From July 26, 2010 what's new, an article: "RULE IN CASE OF DOUBLE SALE," was published. The article reads:

> Where two or more TCT are issued to different persons for the same lots, or subdivisions thereof, due to the fact that the original title was not cancelled when the first TCT was issued to replace the original title, which title prevails?

> General rule is that in case of 2 certificates of title purporting to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails, whether the land comprised in the latter certificate be wholly or only in part, comprised in the earlier certificate

> Where 2 certificates of title purport to include the same land, the earlier in date prevails. In successive registrations, where more than 1 certificate is issued in respect of a particular estate or interest in land, the person claiming under the prior certificate is entitled to the estate or interest; and the person is deemed to hold under the prior certificate who is the holder of, or whose claim is derived directly or indirectly from the person who was the holder of the earliest certificate issued in respect thereof.

> The vendee of the earlier certificate would be the owner as against the vendee of the owner of the latter certificate

Is the rule based on a case or statute?

I think it was based on the principle “PRIOR EST TEMPORAE, PRIOR EST IN JURA” -He who first in time is first in right. It was established in jurisprudence. Need to verify this though, especially the cases. Just a quick answer.

@lawlessman, Thanks

“PRIOR EST TEMPORAE, PRIOR EST IN JURA” -He who first in time is first in right.

Honestly, I find the rule provided in the article "double sale" of July 26, 2010 a bit confusing. As a rule, the article sets the title of the first registrant to prevail. It appears that registration is the basis or foundation that would dictate which title should prevail in the event that two titles exist involving the same property.

Personally, it is my view that mere registration does not give anyone a right. The fact that one was able to register and to whose favor a TCT has been issued, in itself, is not an absolute evidence of ownership over the land described on the title. It is not registration that dictates a right. In fact, registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership. Registration is only an affirmation of a right; it does not create them. Thus, the rule as setforth in the article of July 26, 2010 appear to contradict these principles, making registration a mode to acquire property.

As an example: In 1911, "A" was able to obtain ownership of a parcel of land in Antipolo. The property was later transferred and subdivided from A to B, from B to C, from C to D in the course of time (first sale).

Later, in 1990, X was able to fraudulently obtain a title which appear to make X the owner of the property owned by A (second sale) It now appears that A sold the same property to X. In 1992, X sold again the property to Z who was able to secure a title in his name in that same year.

D (buyer of the first sale) sold the lot to E who also obtain title and was able to register his ownership on the same year of the sale (1996)

Now, the title of Z (1992 issued) appears to be prior in registration as compared to E (1996 issued) Which title then should prevail?

Following the rule provided in the subject article, Z's title prevails. However, to my mind, the title of E should prevail on the basis that the alleged second sale by A to X does not create a right. The sale is void for absence of subject matter. A cannot sell the property twice. Hence, even if Z's title is issued earlier in time as compared to E, the latter title should prevail for Z has not acquired any right, even if he was first in time.

May I cite paragraph 2, Art. 1544 of Civil Code, which reads:

"Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first 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 the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith."

This line of argumentation intrigues me to inquire on the basis of the article.

@lorenjay

I understand what you mean. I agree with you in many points- especially in saying that registration is not a means of acquiring ownership but merely an evidence thereof.

I have read the article you are referring to and indeed it is a bit confusing. Breathing my logic to the article, I think there is a general implication in the article that the registrants (people claiming to be the owners of the land) are in the same boat. What I mean is all circumstances are presumed to be the same with them except the time of registration. It is a general rule, so I think when its on a case to case basis, it would be different

I presume this is the article you are referring to: www.batasnatin.com/law-library/civil-law...-of-double-sale.html

I agree, all the persons claiming ownership are presumed to have acquired the land in good faith.

RULE ON DOUBLE SALE OF PROPERTY
1. The first registrant in good faith
2. The first possessor in good faith
3. The buyer who in good faith presents the oldest title

@lawlessman. Now, I get it; the article was written in a manner that it presupposes that both registrants are in the same boat. I was confused because the article states "general rule." In case of double sale, I adopt the absolute rule that ownership belongs to the first person who ACQUIRES and REGISTERS in GOOD FAITH.

In reality, there is a big possibility that a TCT may be issued to a person who never acquired ownership. THus, to my mind, a statement that "first registrant in good faith" is not the same as "person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded." In the first statement, registration becomes the basis of ownership, whether the registrant has acquired the property or not becomes immaterial; whereas, in the second statement, the rule requires that in addition to registration in good faith, the registrant must first have acquired ownership by any mode of acquisition recognized by law.

Going back on the given problem: Where two or more TCT are issued to different persons for the same lots, or subdivisions thereof, due to the fact that the original title was not cancelled when the first TCT was issued to replace the original title, which title prevails?

Personally, I would perfer to adopt the entire absolute rule: "the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it." Ownership is acquired by the first buyer in good faith even if there was an error. The fact that the OCT or TCT of his or her seller was not cancelled will never prevent the first buyer owning that property.