EVANGELINE C. BUCAD, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ASILDA GUANZON, WILLIAM GUANZON, AND EMILIA GUANZON, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari by Evangeline
C. Bucad from the decision^[1] dated
April 24, 1990 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 19321, affirming the
dismissal of petitioner’s complaint against respondents Asilda Guanzon, William
Guanzon and Emilia Guanzon for annulment of sale and cancellation of
certificate of title by the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch XXIII.

There is no dispute as to
the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals, which We quote, as follows:

Plaintiff-appellant Evangeline C. Bucad is the granddaughter of
Conrado Bucad. On March 16, 1982, a
residential land, with an area of 409 square meters, in Fuente Osmeña, Cebu was
sold to her by her grandfather. It
appears that although the land is covered by the Property Registration Decree
(PD No. 1529), the sale was not registered because the owner’s duplicate copy
of TCT No. 9192 was in possession of Felipe Valencia to whom the land had
earlier been mortgaged.

On December 22, 1982, Conrado Bucad again sold the land to the
defendant-appellees, Asilda Guanzon, married to William Guanzon, and to Emilia
Guanzon, who registered their sale on January 4, 1983, after paying off the
mortgage lien of Felipe Valencia. Although plaintiff-appellant made an affidavit of adverse claim, which
was annotated on the certificate of title of Conrado Bucad on December 27,
1982, this fact did not prevent the defendant-appellees from registering the
sale in their favor and from securing a new title (TCT No. 85965) in their
names.

It appears that a subsequent suit brought by defendant-appellees
against plaintiff-appellant for ejectment was dismissed on the ground that the
defendant-appellees did not have prior possession of the land. Although in its decision the Regional Trial
Court stated that defendant-appellees could not claim ownership of the land
because at the time they registered their sale they had notice of the adverse
claim of the plaintiff-appellant (Civil Case No. R-26062), the decision of this
Court, affirming the lower court’s judgment, was based solely on the consideration
that since defendant-appellees did not have prior possession of the land, an
action for ejectment was not the appropriate remedy. (Guanzon vs. Dizon, CA-G.R. SP No. 09914, Sept 30, 1987).

On May 8, 1985 plaintiff-appellant brought this suit for annulment of the sale to the defendant-appellees
and for the cancellation of their certificate of title. After the filing of defendant-appellees’
answer and trial, the lower court rendered a decision, holding that the
plaintiff-appellant did not have a perfected sale because of
plaintiff-appellant’s failure to pay Conrado Bucad’s indebtedness to Felipe
Valencia. Consequently art. 1544 of the
Civil Code, which provides that if the same thing is sold to different persons
ownership shall be transferred to the person who in good faith is first in
recording his sale, does not apply. The
lower court ordered:

Wherefore, premises all considered, this Court hereby orders the
dismissal of the instant complaint, and for plaintiff to pay defendants:

1. P5,000.00 as litigation
expenses;

2. P2,000.00 representing
attorney’s fees; plus costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.^[2]

In dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, the appellate court found
that the appeal did not comply with Section 16, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
with regard to the contents of an appellant’s brief, particularly paragraphs
(b) and (d), and thus dismissible under Section 1 (g), Rule 50. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals belied
petitioner’s contention that the affirmance of the decision in the ejectment
case clearly established that the first vendee (petitioner) is the real owner
of the lot in question, since the appellate court had upheld the decision on
another ground, namely, that respondents did not have prior possession of the
land.

After her motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner
instituted the instant petition, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in
not appreciating that respondents are not registrants in good faith within the
contemplation of Article 1544 of the Civil Code; (2) in ignoring the deed of
absolute sale executed by Conrado Bucad in her favor; and (3) in dismissing her
appeal on a procedural technicality.

We find the petition unmeritorious.

I

First, on the matter of whether the Court of Appeals was correct
for dismissing petitioner’s appeal for her failure to include a statement of
facts with page references to the record and assignment of errors in her
appellant’s brief

Section 16, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court lists down the items
which should be included in the appellant’s brief:

Sec. 16. Contents of
appellant’s brief. — The
appellants brief shall contain in the order herein indicated the following:

(a)  A subject index of the matter in the brief
with a digest of the argument and page references and a table of cases
alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with reference to the
pages were they are cited;

(b)  An assignment of the errors intended to be
urged. Such errors shall be separately,
distinctly and concisely stated without repetition, and shall be numbered
consecutively;

(c)  Under the heading “Statement of the
Case,” a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, a
summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the
nature of the judgment and any other matters necessary to an understanding of
the nature of the controversy, with page references to the record;

(d)  Under the heading “Statement of
Facts,” a clear and concise statement in narrative form of the facts
admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the
substance if the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly
intelligible, with page references to the record,

(e)  A clear and concise statement of the issues of
fact and law to be submitted to the court for its judgment,

(f)   Under the heading “Argument,” the
appellant’s arguments on each assignment of error with page references to the
record. The authorities relied upon
shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins and the page
of the report on which the citation is found,

(g)  Under the heading “Relief,” a
specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks,

(h)  In cases not brought up by record on appeal,
the appellant’s brief shall contain as an appendix, a copy of the judgment or
order appealed from

Non-compliance with paragraphs (b) and (d) of the aforementioned
provision subjects the appeal to dismissal under section 1 (g), Rule 50, which
provides:

Section 1. Grounds for
dismissal — An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals on its
own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds.

x         x          x

(g) Want of specific assignment of errors in the
appellant’s brief, or of page
references to the record as required in section 16 (d) of Rule 46,

x         x          x

An examination of the appellant’s brief with the Court of Appeals
reveals that the same does not comply with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e), (f),
(g) and (h) of Section 16, Rule 46. In
fact, the pleading only mentions at the end that the appeal is from the
decision of the trial court in an action for annulment of sale and cancellation
of the certificate of title filed by petitioner. Dismissal of the appeal was therefore warranted.

While admitting that she failed to observe some of the
requirements of the Rules of Court, petitioner asks that the Rules be liberally
construed in her favor.

We are unmoved by petitioner’s plea.

The purpose of an assignment of errors is to point out to the
appellate court the specific portions of the decision appealed from which the
appellant seeks to controvert.^[3] This
requirement is deemed complied with where the assignment of errors are embodied
in the arguments, and the clear discussion of the points in issue have
accomplished the task of informing the Court which part of the appealed
decision is sought to be reviewed.^[4]

Petitioner’s brief in the
Court of Appeals is severely wanting on this matter. It does not appraise the appellate court of the portions of the
trial court’s decision which she contests, but rather, it quoted at length the
decision of the Regional Trial Court in the ejectment case.^[5] Consequently,
We see no reason for a liberal interpretation of the Rules of Court in
petitioner’s case.

II

Now to the heart of the petition. The case at bar is an instance of double sale of real properly in
which case, Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:

ART 1544. x x x.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the
person acquiring it who in good faith recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
person who in good faith was first in possession; and in the absence thereof,
to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

Petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in not
considering respondents as registrants in bad faith since at the time they
registered their deed of sale, petitioner had already caused the annotation of
an adverse claim on the title of the vendee, Conrado Bucad.

We do not agree.

Well-settled is the rule that the registration of a deed of sale
by either the first or second buyer must be made in good faith.^[6]
We see no objection in applying said rule to the annotation of an adverse claim
in double sales.

In the case at bar, the annotation of petitioner’s adverse claim
was attended by bad faith since at that time it was made on December 27, 1982,
petitioner had known of the previous sale to the respondents. This was established by the testimony of
Francisca Bucad, mother of petitioner, who stated that petitioner had learned
of the second sale on December 24, 1982.^[7]
(Francisca Bucad is petitioner’s duly constituted attorney-in-fact inasmuch as
the latter is residing in the United States.) Consequently, the annotation is
of no force and effect as against respondents.

Moreover, petitioner’s actual knowledge of the subsequent sale is
equivalent to registration of the sale.^[8]

Since petitioner failed to prove that respondents knew of the
prior sale of the property to her, respondents are considered to have
registered their deed in good faith and thus ownership of the disputed property
should belong to them.

Petitioner cannot rely on the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 09914 dated September 30, 1987^[9] in support for her position. In said case, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the dismissal of the complaint for ejectment filed by respondents against
petitioner on the ground that the former did not have prior possession of the
subject property, and not on the basis of Article 1544.^[10]
In fact, the appellate court stated:

The Court sees no further need to discuss the petitioners’
assignments of error. Their cause is
not founded upon deprivation of prior possession but one that involves mainly
the question of ownership, the parties appearing to be vendees of the same property from the same vendor. Clearly, it is a cause beyond the
Metropolitan Trial Court’s competence.^[11]

Besides, the inferior court in the ejectment case erred in
applying Article 1544 and in declaring respondents as in bad faith since petitioner’s
knowledge of the sale of the subject property to the respondents had caused the
automatic registration of the same ahead of the annotation of petitioner’s
adverse claim, as earlier discussed.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review on certiorari
is hereby DISMISSED. The decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Regalado, and Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, ponente, Justices Segundino G. Chua and Cezar
D. Francisco, concurring.

^[2]
Decision of the Court of Appeals, pp. 1-2.

^[3]
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. vs Court of Industrial Relations, 15 SCRA 660,
670 (1965).

^[4]
Id.

^[5]
Ceb-4927, June 28, 1986. Penned by
Judge Mario M. Dizon. A copy of this
decision is attached to petitioner’s appeal brief. See the Court of Appeals, rollo.

^[6]
Bergado vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R No. 84051, 173 SCRA 497
(1989).

^[7]
TSN, June 24, 1986, p. 17.

^[8]
Antonio vs. Estrella, L-73319, 156 SCRA 68 (1987), Southwestern
University vs. Laurente, 26 SCRA
52 (1968); Ramos & Ayco vs. Dueno & Otceda, 50
Phil 786 (1927), Gustillo vs. Maravilla, 48 Phil. 422, 446 (1925).

^[9]
Annex “F”, rollo pp. 37-51

^[10]
See Decision dated September 30, 1987 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
09914, p. 11, rollo, p. 47

^[11]
Id, p. 14, rollo, p. 50.