Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Radiowealth Finance Company Vs

    Uploaded by

    RockyCalicaMosada
    118 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case between Radiowealth Finance Company and Palileo regarding ownership of an unregistered parcel of coconut land. Palileo purchased the land via a notarized deed of sale in 1971, but did not register the sale. In 1991, Radiowealth purchased the same land in an execution sale to satisfy a judgment against the land's previous owner. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling that Palileo had superior title, as registration is not required for unregistered land sales and Palileo was the first purchaser, even if the sale was unrecorded. The notarized deed of sale and Palileo's payment of taxes since 1971 supported his ownership claim over

    Original Description:

    LTD Case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case between Radiowealth Finance Company and Palileo regarding ownership of an unregistered parcel of coconut land. Palileo purchased the land via a notarized deed of sale in 1971, but did not register the sale. In 1991, Radiowealth purchased the same land in an execution sale to satisfy a judgment against the land's previous owner. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling that Palileo had superior title, as registration is not required for unregistered land sales and Palileo was the first purchaser, even if the sale was unrecorded. The notarized deed of sale and Palileo's payment of taxes since 1971 supported his ownership claim over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    118 views1 page

    Radiowealth Finance Company Vs

    Uploaded by

    RockyCalicaMosada
    This document summarizes a court case between Radiowealth Finance Company and Palileo regarding ownership of an unregistered parcel of coconut land. Palileo purchased the land via a notarized deed of sale in 1971, but did not register the sale. In 1991, Radiowealth purchased the same land in an execution sale to satisfy a judgment against the land's previous owner. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling that Palileo had superior title, as registration is not required for unregistered land sales and Palileo was the first purchaser, even if the sale was unrecorded. The notarized deed of sale and Palileo's payment of taxes since 1971 supported his ownership claim over

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY vs.

    PALILEO

    NOVEMBER 11, 2010 ~ VBDIAZ

    RADIOWEALTH FINANCE COMPANY vs. PALILEO

    G.R. No. 83432

    May 20, 1991

    FACTS: Defendant spouses Castro sold to plaintiff-appellee Palileo (private respondent herein), a parcel of
    unregistered coconut land situated in Surigao del Norte. The sale is evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale
    (Exh. “E”). The deed was not registered in the Registry of Property for unregistered lands. Since the execution of
    the deed of sale, appellee Palileo exercised acts of ownership over the land through his mother as administratrix or
    overseer. Appellee has continuously paid the real estate taxes on said land from 1971 until the present.

    A judgment was rendered against defendant Castro by the then CFI to pay herein defendant-appellant
    Radiowealth Finance Company (petitioner herein). Upon the finality of the judgment, a writ of execution was
    issued. Pursuant to said writ, defendant provincial Sheriff levied upon and finally sold at public auction the subject
    land that defendant Enrique Castro had earlier sold to appellee Palileo. A certificate of sale was executed by the
    Provincial Sheriff in favor of defendant- appellant Radiowealth Finance Company, being the only bidder. After the
    period of redemption has (sic) expired, a deed of final sale was also executed by the same Provincial Sheriff. Both
    the certificate of sale and the deed of final sale were registered with the RD.

    Learning of what happened to the land, private respondent Palileo filed an action for quieting of title over the
    same. After a trial on the merits, the court a quo rendered a decision in his favor. On appeal, the decision of the
    trial court was affirmed. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

    ISSUE: Who, as between two buyers of unregistered land, is the rightful owner—the first buyer in a prior sale that
    was unrecorded, or the second buyer who purchased the land in an execution sale whose transfer was registered
    in the RD

    HELD: PALILEO HAS THE SUPERIOR RIGHT OVER THE LAND

    There is no doubt that had the property in question been a registered land, this case would have been decided in
    favor of petitioner since it was petitioner that had its claim first recorded in the RD.

    It must be stressed however that this case deals with a parcel of unregistered land and a different set of rules
    applies. We affirm the decision of the CA.

    Under Act No. 3344, registration of instruments affecting unregistered lands is “without prejudice to a third party
    with a better right”. The aforequoted phrase has been held by this Court to mean that the mere registration of a
    sale in one’s favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was not anymore the owner of the land
    having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded.

    Applying this principle, the CA correctly held that the execution sale of the unregistered land in favor of petitioner
    is of no effect because the land no longer belonged to the judgment debtor as of the time of the said execution
    sale.

    NOTES: Findings of fact of the CA are conclusive on this Court and will not be disturbed unless there is grave abuse
    of discretion. The finding of the CA that the property in question was already sold to private respondent by its
    previous owner before the execution sale is evidenced by a deed of sale. Said deed of sale is notarized and is
    presumed authentic. There is no substantive proof to support petitioner’s allegation that the document is fictitious
    or simulated. With this in mind, We see no reason to reject the conclusion of the CA that private respondent was
    not a mere administrator of the property. That he exercised acts of ownership through his mother also remains
    undisputed.

    You might also like