Scribd
Upload
118 views1 page

Mamuyac vs. Abena

This case involves a double sale of two parcels of land. Gregoria Pimentel originally owned the land and sold it to Pedro Abena on June 1, 1926. However, she then sold the same land to Tiburcio Mamuyac on January 27, 1927. Abena's sale document was duly recorded in the property registry, while Mamuyac's was not. Mamuyac sued Abena to recover the land. The RTC and CA both ruled in favor of Abena, finding that the execution of the public sale document in his favor was equivalent to delivery of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that even if Mamuyac had possession through an earlier unrecorded mortgage, Abena's properly

Uploaded by

Lilibeth Dee Gabutero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
118 views1 page

Mamuyac vs. Abena

This case involves a double sale of two parcels of land. Gregoria Pimentel originally owned the land and sold it to Pedro Abena on June 1, 1926. However, she then sold the same land to Tiburcio Mamuyac on January 27, 1927. Abena's sale document was duly recorded in the property registry, while Mamuyac's was not. Mamuyac sued Abena to recover the land. The RTC and CA both ruled in favor of Abena, finding that the execution of the public sale document in his favor was equivalent to delivery of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, stating that even if Mamuyac had possession through an earlier unrecorded mortgage, Abena's properly

Uploaded by

Lilibeth Dee Gabutero
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Case 76. G.R. No.

L-45742
April 12, 1939
TIBURCIO MAMUYAC, petitioner-appellant,
vs. PEDRO ABENA (alias Indong), respondentThis is a petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 30, 1937 in
CA-G. R. No. 43446. (dismissed)
This is a case on double sale
FACTS: Gregoria Pimentel was the owner of the two parcels of land which she sold and conveyed on June 1, 1926,
to Pedro Abena, the respondent-appellee herein. On January 27, 1927, Gregoria Pimentel again sold and conveyed
the same parcels to TiburcioMamuyac, the petitioner-appellant herein. The same was previously mortgaged to
Mamuyac in Jan. 1925.
The document of sale, in favor of Abena(1stsale) was duly inscribed in the registry of property of the province on
January 31, 1927, and from April, 1927, said parcels of land were declared for taxation in the name said Abena. The
document executed in favor of the petitioner (2nd sale) on January 27, 1927, was neither inscribed in the registry of
property nor were the parcels of the land declared for taxation in the name of the latter.
2nd Buyer petitioner-appellant instituted an action against the respondent-appellee for the recovery of the two
controverted parcels of land.
The contention of the appellant that respondent's ownership and preference over the property over the property in
question is not complete because of lack of material delivery of the possession to him by the vendor
RTC: ruled in favor of respondent (first buyer), affirmed by CA.
Plaintiff, petitioner-appellant here, elevated the case to this court by writ of certiorari
ISSUE: Who has a better right over the parcels of land.
RULING: The first buyer (respondent-appellee) has a better right, for the reason that the execution of the public
document of sale in his favor is equivalent to the delivery of the realty sold.
"in order that a mortgage may be deemed to be legally constituted, it is undispensable that the instrument in which it
appears be a public document and be recorded in the property register. Therefore, a mortgage in legal form was not
constituted by said private document."
Upon the other hand, even if we were to accept the contention of the petitioner-appellant that he had been in
possession of said properties by reason of the alleged contract of mortgage executed in his favor, on January 4,
1925, and were to accord legal effect to the document of sale of January 27, 1927, which was not recorded in the
registry of property, still his right cannot prevail over that of Abena who had duly registered his deed of sale.

You might also like