Heirs of Ciriaco Bayog-Ang vs. Quinones

Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sales applies only when the same immovable property is sold to different vendees by a single vendor, and does not cover situations where the second transaction is by succession; consequently, heirs cannot inherit property that their predecessor had already validly sold during his lifetime, and registration by the heirs does not confer ownership or superior rights where the predecessor had already transferred title through a public instrument executed in accordance with Article 1498.

Ciriaco Bayog-Ang owned a parcel of land located at Barrio Sadaan, Municipality of Midsayap, Province of North Cotabato, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RP-1078 (1596). On February 25, 1964, Bayog-Ang executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Florence Quinones covering a 10,848 square-meter portion of the land. Quinones took possession of the property and installed a tenant, but failed to register the sale or secure a Transfer Certificate of Title in her name. In 1996, following Bayog-Ang's death, his heirs (Celerino Valle and Primitivo Valle) executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating the entire property, including the portion sold to Quinones, to themselves. On April 3, 1997, the Register of Deeds cancelled OCT No. RP-1078 (1596) and issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-91543 in the names of the heirs.

• The subject property is a 10,848 square-meter parcel of land located at Barrio Sadaan, Municipality of Midsayap, Province of North Cotabato, originally covered by OCT No. RP-1078 (1596) registered in the name of Ciriaco Bayog-Ang.
• On February 25, 1964, Bayog-Ang executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Florence Quinones, which was notarized before Atty. Cambronero at Midsayap, Cotabato.
• The purchase price was paid by Quinones' father, Pedro Quinones, who received the certificate of title and tax declaration from Bayog-Ang and gave them to Atty. Domingo for processing the transfer, but the papers were returned unprocessed in 1980.
• Quinones installed Antonio Gasparillo as a tenant on the land from 1964 until 1995, when he stopped due to sickness; after Pedro's death, Gasparillo remitted shares to Pedro's children.
• In 1984, the tax declaration for the subject land was transferred to Quinones' name.
• In 1996, the heirs of Bayog-Ang executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate adjudicating the entire property, including the subject portion, to themselves.
• On April 3, 1997, TCT No. T-91543 was issued in the names of the heirs, cancelling the original title.
• In 1998, Quinones filed the complaint for specific performance, nullification of the Extrajudicial Settlement, and damages, praying for segregation of the sold portion.
• The heirs claimed they had no knowledge of the 1964 sale and found no annotation on the title when they verified at the Register of Deeds before executing the settlement.
• Petitioners did not present evidence during trial and instead filed a demurrer to evidence, which the RTC granted.

• The heirs argued that the RTC's finding that the complaint was barred by prescription and laches should govern and be binding upon the CA, citing the rule that assessment of witness credibility is best undertaken by the trial court.
• They contended that Quinones "slept on her rights" for 34 years (from 1964 to 1998) and thus lost her right to claim the property.
• They asserted that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's factual findings regarding prescription and laches.
• They claimed that Florence's testimony was insufficient to prove the due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale without presenting the notary public or witnesses to the execution.
• They maintained that they were first to register the land in good faith and thus had superior rights under Article 1544 of the Civil Code.

• Respondents (substituted by their surviving children) contended that the CA correctly upheld the validity of the 1964 Deed of Absolute Sale.
• They argued that since Bayog-Ang conveyed the land to Florence during his lifetime, it no longer formed part of his estate and could not be partitioned by his heirs.
• They maintained that the action was for quieting of title which does not prescribe while the plaintiff is in possession, and that they exercised acts of dominion by installing a tenant and transferring the tax declaration in 1984.
• They argued that the heirs were bound by the contract of their predecessor and could not claim as innocent third parties.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's factual findings regarding prescription and laches.
  • Whether the Regional Trial Court was bound by its earlier ruling denying the affirmative defense of prescription during preliminary hearing.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sales applies to the case.
  • Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 25, 1964 validly transferred ownership to Florence Quinones.
  • Whether the action for specific performance/quieting of title is barred by prescription or laches.
  • Whether the heirs acquired ownership of the subject land through registration despite the prior sale.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioners' contention that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's factual findings, holding that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought from the appellate court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court.
  • The Court clarified that the RTC's statement about plaintiffs sleeping on their rights must be understood in the context of Article 1544, which the RTC erroneously applied.
• Substantive:
  • Article 1544 does not apply because it requires that the same thing be sold to different vendees by a single vendor; here, the second transaction was succession, not a sale. The proper question was whether Florence acquired ownership from Bayog-Ang, which would determine if the land remained part of the estate.
  • The Deed of Absolute Sale, being a notarized public document, enjoys the presumption of regularity and validity. Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code, the execution of the public instrument transferred ownership to Florence, there being no contrary intention indicated.
  • The action is not barred by prescription because it is essentially an action to quiet title, which does not prescribe while the plaintiff is in actual possession under claim of ownership. The cause of action accrued only in 1997 when the heirs secured title, disturbing respondents' possession.
  • Laches does not apply because there was no unreasonable delay in filing the action (filed within a year of the issuance of the new title), and the heirs were aware of respondents' claim and were not prejudiced by the delay.
  • Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but merely confirms existence with notice to the world. The heirs cannot claim as innocent third parties because as heirs, they are bound by their predecessor's contracts under Article 1311 of the Civil Code.

• Double Sales under Article 1544 — Applies only when the same thing is sold to different vendees by a single vendor; it does not apply when the second transaction is by succession or inheritance, as there is no "sale" to trigger the provision.
• Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership — Registration merely confirms the existence of ownership and provides notice to third persons; it does not create ownership where none exists.
• Heirs are bound by predecessor's contracts — Under Article 1311, contracts take effect between parties, their assigns and heirs, unless the rights are not transmissible by nature, stipulation, or law.
• Action to quiet title does not prescribe — While the plaintiff remains in actual possession of the land under claim of ownership, the action to quiet title does not prescribe, as the plaintiff may wait until possession is disturbed before vindicating rights.
• Presumption of regularity of notarized documents — Notarized documents are public documents that enjoy a presumption of regularity and validity, constituting prima facie evidence of the truth of facts stated therein and conclusive presumption of due execution.

• "For Article 1544 to apply, it is required that the same thing must have been sold to different vendees. It contemplates a case of double or multiple sales by a single vendor."
• "Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership, but only a means of confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the world at large."
• "The general rule is that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their predecessors-in-interest except when the rights and obligations arising therefrom are not transmissible by (1) their nature, (2) stipulation or (3) provision of law."
• "The existence and due execution of the deed of absolute sale executed by Ciriaco Bayog-ang in favor of Florence Quiñones Donasco is not disputed."

• Consolidated Rural Bank (Cagayan Valley), Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the definition that Article 1544 covers situations where a single vendor sold one and the same immovable property to two or more buyers.
• Spouses Santos v. Spouses Lumbao — Cited for the rule that documents acknowledged before a notary public are public documents enjoying presumption of regularity and constituting prima facie evidence of truth of facts stated.
• Sapto, et al. v. Fabiana — Cited for the doctrine that an action to quiet title where the plaintiff is in actual possession does not prescribe.
• Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho — Cited for the enumeration of elements of laches.
• Bollozos v. Yu Tieng Su — Cited for the principle that registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.

• Article 1544, New Civil Code — Provisions on double sales; held inapplicable because the second transaction was succession, not sale.
• Article 712, New Civil Code — Modes of acquiring ownership including tradition and succession.
• Article 774, New Civil Code — Definition of succession.
• Article 776, New Civil Code — Inheritance includes property not extinguished by death.
• Article 777, New Civil Code — Rights to succession transmitted at moment of death.
• Article 1311, New Civil Code — Contracts bind heirs and assigns unless rights are not transmissible.
• Article 1496, New Civil Code — Ownership acquired upon delivery.
• Article 1497, New Civil Code — Delivery by placing in control and possession.
• Article 1498, New Civil Code — Execution of public instrument equivalent to delivery.
• Section 19, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Definition of public documents.
• Section 30, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Presentation of acknowledged instruments without further proof.
• Section 51, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Registration as operative act to convey as to third persons.
• Section 52, Presidential Decree No. 1529 — Constructive notice upon registration.