(digest) Caram V Laureta 2j1c15

CARAM JR. v. LAURETA G.R. No. L-28740 February 24, 1981 J. Fernandez petitioner Fermin Caram, Jr. respondent Claro Laureta summary Double sale of agricultural land. Who is entitled to the land? The 1st buyer (Laureta). The court ruled against Caram (2nd buyer) due to the bad faith of his agents – the BF of the agent is the BF of the principal. (Andaming sinabi sa case pero yan lang ung related sa agency)

facts of the case

 June 10, 1945: Marcos Mata conveyed a large tract of agricultural land in favor of Laureta. The deed of absolute sale was not ed because it was not acknowledged before a notary public or any other authorized officer. At the time the sale was executed, there was no authorized officer before whom the sale could be acknowledged inasmuch as the civil government in Tagum, Davao was not as yet organized. However, Marcos Mata delivered to Laureta the peaceful and lawful possession of the premises of the land together with the pertinent papers thereof such as the Owner's Duplicate OCT, sketch plan, tax declaration, tax receipts and other papers related thereto. Since the time of conveyance, Laureta had been in continuous, adverse and notorious occupation of said land, without being molested, disturbed or stopped by any of the defendants or their representatives.  May 5, 1947: the same land was sold by Marcos Mata to Fermin Caram, Jr. The deed of sale in favor of Caram was acknowledged before Atty. Abelardo Aportadera. After a few days, Mata, through Attys. Abelardo Aportadera and Gumercindo Arcilla, filed with CFI Davao a petition for the issuance of a new Owner's Duplicate OCT, alleging as ground the loss of said title in his place – the CFI then issued an order directing the of Deeds of Davao to issue a new Owner's Duplicate Cert of Title in favor of Mata and declaring the lost title as null and void. ♡ Dec 9, 1947: The 2nd sale was ed with the of Deeds. A TCT was also issued in favor of Caram.  June 25, 1959: Laureta filed in CFI Davao an action for nullity, recovery of ownership and/or reconveyance against Mata, Caram and the of Deeds of Davao City. ♡ Basically, Mata answered by alleging that Marcos was subjected to duress, threat and intimidation into selling his only property to Laureta, the latter being the commanding officer of the 10th division USFIP (US Forces in the Phils). Marcos further denies the 2nd sale to Caram – he alleges that his consent was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation (he is illiterate and ignorant and did not know what he was g; and that there is no consideration)

♡ Caram, on the other hand, alleged that he has no knowledge or information about the previous encumbrances, transactions, and alienations until the filing of the complaints.  TC ruled in favor of Laureta – the private deed of sale prevails over the other DOS in favor of Caram.  CA affirmed TC.  Caram assails the finding of TC that the second sale of the property was made through his representatives, Pedro Irespe and Atty. Aportadera. He argues that Pedro Irespe was acting merely as a broker or intermediary with the specific task and duty to pay Marcos Mata the sum of P1,000 for the latter's property and to see to it that the requisite deed of sale covering the purchase was properly executed by Marcos Mata; that the Identity of the property to be bought and the price of the purchase had already been agreed upon by the parties; and that the other alleged representative, Atty. Aportadera, merely acted as a notary public in the execution of the deed of sale.

issues + ratio (more on property case talaga ‘to – bad memories of BF) 1. WON Irespe and Aportadera were attorneys-in-fact of Caram for the purpose of buying the property in question. – YES. The facts of record show that Mata, the vendor, and Caram, the second vendee had never met. During the trial, Marcos testified that he knows Atty. Aportadera but did not know Caram. Thus, the sale of the property could have only been through Caram's representatives, Irespe and Aportadera. The petitioner, 1

in his answer, itted that Atty. Aportadera acted as his notary public and attorney-in-fact at the same time in the purchase of the property. 2. WON Irespe and Atty. Aportadera acted in BF – YES. The SC agreed with the TC’s finding1 that Irespe and Aportadera, acting as agents of Caram, purchased the property of Mata in bad faith. Even if Irespe and Aportadera did not have actual knowledge of the first sale, still their actions have not satisfied the requirement of good faith. Irespe and Aportadera had knowledge of circumstances which ought to have put them on inquiry. Both of them knew that Mata's certificate of title together with other papers pertaining to the land was taken by soldiers under the command of Col. Laureta. Added to this is the fact that at the time of the second sale Laureta was already in possession of the land. The rule of caveat emptor requires the purchaser to be aware of the supposed title of the vendor and one who buys without checking the vendor's title takes all the risks and losses consequent to such failure.

3. WON Caram can be considered to have acted in bad faith because of his agents – YES. Applying the principle of agency, Caram as principal, should also be deemed to have acted in bad faith. (YES, yan lang talaga) 4. Who is entitled to the land? Laureta. Since Caram was a registrant in bad faith – the situation is as if there was no registration at all. So, the 1st possessor in GF should be determined – Laureta was first in possession of the property and he is also a possessor in good faith. It is true that Mata had alleged that the deed of sale in favor of Laureta was procured by force. Such defect, was cured when, after the lapse of four years from the time the intimidation ceased, Mata lost both his rights to file an action for annulment or to set up nullity of the contract as a defense in an action to enforce the same. 5. WON Laureta’s action has prescribed – NO. The 2nd deed of sale is NOT a voidable contract (action for annulment need not be brought within 4 years from discovery of the fraud). Dolo causante as a ground for the annulment of contract is specifically described in Art 1338 NCC as "insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties" which induced the other to enter into a contract, and "without them, he would not have agreed to". Thus, the second deed of sale is not a voidable contract. No evidence whatsoever was shown that through insidious words or machinations, the representatives of Caram, Irespe and Aportadera had induced Mata to enter into the contract. A more important reason is that the second contract of sale, having been ed in bad faith, is null and void. Art 1410 CC provides that any action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. In addition, the fact that the second contract is not considered void under Art 1409 and that Art 1544 does not declare void a deed of sale ed in bad faith does not mean that said contract is not void. Art 1544 specifically provides who shall be the owner in case of a double sale of an immovable property. To give full effect to this provision, the status of the two contracts must be declared valid so that one vendee’s contract must be declared void to cut off all rights which may arise from said contract. Otherwise, Article 1544 will be meaningless.

The first sale in favor of Laureta prevails over the sale in favor of Caram.

There is every reason to believe that Irespe and he had known of the sale of the property in question to Laureta on the day Mata and Irespe, accompanied by Mansaca, went to the office of Atty. Aportadera for the sale of the same property to Caram, Jr., represented by Irespe as attorney-in-fact. Mansaca was with the two — Irespe and Mata — to engage the services of Atty. Aportadera in the annulment of the sale of his land to Laureta. When Mansaca narrated to Atty. Aportadera the circumstances under which his property had been sold to Laureta, he must have included in the narration the sale of the land of Mata, for the two properties had been sold on the same occasion and under the same circumstances. 1

2