitioned after the death of Santiago. Before such
partition, Aleja could not claim title to any definite portion of the property for all she had was an
ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire property.

G.R. No. 61584 November 25, 1992

DONATO S. PAULMITAN, JULIANA P. FANESA and RODOLFO FANESA, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ALICIO PAULMITAN, ELENA PAULMITAN, ABELINO
PAULMITAN, ANITA PAULMITAN, BAKING PAULMITAN, ADELINA PAULMITAN
and ANITO PAULMITAN, respondents.
FACTS:
When Agatona died, she was succeeded by 2sons: Pascual and Donato. She left 2 parcels of land.
Pascual died leaving 7 heirs. The titles remained in the name of Agatona and the lots were never
partitioned. Donato, thereafter, executed an affidavit of Declaration of Heirshipunilaterally
adjudicating one of the lots to himself. He thereafter sold the entire lot to his daughter Juliana. For
the failure to pay taxes, the lot was forfeited and sold at a public auction, but Juliana later redeemed
the property. The Heirs of Pascual then surfaced and sought to partition the property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Juliana became the owner of the entire lot upon her redemption of the property
HELD:
NO. From the moment of Agatonas death, her heirs, Pascual and Donato, became co-owners of
the undivided lot. When Donato died, his pro-indiviso share transferred to his heirs. That being the
case, when Donato sold the entire property to his daughter, he was merely co-owner thereof and
transferred only his undivided share. If a co-owner alienates the entire property without the consent
of the other co-owners, the sale will affect only his share. Thus, only undivided share passed onto
Juliana. The fact that Juliana redeemed the property does not operate to terminate the coownership. It merely entitles her to reimbursement from the other co-ownersredemption being
a necessary expense. Until reimbursement, Juliana holds a lien upon the lot for the amount due to
her. However, a partition is in order.

G.R. No. L-17681

February 26, 1965

MINDANAO ACADEMY, INC., MAURICIO O. BAS, ERLINDA D. DIAZ, accompanied

by her husband ANTOLIN DIAZ, ESTER AIDA D. BAS, accompanied by her husband
MAURICIO O. BAS, ROSALINDA D. BELLEZA, accompanied by her husband
APOLINARIO BELLEZA, LUZ MINDA D. DAJAO, accompanied by her husband
ELIGIO C. DAJAO, ADELAIDA D. NUESA, accompanied by her husband WILSON
NUESA, PEDRO N. ABUTON, SY PAOCO, JOSEFA DIGNUM, and PERFECTO
VELASQUEZ,

plaintiffs-appellees,

vs.
ILDEFONSO D. YAP, ROSENDA A. DE NUQUI, and SOTERO A. DIONISIO,
JR.,

defendants,

ILDEFONSO D. YAP, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Rosenda and Sotero were among co-owners of 3 parcels of land, which they sold to Ildefonso Yap
for some P100K without the consent of the other co-owners. They included in the sale certain
buildings and laboratory and other educational equipment within the said properties, which were
actually owned by Mindanao Academy. Mindanao Academy and the other co-owners assailed the
validity of the sale. The trial court declared the sale null and void. Yap contends that Erlinda, one
of the co-owners owning 5/12 share of the co-ownership, does not have the standing to challenge
the sale for being in bad faith.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale is null and void as to its entirety
HELD:
YES. Although the general rule is that if a co-owner alienates the entire property without the
consent of the other co-owners, the sale will affect only his share, such rule does not apply if the
property cannot be partitioned/subdivided. In this case, aside from the fact that Rosenda and Sotero

cannot sell the entire property including the school equipment, they cannot also sell their undivided
share in the co-ownership. Otherwise, the properties sold would be subject to a partition, which
cannot happen to the properties in this case. School equipment, as well as the buildings, are
indivisible. Thus, they cannot be subject to partition.