SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240232. September 3, 2018.]
RUSTICO MCGURK BALDOZ, petitioner,vs. MARLENE D. PECSON AND ATTY. RUBEN A. SONGCO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated03 September 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 240232 (Rustico McGurk Baldoz v. Marlene D. Pecson and Atty. Ruben A. Songco)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the April 11, 2018 Decision 2 and the June 26, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 109053 for failure of petitioner Rustico McGurk Baldoz (Baldoz) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding respondents Marlene D. Pecson (Pecson) and Atty. Ruben A. Songco's (Songco; collectively, respondents) ownership over the disputed property.
As correctly ruled by the CA, Article 1544 4 of the Civil Code applies in this case because the previous owner, Mary McGurk, executed two contracts of sale covering the same property to two different persons, specifically to Pecson and Baldoz in 1995 and 2004, respectively. 5 Applying this provision, Pecson has a better right of ownership and possession over the property because she first recorded the sale in good faith as evidenced by the Katibayan ng Orihinal na Titulo Blg. P-22268. 6 On the other hand, Baldoz contracted the sale even though he was already aware of the earlier sale to Pecson. 7 The CA also correctly ruled that Baldoz failed to substantiate his claim that respondents were prohibited from acquiring the property under Article 1491 (2) and (5) 8 of the Civil Code. 9 Settled is the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court and will not be reviewed on appeal, save for certain exceptions, none of which are obtaining in this case. 10
SO ORDERED." (J. REYES, JR., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018)
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-20.
2.Id. at 66-75. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
3.Id. at 83-84.
4. Article 1544 of the Civil Code provides:
Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
5. See rollo, p. 72.
6. See id. at 72-73.
7. See id. at 73.
8. Article 1491 of the Civil Code provides:
Article 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been intrusted to them, unless the consent of the principal have been given;
xxx xxx xxx
(5) x x x lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession[.] (Underscoring supplied)
9. See rollo, pp. 71-74.
10.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citations omitted.