ENGRACIO DE ASIS, APPELLANT, VS. MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO., APPELLEE.

By
virtue of a writ of execution issued in civil case No. 31749 of the
Court of First Instance of Manila, the provincial sheriff of Nueva
Ecija, on March 30, 1929, sold to the herein appellee, Manila Trading
and Supply Co., the property described in transfer certificate of title
No. 1434. The sheriff’s deed of sale was recorded in the office of the
register of deeds on June 7, 1929, and the final certificate of sale
was also recorded on October 5, 1931. Previous to the levy and sale and
the recording thereof, however, or on August 28, 1926, the same
property had been sold with pacto de retracto by Ramon H.
Severino, defendant in civil case No. 31749, to Engracio de Asis, the
herein appellant, which sale was duly recorded and noted on the
certificate of title No. 1434. On May 3, 1935, appellee filed a
petition in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the
cancellation of transfer certificate of title No. 1434 and the
issuance, in lieu thereof, of a new certificate of title in its favor.
On June 6, 1935, appellant also filed a motion for the issuance of a
copy of certificate of title No. 1434 because of the loss of the
owner’s duplicate certificate. This motion of appellant appears to have
been denied by the lower court on June 14, 1935. The appellant filed a
motion for reconsideration but the motion was denied on June 21, 1935.
Appellee’s petition of May 3, 1935, was granted in an order of August
9, 1935, in which order appellant’s motion for reconsideration of June
21, 1935, was also denied.

Of the three errors assigned by
the appellant in his brief only the second need be considered. This
error raises the question of preference in favor of the appellant, in
view of the prior registration of the sale with pacto de retracto aforesaid.

A sale with pacto de retracto
transfers the legal title to the vendee, subject to a resolutory
condition. If the vendor does not at the expiration of the term for
repurchase exercise his right, the purchaser acquires irrevocable
ownership of the thing sold. In the present case, the title of the
appellant, Engracio de Asis, was consolidated approximately two years
before the sale by the sheriff and the recording thereof in the office
of the register of deeds. It is true that no notation was made of the
consolidation of title in the appellant De Asis. Proper notation,
however, of the contract of sale with pacto de retracto is
notice to all those dealing with the property of the character of the
agreement entered into and duly recorded and, therefore, of the
resolutory condition which implies the consolidation of ownership in
the purchaser if the vendor a retro does not comply with the
provisions of article 1518 of the Civil Code within the time stipulated
or prescribed. (Articles 1508, 1509, Civil Code; Manresa, Vol. 10, p.
305.) It follows that the sale by the sheriff and the registration
thereof could not affect the ownership of the appellant over the
property.

The judgment of the lower court is accordingly reversed, with costs against the appellee. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.