Case Digest : MAGDALINO, Petitioner vs.

BRAGAT, Respondent
Student : JOEL G. AYON
Subject : Obligations and Contracts
Professor : ATTY. ELEANOR P. DELA PENA

FACTS:

- Spouses Pastrano were the original owners of lot no. 19986 (subject property) with
OCT no. P-2035, consisting of 1, 015 sq.mtrs. issued on Nov. 18, 1980.

- Before the issuance of OCT spouses Pastrano sold Eustaquio Ledesma by Deed of
Definite sale of Unregistered Coconut and Residential Land.

- In 1970, Ledesma verbally sold to Spouses Badillas 200 sq.mtrs. of the subject
property on installment basis. The possession was then transferred to Badillas which
they claimed as designated lot no. 19986-B.

- On April 18, 1978, the spouses Bragat- Florito and Fe bought 991 sq.m of the property
from Ledesma and his wife via Deed of Absolute Sale of a residential lot.

- On May 5, 1984, Spouses Pastrano executed another Absolute sale of registered

Land in favor herein respondent Fe Bragat over the subject property. On the same date
Pastrano executed an affidavit of loss of OCT P-2035. Bragat petitioned the court of
issuances of Owner’s duplicate copy and the RTC granted.

- On October 2, 1987, Spouses Pastrano executed yet another Deed of Sale of

Registered Land in favor of Bragat over subject property the original OCT P-2035 was
cancelled and the new TCT no. T-477759 issued to Bragat.

- On March 7, 1991, Bragat made written demand to vacate against Spouses Badillas
and the latter refused the demand and raised the earlier sale made by spouses
Pastrano to Ledesma and subsequent sale by Ledesma to Badillas.

- The RTC decision was in favor of spouses Bragat since spouses Badillas lack of proof
but later they presented handwritten and type written receipts.
- RTC said that Ledesma has no longer own the land and transferred nothing to
Badillas.
- The CA affirmed the RTC decision but modified the same on the finding that Ledesma
sold only 991 sq.m. to Bragat in 1978, henc, it held that the remaining 24 sq.m. rom
1,015 sq.m. property was validly sold to Badillas in 1991and therefore recovered by
Badillas.

- This case is remanded to the court of origin for the purpose of determining the 24 sq.
m. lot to be reconveyed to the appellants.

ISSUE: Whether or not spouses Badillas have ownership over the subject matter?

HELD:

This ruling is compelled by the involvement in this case of not just one instance of
double sales but a series of such sales made by two different vendors. Art. 1544 of
NCC relates that ownership shall belong to the person acquiring the property who, in
good faith, first recorded such acquisition. Thus, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
decision of the RTC and resolution of CA REVERSED and SET ASIDE. TCT no. T-
47759 is declared VOID and its place two titles are ORDERED ISSUED namely, 1.) in
the name of Spouses Magdalino and Cleofe Badilla , covering the 152 sq.m that they
occupying, and 2.) in the name of Fe Bragat, covering the remaning 863 sq.m.