In Skunac Corporation v. Sylianteng, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership arising from multiple sales. The Court ruled that the prior registration of a sale prevails, affirming the rights of the earlier buyer. This decision underscores the importance of registering property transactions promptly to secure ownership rights against subsequent claims.

When Two Sales Collide: Resolving a Land Ownership Dispute

The case revolved around two parcels of land in San Juan City, originally part of a larger property owned by Luis Pujalte. Roberto and Caesar Sylianteng (respondents) claimed ownership based on a deed of absolute sale from their mother, Emerenciana Sylianteng, who allegedly acquired the lots from Luis Pujalte in 1958. Skunac Corporation and Alfonso Enriquez (petitioners), on the other hand, asserted their rights through a sale from Romeo Pujalte, who claimed to be the sole heir of Luis Pujalte. The central legal question was: who had the superior right to the properties?

Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Skunac and Enriquez, declaring them buyers in good faith. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, upholding the validity of the Syliantengs’ title. The CA found that Emerenciana Sylianteng’s acquisition of the lots from Luis Pujalte was valid, and her subsequent sale to her children was lawful. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, albeit with a different application of the law.

The Supreme Court clarified that Article 1544 of the Civil Code, concerning double sales, was not applicable here because the sales were initiated by two different vendors: Emerenciana and Romeo Pujalte. Article 1544 provides rules for resolving conflicting claims when the same property is sold to different buyers by the same seller. The requisites for Article 1544 to apply are:

(a) The two (or more sales) transactions must constitute valid sales; (b) The two (or more) sales transactions must pertain to exactly the same subject matter; (c) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each represent conflicting interests; and (d) The two (or more) buyers at odds over the rightful ownership of the subject matter must each have bought from the very same seller.

The Court then addressed the validity of Emerenciana’s acquisition of the subject lots from Luis. Petitioners challenged the authenticity and due execution of the deed of sale between Luis and Emerenciana, arguing that respondents’ presentation of a duplicate original violated the best evidence rule. The Court disagreed, stating that the best evidence rule applies when the content of the document is the subject of inquiry, not its existence or execution.

The Court emphasized that the copy of the deed of sale submitted by the respondents was a duplicate of the original and was admissible as evidence. Also, the notarization of the deed converted it into a public document, carrying a presumption of regularity. This presumption was not overcome by the petitioners, who failed to present convincing evidence of any irregularity in the notarization. The Court also noted the deed’s registration, evidenced by official receipts, further supporting its validity.

Petitioners argued that only one copy of the deed was prepared, as only one document number was assigned by the notary. The Court clarified that the document number pertains to the notarized deed or contract itself, regardless of the number of copies prepared. Each copy receives the same document number. The Court found no reason to doubt the authenticity of the title covering the subject properties in the name of Luis. The parties stipulated that the machine copy of TCT No. 78865 was a faithful reproduction, including the memorandum of encumbrances.

The entry No. P.E. 4023 canceled the title partially and stated that TCT No. 42369 was issued in the name of Emerenciana Sylianteng. The Supreme Court acknowledged the disputable presumption under the Rules of Court that official duty has been regularly performed. The burden to overcome this presumption lies on the petitioners. Despite the existence of Romeo’s title, the court looked at the origin of the titles. Romeo’s title depended on his being the sole heir of the estate of Luis. He could not validly pass on the land to the petitioners as the evidence presented demonstrated that Luis had already sold the property during his lifetime, thus it was not part of the estate.

Even if the lots formed part of the estate, Romeo was proven in a separate criminal case not to be an heir of Luis. The documents that he presented before the estate court were falsified. The Court emphasized the principle of nemo dat quod non habet: no one can give what one does not have. Since Romeo had no right to the subject lots, the petitioners acquired no rights either.

The Court also found that the petitioners acted in bad faith. They had prior knowledge of the estate proceedings and notice of the defect in Romeo’s title. The Torrens Certificate of Title in Romeo’s name contained Entry No. P.E. 4023, which informed the petitioners that the lots had already been sold to Emerenciana. This should have prompted them to conduct further investigation, but they failed to do so. Due to the bad faith, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, were properly awarded.

The Supreme Court held that the respondents were entitled to moral damages to compensate for the suffering caused by Romeo’s bad faith and the petitioners’ insistence on buying the properties despite knowing the defect in Romeo’s title. Exemplary damages were also awarded as a deterrent against socially deleterious actions. The court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, as justified under Article 2208 of the Civil Code.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was determining the rightful owner of two parcels of land claimed by different parties through separate sales transactions from different vendors.
Why was Article 1544 of the Civil Code not applied?	Article 1544, concerning double sales, was not applicable because the sales were initiated by two different vendors, not the same seller selling the same property twice.
What evidence supported the validity of the sale from Luis Pujalte to Emerenciana Sylianteng?	The validity was supported by the notarized deed of sale, official receipts for registration, and the entry in the original title indicating the transfer to Emerenciana.
Why did Romeo Pujalte’s claim of ownership fail?	Romeo’s claim failed because the lots were already sold by Luis Pujalte during his lifetime and Romeo was convicted of using falsified documents to prove his heirship.
What is the principle of nemo dat quod non habet, and how did it apply here?	It means “no one can give what one does not have.” Since Romeo had no valid claim to the property, he could not transfer any rights to the petitioners.
How did the petitioners demonstrate bad faith in purchasing the properties?	They had prior knowledge of the sale to Emerenciana and the estate proceedings, as indicated in the title they relied upon, yet proceeded with the purchase without further investigation.
What types of damages were awarded to the respondents?	The respondents were awarded moral damages for their suffering, exemplary damages as a deterrent, and attorney’s fees.
What is the significance of prior registration in land ownership disputes?	Prior registration of a valid sale generally confers a superior right over the property, protecting the buyer from subsequent claims.

The Skunac Corporation v. Sylianteng case reinforces the importance of due diligence in property transactions and the legal consequences of dealing with questionable titles. It also clarifies the application of the double sale doctrine and the significance of prior registration. By confirming the significance of the earlier title, the ruling promotes stability and predictability in real estate transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SKUNAC CORPORATION VS. ROBERTO S. SYLIANTENG, G.R. No. 205879, April 23, 2014