1.

TEN FORTY REALTY VS CRUZ

Ownership of immovable property sold to two different buyers at different times is governed by Artice 1544 of the Civil
code; in the absence of the required inscription, the law gives preferential right to the buyer who in good faith is first in
possession: in determining the question of who is first in possession, certain basic parameters have been established by
jurisprudence, to wit:
1. The possession mentioned in article 1544 includes not only material but also symbolic possession
2. Possessors in good faith are those who are not aware of any flaw in their title or mode of acquisition
3. Buyers of real property that is in possession of persons other than the seller must be wary – they must
investigate the rights of the possessor
4. Good faith is always presumed; upon those who allege bad faith rests the burden of proof

2. CARBONELL VS CA

In case of double sale of an immovable property, second paragraph of article 1544 directs that ownership should be
recognized in favor of one who in good faith first recorded his right. If there is no inscription, what is decisive is prior
possession in good faith.

3. DAGUPAN TRADING VS MACAM

An unregistered prior sale cannot be deemed automatically cancelled upon the subsequent issuance of the torrens title
over the land

4. DAVID VS BADIN

The defense of good faith in case of double sale can be availed of only if the subject land is registered and the buyer had
relied in good faith on the clear title of the registered owner.

5. OLIVARES VS GONZALES

Equities of the case are with the buyers in the second sale which registered the sale than the first sale with pacto de
retro which was unregistered

6. CARAM VS LAURETA

The rule of caveat emptor, which requires the purchaser to be aware of the supposed title of the vendor and one who
buys without checking the vendor’s title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure, applies in cases of
double sale.

7. CRUZ VS CABANA

In cases of double sale, knowledge gained by the first buyer of the second sale cannot defeat the first buyer’s right
except where the second buyer first registers in good faith the second sale ahead of the first. Such knowledge of the first
buyer does not bar her from availing her right to register first her purchase against the second buyer. But knowledge
gained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his rights even if he is first to register the second sale. Thus,
ownership shall belong to the one who, acquired the property and registered such sale, in good faith

8. VALDEZ VS CA

By annotating an adverse claim over a property, a superior right over such property is established. Furthermore, such
annotation is a notice to the whole world which renders a subsequent buyer a buyer in bad faith.

9. NUGUID VS CA
a subsequent sale made by the heirs of a deceased landowner is essentially a sale made by the latter or by the same
person for the said heirs are deemed the judicial continuation of the personality of the decedent

10. RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY VS PALILEO

Article 1544 does not apply to a sale of land not registered under the torrens system

11. TANEDO VS CA

As between two purchasers, the one who registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right over the other who has
not registered his title, even if the latter is in actual possession of the immovable property.
12. OCCENA VS ESPONILLA

The defense of indefeasibility of a torrens title does not extend to a transferee who takes the certificate of title in
bad faith with notice of a flaw. Thus, he who has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances which would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry can neither be denominated as an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith.

13. MOLES VS IAC

As a general rule, there is no implied warranty in a sale of second hand articles. However, an express warranty can
be made by and also be binding on the seller in a sale of such articles.

A hidden defect in an article sufficient to warrant rescission of the contract between the parties must be a
redhibitory defect which is an imperfection or defect of such nature as to engender a certain degree of importance.

14. ENGINEERING AND MACHINERY CORPORATION VS CA

Article 1571 provides for the prescriptive period of implied warranties which is 6 months from the delivery of the
thing sold. Where the warranty is express, the prescriptive period is the one specified in the warranty, and in the
absence of such period, 4 years shall apply.

15. CATUNGAL VS RODRIGUEZ

A condition imposed on the perfection of a contract is different from a condition imposed merely on the
performance of an obligation. While failure to comply with the first condition results in the failure of a contract,
failure to comply with the second merely give the other party to either refuse to proceed with the sale or to waive
the condition pursuant to article 1545.

16. LO VS KJS

The assignment of credit, which is in the nature of sale of personal property produces the effects of a dation in
payment which may extinguish the obligation. However, as in any other contract of sale, the vendor or assignor is
bound by certain warranties. More specifically, they are provided in article 1628.

17. RAMOS VS CA

Whenever it is clearly shown that a deed of sale with pacto de retro, regular on its face, is given as security for a
loan, it must be regarded as an equitable mortgage.

18. DE LEON VS SALVADOR

in ordinary sales, a transaction may be invalidated on the ground of inadequacy of price. However, when there is the
right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material because the judgement debtor may reacquire the
property or also sell his right to redeem and thus recover the loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price
obtained at the auction sale.

In a contract of sale where the price is so low as to be shocking to the conscience, the sale may be set aside and may
be declared as equitable mortgage.

19. FLORES VS SO
In a sale with right of redemption, the ownership over the thing sold is transferred to the vendee upon the execution
of the contract subject only the resolutory condition that the vendor exercise his right of redemption within the
period agreed upon

20. ALONZO VS IAC

Where co-heirs filed an action for redemption of co-heirs sold share only after thirteen year had elapsed from the
sale, they are deemed to have been actually informed thereof sometime during those years although no written
notice of sale was given to them, as an exception to the general rule that notice of sale by the vendor to the other
possible redemptioners must be made in writing.

21. LAO VS CA
It is settled that a pacto de retro sale should be treated as a mortgage where the property sold never left the
possession of the vendor.

22. LANUZA VS DE LEON

The stipulation in a purported pacto de retro sale, that ownership over the subject property would automatically
pass to the vendee in case no redemption was effected within the stipulated period is a pactum commissorium and
is therefore void.

23. CAPULONG VS CA
A deed of sale and deed of option to repurchase prepared, signed and notarized on the same day is in reality an
equitable mortgage.

24. SOLID HOMES VS CA

In a pacto de retro sale, the title and ownership of the property sold are immediately vested in the vendee a retro,
subject only to the resolutory condition of repurchase by the vendor a retro within the stipulated period.

25. PRIMARY STRUCTURE VS VALENCIA

Whenever a piece of rural land not exceeding 1 hectare is alienated, the law grants to the adjoining owners a right of
redemption except when the grantee or buyer does not own any other rural land. In order that the right may arise,
the land sought to be redeemed and the adjacent property belonging to the person exercising the right of
redemption must both be rural lands.

Such right must be exercised within 30 days from notice in writing by the prospective vendor or vendor

26. ETCUBAN VS CA
the law does not prescribe any particular form of written notice, nor any distinctive method for notifying the
redemptioner