G.R. No. 193787, April 07, 2014SPOUSES JOSE C. ROQUE AND BEATRIZ DELA CRUZ ROQUE, ET AL., Petitioners,v.MA. PAMELA P. AGUADO, ET AL.,Respondents.Facts: Sps. Roque and Rivero executed a Deed of Conditional Sale of Real Property over a subject portion of unregistered Lot 18089. The parties agreed that Sps. Roque shall make an initial payment upon signing, while the remaining balance of the purchase price shall be payable upon the registration. Sabug, Jr. applied for afree patentover the entire Lot 18089 and executed a Joint Affidavit with Rivero acknowledging that the subject portion belongs to Sps. Roque. Thereafter, Sabug, Jr. sold Lot 18089 to one Ma. Pamela P. Aguado. Aguado obtained a loan from the Land Bank of the Philippines and secured the same by amortgageover Lot 18089.When she failed to pay her loan obligation, Land Bank commenced extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. Sps. Roque filed a complaintfor reconveyance, annulment of sale, and damages. Aguado raised the defense of an innocent purchaser for value and alleged that the certificate of title of the property at the time of sale was free from any lien and/or encumbrances.

Issue: Whether or not Sps. Roque are the lawful owners of the subject portion of the lot being the first purchasers and in actual possession hence, cannot be ousted therefrom by Land Bank?Ruling: The stipulation shown in the Deed of Conditional Sale between Rivero and Sps. Roque is actually in the nature of a contract to sell and not one of sale.Where the sellerpromises to execute a deed of absolute sale upon the completion by the buyer of the payment of the purchase price, the contract is only a contract to sell even if their agreement is denominated as a Deed of Conditional Sale. A contract to sell is a bilateral contract whereby the prospective seller, whileexpressly reserving the ownershipof the subject property despite delivery thereof to the prospective buyer, binds himself to sell the subject property exclusively to the prospective buyerupon fulfillment of the condition agreed upon, such as, the full payment of the purchase price. It is undisputed that Sps. Roque have not paid the final installment of the purchase price.As such, the condition which would have effectively transfer the ownership of the subject portion from the sellers to the buyers cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled. G.R. No. 183822, January 18, 2012

RUBEN C. CORPUZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPS. HILARION AGUSTIN AND JUSTA AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

Facts: Ruben C. Corpuz filed a complaint for ejectment against Spouses Hilarion and Justa Agustin on the allegation that he is the registered owner of two parcels of land covered by TCT No. 12980. Aforesaid parcels of land were formerly owned by Francisco D. Corpuz, father of Ruben C. Corpuz. The elder Corpuz allowed spouses Agustin to occupy subject properties, the latter being relatives. Despite demand to vacate, the Agustins refused to leave the premises. Ruben alleged that he has the better right to possess subject property having acquired the same from his father who executed a Deed of Quitclaim in his favor. Spouses Agustin interposed the defense that Francisco Corpuz disposed of subject property by executing a Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor for a consideration.

Issue: Whether or not Corpuz has the right to possession of the disputed properties being the registered owner of the same?Held: Petitioner is correct that as a Torrens title holder over the subject properties, he is the rightful owner and is entitled to possession thereof. However, the lower courts and the appellate court consistently found that possession of the disputed properties by respondents was in the nature of ownership, and not by mere tolerance of the elder Corpuz. In fact, they have been in continuous, open and notorious possession of the property for more than 30 years up to this day. Petitioner opted to file an ejectment case against respondents where the only question that the courts will resolve is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possessionde factoand not to the possessionde jure.For this reason, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Petitioner has not proven that respondents' continued possession of the subject properties was by mere tolerance of his father nor the possession of the properties became unlawful - a requisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case.

G.R. NO. 192450, July 23, 2012SANTIAGO V. SOQUILLO,Petitioner,v.JORGE P. TORTOLA,Respondent.Facts: Lorenzo Coloso, Jr. sold to Ramon Jamis a parcel of land executed by a notarized deed of conditional sale of the unregistered land. Jamis thereafter sold the disputed property to Jorge P. Tortola who thereafter took possession of the property evidenced by a notarized deed of definite sale in favor of the latter. Tortola and his family moved to Bukidnon and left Godofredo Villaflores as his agent and caretaker of the disputed property. Coloso and the other heirs of Coloso, Jr. filed an application for free patent to obtain a title over the disputed property. Being in possession of the disputed property, the issuance of the free patent was made in favor of the heirs of Coloso. After the issuance of OCT, the heirs of Coloso, Jr. executed a notarized deed of absolute sale conveying the disputed property to Santiago V. Soquillo. Soquillo filed a complaint for illegal detainer against Villaflores and his wife which was eventually decided in favor of the former. Tortola discovered the ejectment case thereby prompting him to file a complaint against the Heirs of Coloso, Jr. and Soquillo for annulment of title/sale and award of damages. Issue: Whether or not Soquillo can be considered as a purchaser in good faith hence, the rightful owner of the disputed property? Ruling: Santiago Soquillo cannot be considered as purchaser in good faith and for value. The fact that defendants Heirs of Lorenzo Boy Coloso, Jr. were not in possession of the disputed land should have impelled him to go beyond the title. The general rule is that a purchaser may rely on what appears on the face of a certificate of title. An exception to this rule is when there exist important facts that would create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man to go beyond the present title and to investigate those that preceded it. One who falls within the exception can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith, hence, does not merit the protection of the law. Besides, Heirs of Lorenzo Coloso, Jr. had not transferred any rights over the disputed land to Soquillo, because the former were not owners of the same at the time they sold the land to Soquillo. No one can give what he does not have.

G.R. No. 194846, June 28, 2013HOSPICIO D. ROSAROSO, ET Al.,Petitioners,v.LUCILA LABORTE SORIA, ET AL.,Respondents.Facts: A complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents with Damages was filed against Lucila R. Soria, Lucilas daughter, Laila S. Solutan and Meridian Realty Corporation. It was alleged that Luis, with the full knowledge and consent of his second wife, Lourdes, executed the Deed of Absolute Salecovering the several properties in favor of Luis children of the first marriage Hospicio Rosaroro et al. Despite the fact that the said properties had already been sold to them, Laila, in conspiracy with her mother, Lucila, obtained a Special Power of Attorney from Luis who was then sick, infirm, blind, and of unsound mind. It was alleged that Lucila and Laila accomplished this by affixing Luis thumb mark on the SPA which purportedly authorized Laila to sell and convey the lots which had already been sold to them. A second sale took place where Lucila and Laila made Luis sign the Deed of Absolute Saleconveying to Meridian three (3) parcels of residential land. In the pursuit of the acquisition, Meridian did not make any inquiry as to who were the occupants and owners of said lots and was not been informed as to the true status of the subject property.

Issue: Whether or not Meridian is the rightful owner of the disputed property for being in good faith and first recorded it in the Registry of Property?

Ruling: The principle ofprimus tempore, potior jure(first in time, stronger in right) gains greater significance in case of adouble saleof immovable property. When the thing sold twice is an immovable, the one who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of Property, both made in good faith, shall be deemed the owner. Verily, theact of registration must be coupled with good faith that is, the registrant must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor or must not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in the title of his vendor.When a piece of land is in the actual possession of persons other than the seller, the buyer should investigate the rights of those in possession.Without making such inquiry, one cannot claim that he is a buyer in good faith.