CLAUDIO DELOS REYES and LYDIA DELOS REYES, petitioners, vs. THE HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and DALUYONG GABRIEL, substituted by his heirs, namely:

1999-09-03 | G.R. No. 129103

DECISION

GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners seek to set aside the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals[2] in
CA-G.R. CV No. 36955 reversing the consolidated Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court, Branch I, Tagum,
Davao del Norte in Civil Case Nos. 2326 and 2327.

This petition was originally filed with the Court on June 16, 1997. In a Resolution (of the Third Division) dated
October 13, 1997, [4] the petition was denied for failure to show that the respondent Court of Appeals
committed any reversible error. However, the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioners on November 14,
1997 was granted by the Court in its Resolution dated December 03, 1997[5] and the petition was reinstated.

The antecedents are:

Because Daluyong Gabriel together with his family was then residing in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, his
sister Maria Rita Gabriel de Rey acted as administratrix of the said parcel of land and took charge of
collecting the rentals for those portions which have been leased to certain tenants/lessees. One of these
2. lessees is LYDIA DE LOS REYES who by virtue of a Contract of Lease executed on June 21, 1985 by
and between Maria Rita G. de Rey as lessor and Lydia de los Reyes as lessee, leased a portion of One
Hundred Seventy Six (176) square meters for a term of one year beginning June 15, 1985 renewable
upon agreement of the parties at the rental rate of Two Hundred (P200.00) pesos, per month.[7]

Sometime in 1985 Daluyong Gabriel sent his son Renato Gabriel to Tagum reportedly with instructions to
take over from Maria Rita G. de Rey as administrator of the said parcel of land. Upon agreement of the
parties, the June 21, 1985 Contract of Lease covering the one hundred seventy-six square meter portion
of land was novated and replaced by a Contract of Lease executed on September 26, 1985 by and
3.
between RENATO GABRIEL as Lessor and Lydia de los Reyes as Lessee.[8] The term of the lease was
changed to six (6) years from and after June 15, 1985 or up to June 15, 1991; receipt of the payment in
advance of the total rental amount of Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred (P14,400.00) Pesos was
acknowledged by Lessor Renato Gabriel.

| Page 1 of 10
 Sometime in November 1987, during the effectivity of the lease contract, Lydia de los Reyes verbally
agreed to buy two hundred fifty (250) square meters (including the 176 square meters leased by her), and
thereafter an additional fifty (50) square meters or a total of three hundred (300) square meters of
Daluyong Gabriel’s registered property, at three hundred pesos (P300.00) per square meter or for a total
amount of P90,000.00. Receipt of the payment of the purchase price made in several installments by
4. Lydia de los Reyes was acknowledged by Renato Gabriel as evidenced by official receipts issued and
signed by him dated November 25, 1987, November 26,1987, January 8, 1988, February 10, 1988,
February 15, 1988 and February 29, 1988 all bearing the letter head “Gabriel Building.” No deed of sale
was executed covering the transaction. Purchaser Lydia de los Reyes however proceeded with the
construction of a two-storey commercial building on the said 300 square meter lot after obtaining a
building permit from the Engineer’s Office in Tagum.

Acting on the information given by his daughter Maria Luisa Gabriel Esteban upon the latter’s return from
a trip to Tagum that spouses Claudio and Lydia de los Reyes were constructing a two-storey building on a
portion of his land, Daluyong Gabriel, through his lawyer, sent a letter on August 30, 1989 to the De los
5.
Reyes couple demanding that they cease and desist from continuing with their construction and to
immediately vacate the premises, asserting that the construction was unauthorized and that their
occupancy of the subject portion was not covered by any lease agreement.

On September 20, 1989, spouses Claudio and Lydia de los Reyes through counsel sent their letter reply
explaining that the De los Reyeses are the innocent party who entered into the lease agreement and
subsequent sale of subject portion of land in good faith and upon the assurance made by the former
6.
administratrix, Maria Rita G. Rey, her nephew Tony Rey, Mrs. Fe S. Gabriel and Mr. Daluyong Gabriel
himself that Renato Gabriel is the new administrator authorized to enter into such agreements involving
the subject property.

Dissatisfied with the explanation, Daluyong Gabriel commenced an action on November 14, 1989 against
spouses Claudio and Lydia de los Reyes for the recovery of the subject portion of land before the
7. Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tagum, Davao del Norte docketed as Civil Case No. 2326. In his
complaint Daluyong maintained that his son Renato was never given the authority to lease nor to sell any
portion of his land as his instruction to him (Renato) was merely to collect rentals.

Spouses Claudio and Lydia delos Reyes countered that the sale to them of the subject portion of land by
Renato Gabriel was with the consent and knowledge of Daluyong, his wife Fe and their other children,
and filed before the same trial court a complaint for specific performance, docketed as Civil Case No.
8. 2329 against Daluyong and his children, namely Renato Gabriel, Maria Luisa Gabriel Esteban and Maria
Rita Gabriel Bartolome praying that the defendants therein be ordered to execute the necessary deed of
conveyance and other pertinent documents for the transfer of the 300 square meter portion they
previously bought from Renato.

Civil Case Nos. 2326 and 2327 were heard jointly and on September 10, 1991 the trial court rendered a
9.
consolidated decision, the dispositive portion[9] of which reads:

“WHEREFORE” premises considered, Daluyong Gabriel, Renato Gabriel, Maria Luisa Esteban and
Maria Rita G. Bartolome are hereby ordered to execute a Deed of Conveyance and other necessary
documents in favor of Claudio delos Reyes and Lydia delos Reyes over an area of 300 square meters
from TCT No. T-17932 comprising of 5,010 square meters located at Tagum, Davao which portion is
presently occupied by Delos Reyes couple.

| Page 2 of 10
 SO ORDERED”

On appeal by the Gabriels, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional
Trial Court and rendered a new one “ORDERING appellee spouses Claudio and Lydia delos Reyes to
10.
immediately vacate the 300 square meter portion of that land covered by TCT No. T-17932 which they
presently occupy and to turn over possession thereof to the appellants. x x x x”[10]

Not satisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, petitioners came to this Court by way of petition for
review, alleging that:

"a. The Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in overlooking facts extant in the record;

b. The Court of Appeals erred in not finding the document of sale and receipts (exhibits for the herein
Petitioners), as valid and enforceable;

c. The Court of Appeals erred in its apprehension and appreciation of the undisputed facts for the
Petitioners;

d. The Court of Appeals erred in making speculative conclusions on the facts of the case;

e. The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial Court based on credible,
relevant and material evidence adduced by the Petitioners in the lower court.”[11]

Petitioners aver that respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion when it totally disregarded the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by appellees, and in giving credence to the oral testimonies of
appellants, which are replete with inconsistencies and contradictions. Petitioners cite specifically Exhibits “1”
to “19” consisting of a contract of lease involving the subject property and certain official receipts with the
letterhead “Gabriel Building” showing payments received (by Renato Gabriel) for the lease and/or sale of
portions of subject real property of Daluyong Gabriel e.g. sale by installment of portion (700 square meters) of
land to spouses Ruben Carriedo and Abdula Sanducan (Exhs. 13, 14, 15 & 16) and lease (Exhs. 3-3-BBBB, 5,
6 & 7) and sale (Exhs. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12) of land made by Renato Gabriel to petitioners-spouses. In other
words, respondent Court of Appeals “gravely abused its discretion” in the misapprehension and
misappreciation of the facts of the case and in going beyond the issues involved contrary to the admissions of
both the appellants and appellees. And since the appellate court’s findings of facts contradict that of the trial
court a thorough review thereof by the Supreme Court is necessary.
In their Comment, private respondents restated their arguments to support the appellate court’s conclusion
that the alleged sale made by Renato Gabriel to the petitioners in 1987 without authority from Daluyong
Gabriel is not valid and therefore unenforceable.

| Page 3 of 10
Petitioners submitted their Reply to the Comment contending that the assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is “patently fallacious” in that while petitioners’ payment to Renato Gabriel of the amount of
P90,000.00 as purchase price of the three hundred (300) square meter portion of subject land was neither
denied nor controverted, the appellate court’s decision failed to order private respondent Renato Gabriel to
refund or reimburse petitioners the said amount together with the value of the improvements and the
two-storey commercial building which petitioners constructed thereon in violation of Articles 2142, 2143 and
2154 of the Civil Code and the time-honored principle of substantial justice and equity.

Petitioners allege further that even if Renato Gabriel was not (yet) the owner of the subject portion of land
when he sold the same to petitioners, after the death of his parents Daluyong and Fe Gabriel, he, as heir,
inherited and succeeded to the ownership of said portion of land by operation of law thereby rendering valid
and effective the sale he executed in favor of petitioners. Petitioners also maintain that on the basis of the
facts proven and admitted during the trial, Daluyong Gabriel appears to have not only authorized his son
Renato Gabriel to sell the subject portion of land but also ratified the transaction by his contemporaneous
conduct and actuations shown during his lifetime.

In their respective memorandum submitted by petitioners and private respondents, substantially the same
arguments/contentions were raised. Petitioners maintain that the sale is valid or validated pursuant to Articles
1433 and 1434 of the Civil Code and identified the legal issues involved as follows:

“1. Whether or not the sale by respondent Renato Gabriel of the land registered in the name of his
deceased father Daluyong Gabriel, during the lifetime of the latter, in favor of the herein petitioners, by
operation of law, automatically vests title on the latter under the principle of estoppel as provided for in
Arts. 1433 and 1434 of the New Civil Code;

2. Whether or not the sale by Renato Gabriel of the land registered in the name of his deceased father
during the lifetime of the latter, to the herein petitioners is null and void.”[12]

On the other hand, private respondents contend that the petition has no legal or factual basis. It is argued that
petitioners changed their theory of the case in that while in the regional trial court, petitioners claim that the
subject property was sold to them by the late Daluyong Gabriel through his son Renato Gabriel, in the instant
petition, they claim that it was Renato Gabriel who sold the property to them and that although at that time,
Renato was not yet the owner of the property, he is nonetheless obligated to honor the sale and to convey the
property to the petitioners because after the death of Daluyong Gabriel, Renato became the owner of the
subject property by way of hereditary succession. According to private respondents, litigants are barred from
changing their theory, more especially so in the appeal, and that the only issue to be resolved in the instant
petition is whether or not Renato Gabriel can be compelled to convey the subject property to petitioners.

| Page 4 of 10
Private respondents maintain that Renato Gabriel cannot be compelled to convey subject property (to
petitioners) because the land never passed on to Renato either before or after the death of Daluyong Gabriel
and that the whole property is now owned by Ma. Rita G. Bartolome per Transfer Certificate of Title No.
T-68674 entered in the Registry of Deeds of Davao del Norte on January 10, 1991.[13] In short, Renato Gabriel
cannot convey that which does not belong to him.[14]

Essentially, the issue here is whether or not the verbal agreement which petitioners entered into with private
respondent Renato Gabriel in 1987 involving the sale of the three hundred (300) square meter portion of land
registered in the name of Renato’s late father Daluyong Gabriel is a valid and enforceable contract of sale of
real property.

By law[15] a contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the
object of the contract and upon the price. It is a consensual contract which is perfected by mere consent.[16]
Once perfected, the contract is generally binding in whatever form (i.e. written or oral) it may have been
entered into[17] provided the three (3) essential requisites for its validity prescribed under Article 1318 supra,
are present. Foremost of these requisites is the consent and the capacity to give consent of the parties to the
contract. The legal capacity of the parties is an essential element for the existence of the contract because it
is an indispensable condition for the existence of consent.[18] There is no effective consent in law without the
capacity to give such consent. In other words, legal consent presupposes capacity.[19] Thus, there is said to be
no consent, and consequently, no contract when the agreement is entered into by one in behalf of another
who has never given him authorization therefor[20] unless he has by law a right to represent the latter.[21] It has
also been held that if the vendor is not the owner of the property at the time of the sale, the sale is null and
void,[22] because a person can sell only what he owns or is authorized to sell. [23] One exception is when a
contract entered into in behalf of another who has not authorized it, subsequently confirmed or ratified the
same in which case, the transaction becomes valid and binding against him and he is estopped to question its
legality.[24]

The trial court held that the oral contract of sale was valid and enforceable stating that while it is true that at
the time of the sale, Renato Gabriel was not the owner and that it was Daluyong Gabriel who was the
registered owner of the subject property, Daluyong Gabriel knew about the transaction and tacitly authorized
his son Renato Gabriel (whom he earlier designated as administrator of his 5,010 square meter registered
property) to enter into it. The receipt by Renato Gabriel of the P90,000.00 paid by petitioner spouses as
purchase price of subject portion of land[25] and also of the amount of P14,400.00 paid by petitioners as
advance rental fee for the lease of one hundred seventy six (176) square meters thereof, in accordance with
the then still existing Contract of Lease (Exh. 10) entered into by Renato Gabriel as Lessor and Lydia delos
Reyes as lessee on September 26 1985 which was to expire only on June 15, 1991 was also known not only
to Daluyong Gabriel but also to his late wife Fe Salazar Gabriel and his two other children, Maria Luisa

| Page 5 of 10
Gabriel Esteban and Maria Rita Gabriel Bartolome. And even assuming that Daluyong Gabriel did not
expressly authorize Renato Gabriel to enter into such contract of sale with petitioners in 1988, he (Daluyong
Gabriel) confirmed/ratified the same by his contemporaneous conduct and actuations shown during his
lifetime. More importantly, the trial court noted that Daluyong never presented Renato during the entire
proceedings, despite evidence[26] which tends to show that Renato Gabriel was not missing nor were his
whereabouts unknown as Daluyong wanted to impress the trial court, but had all the while been staying at the
Daluyong Gabriel residence at 185 I. Lopez St., Mandaluyong City but was deliberately prevented (by
Daluyong) from testifying or shedding light on the transactions involved in the two cases then at bar. Hence,
the decision of the trial court ordered Daluyong Gabriel, Renato Gabriel, Maria Luisa G. Esteban and Maria
Rita G. Bartolome to execute a Deed of Conveyance and other necessary documents in favor of petitioners
covering subject area of 300 square meters to be taken from the 5,010 square meters covered by TCT No.
T-17932 under the name of Daluyong Gabriel which portion is actually occupied by petitioners Delos Reyes
couple.

The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, ruled that the contract of sale cannot be upheld, mainly because
Renato Gabriel, as vendor, did not have the legal capacity to enter and to give consent to the agreement, he,
being neither the authorized agent (of Daluyong Gabriel) nor the owner of the property subject of the sale. It
was pointed out that three theories were advanced by appellees to prove that the transaction they had with
Renato concerning the sale of the portion in question was regular, valid and enforceable. First theory is that
Renato acted as the duly authorized representative or agent of Daluyong. Second, that the portion in dispute
was already given to Renato as his share, hence, he validly sold the same to appellees. And third, that the
portion being litigated was part of Renato’s inheritance from the estate of her deceased mother which he
validly disposed of to appellees. These reasons, according to the appellate court, cannot go together, or even
complement each other, to establish the regularity, validity or enforceability of the sale made by Renato. It
could not be possible for Renato to have acted in three different capacities - as agent, owner, and heir - when
he dealt with appellees, as the legal consequences for each situation would be different. Thus, it was
incumbent upon appellees to explain what actually convinced them to buy the land from Renato, and because
they failed to do so, no proper basis can be found to uphold the alleged sale made by Renato as it cannot be
determined with certainty in what capacity Renato acted. And even assuming that he (Renato) already
succeeded to whatever hereditary right or participation he may have over the estate of his father, he is still
considered a co-owner with his two sisters of the subject property and that prior to its partition, Renato cannot
validly sell or alienate a specific or determinate part of the property owned in common. Besides, the entire lot
covered by TCT No. T-17932 was subsequently donated by Daluyong Gabriel to his daughter Marie Rita G.
Bartolome on October 1, 1990 and is now covered by TCT No. T-68674 in her name.[27] Hence, the appellate
court’s decision ordered appellees (petitioners) spouses Claudio and Lydia delos Reyes to immediately
vacate the 300 square meter portion of that land covered by TCT No. T-17932 which they are occupying and
to turn-over possession thereof to the appellants, private respondents herein.

| Page 6 of 10
As a general rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are binding upon this Court. [28] When such
findings of fact are the same and confirmatory of those of the trial court, they are final and conclusive and may
not be reviewed on appeal,[29] In such cases, the authority of the Supreme Court is confined to correcting
errors of law, if any, that might have been committed below.[30] In the instant case, it is noted that the trial court
and the Court of Appeals are not at variance in their factual findings that sometime in 1988, an oral contract of
sale was entered into by Renato Gabriel, (as vendor) with petitioners De los Reyes couple (as vendees)
involving a 300 square meter portion of a 5,010 square meter parcel of land located in Barrio Magugpo,
Tagum, Davao del Norte owned and registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-17932 in the name of
Daluyong Gabriel, father of Renato. Thus, this Court is tasked to review and determine whether or not
respondent Court of Appeals committed an error of law[31] in its legal conclusion that at the time the parties
entered into said oral agreement of sale, Renato Gabriel as the purported vendor, did not have the legal
capacity to enter and/or to give consent to the sale.

We agree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that Renato Gabriel was neither the owner of the
subject property nor a duly designated agent of the registered owner (Daluyong Gabriel) authorized to sell
subject property in his behalf, and there was also no sufficient evidence adduced to show that Daluyong
Gabriel subsequently ratified Renato’s act. In this connection it must be pointed out that pursuant to Article
1874 of the Civil Code, when the sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the
authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise the sale shall be void. In other words, for want of capacity
(to give consent) on the part of Renato Gabriel, the oral contract of sale lacks one of the essential requisites
for its validity prescribed under Article 1318, supra and is therefore null and void ab initio.

Petitioners’ contention that although at the time of the alleged sale, Renato Gabriel was not yet the owner of
the subject portion of land, after the death of Daluyong Gabriel, he (Renato) became the owner and acquired
title thereto by way of hereditary succession which title passed by operation of law to petitioners pursuant to
Article 1434 of the Civil Code[32] is not tenable. Records show that on October 1, 1990 Daluyong Gabriel
donated the entire lot covered by TCT No. T-17932 to his daughter Maria Rita G. Bartolome and the property
is now covered by TCT No. T-68674 in her name. This means that when Daluyong Gabriel died on
September 14, 1995, he was no longer the owner of the subject property. Accordingly, Renato Gabriel never
acquired ownership or title over any portion of said property as one of the heirs of Daluyong Gabriel.

However, respondent Court of Appeals failed to consider the undisputed fact pointed out by the trial court that
petitioners had already performed their obligation under subject oral contract of sale, i.e. completing their
payment of P90,000.00 representing the purchase price of the 300 square meter portion of land. As was held
in “Nool vs. Court of Appeals”[33] if a void contract has been performed, the restoration of what has been given
is in order. The relationship between parties in any contract even if subsequently voided must always be
characterized and punctuated by good faith and fair dealing.[34] Hence, for the sake of justice and equity, and

| Page 7 of 10
in consonance with the salutary principle of non-enrichment at another’s expense,[35] private respondent
Renato Gabriel, should be ordered to refund to petitioners the amount of P90,000.00 which they have paid to
and receipt of which was duly acknowledged by him. It is the policy of the Court to strive to settle the entire
controversy in a single proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear the seeds of future litigation especially
where the Court is in a position to resolve the dispute based on the records before it and where the ends of
justice would not likely be subserved by the remand thereof, to the lower Court. The Supreme Court is clothed
with ample authority to review matters, even those not raised on appeal if it finds that their consideration is
necessary in arriving at a just disposition of the case.[36]

However, petitioners’ claim for the refund to them of P1,000,000.00 representing the alleged value and cost of
the two-storey commercial building they constructed on subject portion of land cannot be favorably
considered as no sufficient evidence was adduced to prove and establish the same.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 1997 in CA-G.R. CV No. 36955 is hereby
AFFIRMED in so far as it declared the oral contract of sale entered into by Renato Gabriel of portion of the
5,010 square meter parcel of land registered in the name of Daluyong Gabriel in favor of petitioners, null and
void. Renato Gabriel is hereby ordered to refund to petitioners the amount of P90,000.00 which was given in
payment for subject land. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Purisima, JJ., concur. Vitug, J., please see concurring opinion.

_________________________________

[1]
Dated April 30, 1997; Annex “A”, Rollo, pp. 39-48.

[2]
Sixth Division composed of Associate Justices Romeo A. Brawner (ponente), Lourdes Tayao-Jaguros and
Antonio M. Martinez (Chairman).

[3]
Dated September 10, 1991; Annex “I”, Rollo, pp. 182-192.

[4]
Rollo, p. 224.

[5]
Rollo, p. 242.

| Page 8 of 10
[6]
Exh. “2”, Rollo, p. 70.

[7]
Exh. “5”, Rollo, p. 147.

[8]
Exh. “1”, Rollo, p. 69.

[9]
Per Amendatory Order, dated 4th day of October 1991; Rollo, p. 197.

[10]
Dispositive Portion of CA Decision, CA-G.R. CV No. 36955; Rollo, p. 47.

[11]
Petition, p. 6, Rollo, p. 13.

[12]
Petitioners’ Memorandum, pp. 14-15; Rollo, pp. 295-296.

[13]
Annex “C”; Rollo, p. 273.

[14]
Memo of private respondents, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 309-310.

[15]
Article 1475, Civil Code.

[16]
Campillo vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 513.

[17]
Art. 1356, supra; Lopez vs. Auditor General, 20 SCRA 655.

[18]
Salonga vs. Farrales, 105 SCRA 359.

[19]
Tolentino, “Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines,” Vol. IV, p. 445 citing 8
Manresa 646.

[20]
Bumanlag vs. Alzate, 144 SCRA 480.

[21]
Art. 1317, supra.

[22]
Mindanao Academy vs. Yap, 13 SCRA 190; Estoque vs. Pajimela, 24 SCRA 59.

[23]
Article 1453, supra; Segura vs. Segura, 165 SCRA 368.

| Page 9 of 10
[24]
Second par. Art. 1317, supra, Frias vs. Esquivel, 67 SCRA 438, 487.

[25]
As evidenced by five (5) official receipts bearing the letterhead “Gabriel Building” issued and signed by
Renato Gabriel, to wit: Exh. “8”, 26 November 1987 – P50,000.00; Exh. “9”, 08 January 1988 – P21,000.00;
Exh. “10”, 10 February 1988 - P4,000.00; Exh. “11”, 15 February 1988 - P10,000.00, and Exh. “12”, 29
February 1988 – P5,000.00.

[26]
Return of summons executed by Deputy Sheriff Dominador Adriano of the Regional Trial Court of Manila
on December 28, 1989, excerpts quoted in RTC Decision, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 186-187.

[27]
See CA Decision pp. 8-10; Rollo, pp. 45-47.

[28]
Mijares vs. Court of Appeals, 271 SCRA 558; Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 89.

[29]
Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 651; Chua Tiong Tay vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 183;
Tolentino vs. De Jesus, 156 SCRA 167.

[30]
Odessa Park Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 253; Juan Nakpil & Sons, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et
al., 144 SCRA 596, 607-608.

[31]
See Rule 45, Section 1, Revised Rules of Civil Procedure; Floro vs. Llenado, 244 SCRA 713; Remalante
vs. Tibe, 158 SCRA 138, 145; Constantino vs. Mendez, 209 SCRA 18; New Testament Church of God vs.
Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 266.

[32]
Art. 1434 provides that “when a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it,
and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title pass by operation of law to the buyer or
grantee.”

[33]
276 SCRA 149.

[34]
Bricktown Development Corporation vs. Amor Tierra Development Corporation, 239 SCRA 126.

[35]
J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 94 SCRA 413.

[36]
Golangco vs. Court of Appeals, 283 SCRA 493 citing the ruling in Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel-Almoradie
vs. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 15.

| Page 10 of 10