CONCEPCION MENDIOLA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. NICOLASA PACALDA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Mendiola versus Pacalda

The Case

This is a suit over the ownership and possession of a building lot. Concepcion Mendiola, acting as administratrix of the estate of her late husband, Jose Muñoz, sues Nicolasa Pacalda, who claims the same lot by an earlier purchase. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the rule on double sale of real property: when the same thing is sold to different vendees, the law does not simply reward the earlier buyer, but asks who first recorded the sale in the registry. It also teaches two procedural lessons — how a notarized deed is weighed against conflicting testimony, and how a failure to deny an allegation in the answer amounts to an admission.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the Court of First Instance, which decided in favor of the plaintiff, Concepcion Mendiola, holding that the lot belonged to the estate of Jose Muñoz. The defendant, Nicolasa Pacalda, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court. The appeal was resolved by the Court, which affirmed the judgment of the court below, with costs against the appellant.

Facts

The parties admitted that the building lot originally belonged to one Marcelino Abordo. The plaintiff alleged that Abordo sold the lot to her late husband, Jose Muñoz, in June 1891. The defendant alleged that Abordo had previously sold the same lot to her.

To prove her claim, the plaintiff presented a public instrument executed on the twenty-fourth of June, 1891, setting forth the sale by Abordo to Jose Muñoz for the price of two hundred pesos. That instrument was recorded in the registry of property of the province on the ninth of July, 1892. The defendant tried to prove her purchase through witnesses only, presenting no document at all, saying that the one executed for her sale was lost or misplaced during the insurrection. She did not specify what kind of document it was, and nothing in her testimony showed that it was a public instrument.

The defendant attacked the plaintiff's deed as false. The witness Gabriel Dabuit, who appeared to be the gobernadorcillo who subscribed the instrument, testified that he neither signed nor authorized it. Against him stood a subscribing witness who recognized the authenticity of the writing, another witness who testified that he saw the execution of the instrument and the actual payment of the price to the vendor, and the duly identified signatures of the notary who issued the first copy and of the registrar. The defendant herself corroborated the sale to Muñoz: she testified that upon learning of it she sued Abordo for selling the land again to Muñoz, and Abordo was convicted of estafa. On appeal she also argued that the plaintiff had not proven her capacity as administratrix.

Issues

• Whether or not, assuming Abordo sold the lot to both the defendant and Jose Muñoz, ownership belongs to the vendee who first recorded the sale in the registry of property.
• Whether or not the deed of sale presented by the plaintiff is authentic, despite the testimony of the gobernadorcillo that he did not sign or authorize it.
• Whether or not the plaintiff's failure to prove her capacity as administratrix may be raised on appeal, when the defendant did not deny that allegation in her answer.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1473 of the Civil Code provides:

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.

This is the rule the Court applies to resolve the conflict between the two claimed purchases of the same lot.

Section 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:

Sec. 94. Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court cites this provision for the rule that an allegation not denied in the answer is deemed admitted, which forecloses the defendant's belated attack on the plaintiff's capacity.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that even assuming the defendant's purchase to be true, Abordo would have sold the lot to two different purchasers. The case is therefore governed by Article 1473 of the Civil Code. Since the purchase of Jose Muñoz was recorded in the registry and that of the defendant was not, the former must prevail, and ownership was lawfully transferred, not to the defendant, but to Jose Muñoz. The Court thus resolved the question as the court below had rightly decided it, in favor of the plaintiff.

On the second issue, the Court weighed the gobernadorcillo's denial against the subscribing witness who recognized the authenticity of the writing, the witness who saw the execution and the actual payment of the price, and the duly identified signatures of the notary and the registrar. The defendant's own testimony that she sued Abordo, who was convicted of estafa for selling the land again to Muñoz, further corroborated the truth of the sale to Muñoz.

On the third issue, the Court held that whatever the importance of the plaintiff's exhibit, the defendant did not deny, either specifically or generally, the allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff was the administratrix of the estate. That allegation is therefore deemed admitted and cannot be discussed in the present condition of the litigation.

Doctrine

When the same real property is sold to different vendees, ownership belongs to the vendee who first recorded the sale in the registry of property — not necessarily to the one who bought first. This is the rule of Article 1473 of the Civil Code, and it applies even where the earlier sale is assumed to be true, because the law fixes the preference by registration.

A public instrument recorded in the registry prevails over a later claim supported only by the testimony of witnesses, especially where the deed's authenticity is confirmed by a subscribing witness, by proof of actual payment, and by the identified signatures of the notary and the registrar.

An allegation in the complaint that is not denied specifically or generally in the answer is deemed admitted and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant, Nicolasa Pacalda, so that the lot was adjudged to the estate of Jose Muñoz.

Remember This

In a double sale of real property, the law gives the land to the vendee who first recorded it in the registry, not to the one who bought first. Examiners use this case to test Article 1473 of the Civil Code and the rule that an undenied allegation in the answer is an admission that cannot be litigated on appeal.