NICANORA BERNAS, ELIGIA BOTOR, JUANA BOTOR, AND PRIMO BOTOR, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES VS. ARCADIO M. BOLO, DEFENDANT AND APPELANT; MARIA M. PAZ ET AL., THIRD PARTY APPELLEES.

In this case we have to adjudicate the application of article 1473 of the
Civil Code which provides 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 purchaser who first
recorded it in the Registry of Deeds.

“Should it not be recorded, the property shall belong to the person who first
took possession of it in good faith; or, in default of possession, to the person
who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.”

The land in litigation was transferred twice by its former owner, Lucio
Botor, now deceased: first, in favor of Arcadio M. Bolo on December 19, 1929,
through a private document of sale, and, then in favor of Simeon B. Paz, made
ten years later, or on April 29, 1939, by means of a deed of session ratified
before a notary public and later on registered in the Register of Deeds of
Camarines Sur.

The lower court, on July 14, 1943, rendered a decision in favor of Simeon B.
Paz, because the deed of cession was registered in the Register of Deeds, while
the deed of sale of 1929 was not and cannot be registered, it not being extended
in a public document.

Arcadio M. Bolo, as appellant, among other things, maintained that Simeon B.
Paz, in whose favor the deed of cession of April 29, 1939, was executed by Lucio
Botor, acted in bad faith, because he knew that the land in question had already
been sold by Lucio Botor to Arcadio M. Bolo. As evidence, appellant points to
the cross-complaint (Exhibit 2), filed by Simeon B. Paz, as attorney of Lucio
Botor in civil case No. 6693 (Exhibit K), where said Simeon B. Paz made the
following allegation:

“* * *plaintiff (Pedro Babilonia) not being satisfied of the fraudulent
transaction with defendant, the former approached defendant (Lucio Botor)
insisting that in as much as the debt is increased due to interest for several
years, one Arcadio Bolo of Baao, Camarines Sur, thru, supplication of defendant
(Lucio Botor), Paid for the latter the supposed increased debt, and defendant
(Lucio Botor) in return ceded 100 coconut trees to said Arcadio Bolo as payment
for the amount advanced by said Arcadio Bolo to plaintiff (Pedro Babilonia).”

The above fact, stated in appellant’s brief, is not disputed by Simeon B.
Paz, and is fully supported by the evidence.

Testifying as his own witness, Simeon B. Paz ratified having alleged in his
cross-complaint dated February 24, 1939 that Lucio Botor had transferred the
land in question to Arcadio M. Bolo. Simeon B. Paz’s knowledge about the
transfer made by Lucio Botor in favor of Arcadio M. Bolo is further evidenced by
Exhibits N and O, the letters sent by Simeon B. Paz to Atty. Arcadio M. Bolo,
dated February 23 and 28, 1939, respectively, requesting Bolo to testify in
favor of Lucio Botor at the hearing of civil case No. 6693 about the fact that
Bolo paid Lucio Botor’s debt to Pedro Babilonia, because, as alleged in
paragraph III of the complaint and amended complaint filed in this case by
Simeon B. Paz, as counsel for plaintiffs, the agreement between Lucio Botor and
Arcadio LI. Bolo at the time the private document of sale was executed on
December 19, 1929, was that the price of P300 agreed upon was to be delivered by
Bolo to Pedro Babilonia, in payment of Botor’s debt.

The cross-complaint in which Simeon B. Paz made the above-quoted allegation
was filed on February 24, 1939, more than two months before the deed of cession
was executed in his favor by his client Lucio Botor on April 29, 1939.

The fundamental premise of the preferential rights established by Article
1473 of the Civil Code is good faith. There is no question that Simeon B. Paz,
in acquiring the land in question, knowing that it had already been sold to
Arcadio M. Bolo, had not acted in good faith and, therefore, the cession in his
favor is null and void.

There is no need of passing on the other questions raised by appellant
Arcadio M. Bolo.

The appealed decision is reversed and appellant Arcadio M. Bolo is declared
the owner of the land in question as described in paragraph 2 of the original
complaint and amended complaint, with costs as appellees Simeon B. Paz and Maria
H. Paz.

Parás, Actg. C.J., Pablo, Feria, and Tuason, JJ.,
concur.