G.R. No. 181359.
August 5, 2013.
*
SPOUSES CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR. and MA.
ROSARIO M. SABITSANA, petitioners,
vs
. JUANITO F.
MUERTEGUI,
represented
by
his
Attorney-in-Fact
DOMINGO A. MUERTEGUI, JR., respondent.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Regional Trial
Courts; Jurisdiction; Quieting of Titles; Under Rule 63 of the
Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to real property or remove
clouds therefrom may be brought in the appropriate Regional Trial
Court.
—On the question of jurisdiction, it is clear under the Rules
that an action for
_______________
*
SECOND DIVISION.
146
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Muertegui
quieting of title may be instituted in the RTCs, regardless of the
assessed value of the real property in dispute. Under Rule 63 of
the Rules of Court, an action to quiet title to real property or
remove clouds therefrom may be brought in the appropriate RTC.
Civil Law; Sales; Buyer in Good Faith; The issue of the buyer’s
good or bad faith is relevant only where the subject of the sale is
registered land, and the purchaser is buying the same from the
registered owner whose title to the land is clean.
—Both the trial
court and the CA are, however, wrong in applying Article 1544 of
the Civil Code. Both courts seem to have forgotten that the
provision does not apply to sales involving unregistered land.
Suffice it to state that the issue of the buyer’s good or bad faith is
relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered land, and
the purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner
whose title to the land is clean. In such case, the purchaser who
relies on the clean title of the registered owner is protected if he is
a purchaser in good faith for value. Act No. 3344 applies to sale of
unregistered lands. What applies in this case is Act No. 3344, as
amended,
which
provides
for
the
system
of
recording
of
transactions over unregistered real estate. Act No. 3344 expressly
declares that any registration made shall be without prejudice to
a third party with a better right. The question to be resolved
therefore is: who between petitioners and respondent has a better
right to the disputed lot?
Remedial Law; Evidence; Notarized Documents; Notarization,
or the requirement of a public document under the Civil Code, is
only for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability.
—The
fact that the sale to Juanito was not notarized does not alter
anything, since the sale between him and Garcia remains valid
nonetheless. Notarization, or the requirement of a public
document under the Civil Code, is only for convenience, and not
for validity or enforceability. And because it remained valid as
between Juanito and Garcia, the latter no longer had the right to
sell the lot to petitioners, for his ownership thereof had ceased.
