[G.R. No. 8689. March 30, 1914. ]
LIBRADO MANAS ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARIA RAFAEL, Defendant-Appellant.
M. Legazpi Florendo for Appellant.
Inocencio Payumo for Appellees.
1. EJECTMENT; TITLE; PRECAUTIONARY ANNOTATION; SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL SALE. — Notwithstanding the undisturbed possession of a parcel of land by the defendant for a long period (eighteen or nineteen years) with a duly registered title, showing that the land had been purchased at a judicial sale of the property of the original registered owner, judgment for possession affirmed in favor of the plaintiffs under and by virtue of a conveyance from the original owner, a cautionary note (annotation preventiva) of which instrument was entered in the land registry some thirty days prior to the date of the judicial sale to the defendant.
2. ID.; ID.; FINAL REGISTRATION; ROYAL DECREE OF JUNE 15, 1897. — A date precautionary annotation in the land registry bearing date of August 11, 1893, expressly setting forth that a deed of sale of real state was not definitely and formally registered "for lack of the necessary indexes" (por falta de indeces) was given the effect of a definite registry by the Royal Decree of June 15, 1897.
D E C I S I O N
Both plaintiffs and defendant claim title to the land in question by right of purchase from the original registered owner. The evidence fully sustains the trial judge in his findings: First, that Regino Bunduk, the original registered owner of this land, executed a deed of sale thereof in favor of one Pedro Manas, plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, on the 8th of August, 1893 and that a cautionary note (anotacion preventiva) of this instrument was entered in the land registered by on August 11, 1893; second, that this land was purchased by defendant’s predecessor in interest at a judicial sale of the property of Regino Bunduk, the original registered owner, on May 2, 1892, and that his title thereto was duly registered on the 8th of September 1893; and third, that the land in question had been in the undisturbed possession of defendant and her predecessors in interest from the date of this judicial sale in the year 1892 down to the date of the institution of this action, a period of between eighteen and nineteen years.
Upon these findings of fact, and in accord with the doctrine frequently announced by this court, the trial judge held that the title of plaintiffs must be held to prevail over that of the defendant under the provisions of article 1473 of the Civil Code, which are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof on good faith, if it should be personal property.
"Should it be real property, it shall belong to the person acquiring it who first recorded it in the registry.
"Should there be no entry, the property shall belong to the person who first took possession of it in good faith, and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith."cralaw virtua1aw library
The only question as to the correctness of this ruling by the trial judge which need be considered is the contention of defendant’s counsel that the provisions of this article are not applicable, because the title of Pedro Mans, plaintiffs’ predecessor in interest, was not duly registered, the evidence disclosing merely that a precautionary notice was entered on the land register on the 11th of August, 1893.
It appears however that the precautionary annotation in the land registry bearing date of August 11, 1893, expressly sets forth that the deed was not definitely and formally registered "for lack of necessary indexes" (por falta de indeces), and precautionary annotations of this kind were given the effect of definite registries by the Royal Decree of June 15, 1897.
The judgment entered in the court below should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant.
Arellano. C. J., Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.