Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Berico vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jerome Aviso
    190 views2 pages
    1) Jose de los Santos owned land that he sold portions of to both private respondents in 1961 and petitioner Berico in 1963. 2) Private respondents took possession of the land they purchased in 1961 and declared it for taxation, while petitioner Berico was aware of the prior 1961 sale when he later purchased portions of the land. 3) Private respondents filed a complaint to annul the title transferred to petitioner Berico, who had knowledge of the prior sale but still registered the deed of sale and obtained a title certificate in his name.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Jose de los Santos owned land that he sold portions of to both private respondents in 1961 and petitioner Berico in 1963. 2) Private respondents took possession of the land they purchased in 1961 and declared it for taxation, while petitioner Berico was aware of the prior 1961 sale when he later purchased portions of the land. 3) Private respondents filed a complaint to annul the title transferred to petitioner Berico, who had knowledge of the prior sale but still registered the deed of sale and obtained a title certificate in his name.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    190 views2 pages

    Berico vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jerome Aviso
    1) Jose de los Santos owned land that he sold portions of to both private respondents in 1961 and petitioner Berico in 1963. 2) Private respondents took possession of the land they purchased in 1961 and declared it for taxation, while petitioner Berico was aware of the prior 1961 sale when he later purchased portions of the land. 3) Private respondents filed a complaint to annul the title transferred to petitioner Berico, who had knowledge of the prior sale but still registered the deed of sale and obtained a title certificate in his name.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Berico vs. CA G.R. No. 96306 August 20, 1993 DAVIDE, JR., J.

    : FACTS:
    Jose de los Santos owned a parcel of landlocated at Balo-Andang, San Ramon, San Pascual (now Claveria), Masbate; the property is specifically described in OCT No. P-671. On 31 October 1961, Jose sold, in a private document, a 2 1/4 hectare portion thereof to the private respondents. On 26 November 1963, however, he executed another deed of sale which he acknowledged before a notary public. Private respondents took possession of the portion sold to them immediately after the 1961 sale and declared the same for taxation purposes in the name of private respondent Ciriaco Flores; private respondents likewise paid the taxes thereon. On 3 January 1963, Jose de los Santos sold one-half of Lot No. 785 to petitioner Lorenzo Berico. Thereafter, or on 30 March 1963, Jose's minor children sold to the same petitioner the remaining half. Jose de los Santos represented his children in this transaction. Petitioner Berico was aware of the 1961 sale of a portion of the lot to the private respondents and of the latter's possession thereof. Berico had knowledge of the plaintiff's possession and occupation of their disputed property when he caused the cancellation of OCT No. P-671 and secured in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-1346 on June 5, 1968 and when, on the same date, he registered the deeds of sale with the Register of Deeds conveying to him the entire property. It was only on 8 November 1978 that the private respondents registered the deed of sale in their favor after discovering the cancellation of OCT No. P-671 and issuance in favor of petitioner Berico of TCT No. T-1346. Private respondents filed against the petitioners a complaint for "Annulment of Title" 2 with the then Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Masbate.

    ISSUE: In the double sale of an immovable property under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, does prescription bar an action by the first vendees, who are in possession of the said property, against the second vendee for the annulment of a transfer certificate of title over the property procured by the latter who has knowledge of the first sale and who recognizes the first vendees' possession? HELD: NO. Since the petitioners had prior knowledge of the sale of the questioned portion to the private respondents and even recognized and respected the latter's possession thereof, they acted with gross and evident bad faith in registering the deed of sale and in obtaining TCT No. T-1346 in their favor. Thus, the registration of the deed of sale was ineffectual and vested upon them no preferential rights to the

    Jerome C. Aviso

    property in derogation of the rights of the private respondents. The subsequent issuance of TCT No. T-1346, to the extent that it affects the latter's property, conferred no better right than the registration which was the source of the authority to issue the said title.

    Jerome C. Aviso

    You might also like