JULIA TUASON PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FAUSTO RAYMUNDO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in
favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the possession of certain
real property described in the complaint and for the sum of P25 per month from
the 12th day of June 1913 until the property is returned, and for the sum of P6,
the costs of the transfer of the tenant’s personal property, and for the costs
of the action.

From the evidence in the case it appears that Vicente Rodriguez and Gregoria
Baroto Cruz, his wife, were in possession of the real property described in the
complaint and that this property, together with several other pieces of real
estate, had been the subject of a loan by the owners from one Alfonso Debrunner
to the amount of P1,750, and that on the 3d of March, 1913, the owners sold the
property described in the complaint, together with other properties, to the
plaintiff herein for the sum of P2,800, plaintiff to pay the said Alfonso
Debrunner the sum of P1,750 due him, the balance to be paid to the vendors. The
plaintiff immediately entered into possession of the property and leased the
same to one Trinidad Maranga, who immediately took and remained in possession
until she was ousted by the sheriff of the city of Manila under an execution
issued on a judgment procured in an action brought by the defendant in this case
against the said Vicente Rodriguez and Gregoria Baroto Cruz, in which action
neither the plaintiff nor her tenant was a party.

The defendant justifies his entry upon the premises and the ouster of
plaintiff’s tenant upon the ground of a sale of the property to him on the 1st
May, 1911, at which time it appears he purchased the property described in the
complaint under a pacto de retro for the sum of P400, the period of
redemption being one year. There was no redemption within the year but the
defendant extended the time within which the redemption might be made without
fixing a limit to the extension. The sale with the right to repurchase was not
registered in the registry of property and no attempt was made to register it
until the 9th day of June, 1913, some time after this action was begun, at which
time registry was refused for the reason that the property had never been,
registered in the name of the vendors.

It thus appears that Vicente Rodriguez and Gregoria Baroto Cruz sold the same
property to two different individuals, namely, the defendant on the 1st of May,
1911, the sale being with the right to repurchase, and to the plaintiff on the
3d of March, 1913. The sale to the defendant was not registered and no entry was
made either upon the certificate of title by which Vicente Rodriguez and
Gregoria Baroto Cruz held title to the property at that time or in the registry
of property; whereas the sale td the plaintiff, although made some two years
later, was duly registered as required by law. The property in question being
property duly registered under the Torrens system (Act No. 496) the question
arises what effect has a prior unregistered transfer on a subsequent registered
transfer made for value and in good faith.

The provisions of Act No. 496 made the resolution of this question very
simple. Section 50 of that Act provides in part: “But no deed, mortgage, lease,
or other voluntary instrument, except a will, purporting to convey or affect
registered land, shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall
operate only as a contract between the parties and as evidence of authority to
the clerk or register of deeds to make registration. The act of registration
shall be the operative act to convey and affect the land, and in all cases
under this Act the registration shall be made in the office of register of deeds
for the province or provinces or city where the land lies.”

In accordance
with this section, no act of the parties themselves can transfer the ownership
of real estate under the Torrens system. That is done by the act of registration
of the conveyance which the parties have made. It is clear, therefore, that the
property in question, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, was not transferred
by the conveyance from Vicente Rodriguez and Gregoria Baroto Cruz to the
defendant in 1911. Their instrument amounted simply to a contract for a
conveyance which would become a conveyance when it was registered in accordance
with the requirements of Act No. 496. Being nothing more than a contract for the
sale of land, it had no effect upon the purchase made by the plaintiff in 1913,
she having bought for value and in good faith and her conveyance having duly
registered as required by law.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Araullo,
J.J., concur.