LIBRADO MANAS ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. MARIA RAFAEL, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

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 register 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:

“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
in 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.”

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 Manas,
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 the necessary indexes” (por
falta de indices), 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.