[ G.R. No. L-1365. November 14, 1947 ] 79 Phil. 451
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-1365. November 14, 1947 ]
VITALIANO JURADO, PETITIONER, VS. MARCELO S. FLORES, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
The respondent Marcelo S. Flores and the petitioner Vitaliano Jurado are respectively the plaintiff and the defendant in civil case No. 7 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which was an action in which the respondent sought to obtain a judgment declaring the respondent to be the owner of lot No. 2600-B of the Subdivision Plan Psd-1366 of the cadastral survey of Cebu, and ordering the petitioner to vacate said lot. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Cebu rendered a decision favorable to the respondent. Having failed to secure a reversal from the Court of Appeals, the petitioner has elevated the case before us in third instance.
The lot in question was bought by the respondent on December 19, 1944, for the sum of P10,000, from Jose S. Leyson who then held transfer certificate of title No. 19743, covering said lot. Registration of this sale on December 20, 1944, led to the issuance of a new transfer certificate of title (No. 1988) in the name of the respondent. In disputing the respondent’s title, the petitioner claims that in the middle of the year 1933, Rosario Miranda, the original registered owner of the lot, executed a contract (which was never registered) in favor of the petitioner, by virtue of which Rosario Miranda promised to sell said lot to the petitioner for the sum of P1,600 payable in instalments. It appears, however, that the petitioner failed to pay some instalments amounting to some P300, as a result of which, in accordance with the terms of the contract, Rosario Miranda cancelled the same. From the circumstance that transfer certificate of title No. 19743 was issued in the name of Jose S. Leyson, it may safely be concluded that the lot was conveyed to him in due form, after petitioner’s contract had been cancelled.
It is now contended on behalf of the petitioner that although the latter’s contract provided for automatic rescission in case of petitioner’s failure to pay any instalments, Rosario Miranda had no right to cancel the sale without judicial intervention; that Rosario Miranda, through her agent Jose S. Leyson, tolerated petitioner’s irregularity in the payment of the stipulated instalments, such that the contract to sell was thereby novated and Rosario Miranda’s right to rescind waived; and that Jose S. Leyson and the respondent acted in bad faith in the execution of the deed of sale in favor of the latter.
The finding of the Court of Appeals, which is of course conclusive in this instance, that bad faith on the part of Jose S. Leyson and the respondent has not been established by the evidence, necessarily compels us to uphold the title acquired by the respondent from Jose S. Leyson, the registered owner of the lot in question, if we are to recognize the proverbial virtuality of a Torrens title. In other words, we have here to give effect to the rule that there is no other owner of a property registered under the Torrens system than that in whose favor a certificate of title has been issued. (Visayan Surety & Insurance Corporation vs. Versoza, 72 Phil., 362.)
It becomes unnecessary for us to decide whether the cancellation by Rosario Miranda (without judicial approval) of the contract to sell executed by her in favor of the petitioner, was legally proper, or whether there was a novation of said contract, since these are matters that concern only the contracting parties and cannot affect any right acquired in good faith by the respondent under the conveyance executed by Jose S. Leyson at a time when the latter, and not Rosario Miranda, was the holder of a Torrens certificate covering the lot in controversy. Similarly, we need not discuss the superfluous pronouncement of the Court of Appeals, also assigned as error by the petitioner, to the effect that even granting that Jose S. Leyson and the respondent acted in bad faith, “it is of no avail for appellant (petitioner) for he never acquired ownership over the lot in controversy.”
The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs against the petitioner.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Bengzon, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.