DionisiaAlorsabes owned a three hectare land in Dao, Capiz, denominated as Lot 3603. In 1934, she sold a portion of the lot to Juanito Fuentes while the remainder was inherited by her children Paz Dela Cruz,RoselaDela Cruz, and ConsorciaArroja (an adopted child), and a grandson, Francisco Abas, in representation of his deceased mother Margarita Dela Cruz. These four heirs executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale dated February 4, 1964 wherein Consorcia sold her share with an area of 6,694 square meters to spouses BallerianoMayuga. On April 1, 1977, Paz also sold her share to Honorato de los Santos. Later, another document entitled Extra-Judicial Partition with Deed of Sale dated November 2, 1972 was uncovered wherein the heirs of Dionisia purportedly adjudicated Lot 3603 among themselves and sold their shares to Francisco.
On January 9, 1978, Francisco executed a Deed of Sale over Lot 3603 in favor of TeodulfoSigaya. Thus, the title over Lot 3603 was cancelled and a new one was issued in the name of Teodulfo, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein. On October 14, 1986, the petitioners, who are the widow and children of Teodulfo, filed Civil Case Nos. V-5325, V-5326, V-5327 and V-5328 for recovery of possession and damages against DiomerMayuga, Honorato de los Santos, Sps. Jose Viva and RoselaDela Cruz-Viva, and Renato Distor, Respondents in their answers with counterclaim averred that: the Deed of Sale executed by Francisco in favor of Teodulfo and the title thereon are null and void for being based on a fictitious Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale; RoselaDela Cruz-Viva and Paz Dela Cruz, who are illiterates, were fraudulently made to sign as vendees in the Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale dated 1972, when Francisco represented that they were merely signing as witnesses to the sale of Francisco of his share to Teodulfo.
W/N petitioners are entitled to be awarded ownership based on rule on double sale of real property
No.Apart from the fact that Teodulfo is not a purchaser in good faith, the law on double sales as provided in Art. 1544 of the Civil Code contemplates a situation where a single vendor sold one and the same immovable property to two or more buyers. For the rule to apply, it is necessary that the conveyance must have been made by a party who has an existing right in the thing and the power to dispose it. The rule cannot be invoked where the two different contracts of sale are made by two different persons, one of them not being the owner of the property sold In this case, respondents derive their right over their respective portions either through inheritance or sale from Dionisia while petitioners’ invoke their right from the sale of the land from Francisco. Clearly, the law on double sales does not apply here.
Digest Credit: Badeth Dc
One thought on “Sigaya vs Mayuga”