[40] BELINDA TAÑEDO, for herself and in representation of her brothers and sisters,  Jul.

 Jul. 16, 1982: Petitioners filed a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of
and TEOFILA CORPUZ TAÑEDO, representing her minor daughter VERNA the deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of private respondents
TAÑEDO v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO M. TAÑEDO AND covering the property inherited by Lazaro from his father.
TERESITA BARERA TAÑEDO o claimed that their father, Lazaro, executed an "Absolute Deed of
G.R. No. 104482 | January 22, 1996 | Panganiban, J. Sale" conveying to his ten children his allotted portion under the
extrajudicial partition executed by the heirs of Matias, which deed
SUMMARY included Lot 191
Lazaro Tañedo executed a deed of absolute sale in favor of Ricardo Tañedo and  Petitioners presented in evidence:
Teresita Barrera in which he conveyed a parcel of land which he will inherit. Upon o a private writing signed by Matias stating that it was his desire that
the death of his father he executed an affidavit of conformity to reaffirm the said sale. whatever inheritance Lazaro would receive from him should be
He also executed another deed of sale in favor of the spouses covering the parcel of given to his (Lazaro's) children
land he already inherited. Ricardo registered the last deed of sale in the registry of o a typewritten document dated March 10, 1979 signed by Lazaro in
deeds in their favor. Ricardo later learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his the presence of two witnesses confirming that he would voluntarily
children through a deed of sale. abide by the wishes of his father, Matias, to give to his (Lazaro's)
children all the property he would inherit from the latter
DOCTRINE o a letter of Lazaro to his daughter Carmela, stating that his share in
Pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "(n)o contract may be entered into upon a the extrajudicial settlement of the estate of his father was intended
future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law." for his children, petitioners herein
 Respondents presented in evidence a "Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale
PROVISIONS wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in favor of petitioners because it was
Article 1544, NCC "simulated or fictitious — without any consideration whatsoever
If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership  Shortly after the case a quo was filed, Lazaro executed a sworn statement
shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in repudiating the contents of the Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale and the
good faith, if it should be movable property. Deed of Sale in favor of private respondents.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person o However, Lazaro testified that he sold the property to Ricardo, and
acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property. that it was a lawyer who induced him to execute a deed of sale in
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person favor of his children after giving him P5.00 to buy a "drink"
who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the  Trial court decided in favor of private respondents, holding that petitioners
person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. failed "to adduce a preponderance of evidence to support (their) claim
 CA affirmed the decision of the trial court, ruling that the Deed of Sale was
valid and that its registration in good faith vested title in said respondents.
FACTS
 Petitioners’ arguments: RTC erred in:
 Oct. 20, 1962: Lazardo Tañedo executed a notarized deed of absolute sale in
o in concluding that the Contract of Sale is merely voidable or
favor of his eldest brother, Ricardo Tañedo and wife, Teresita Barera (private
annullable and not void ab initio pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article
respondents) whereby he conveyed to the latter in consideration of
1347 of the New Civil Code involving as it does a 'future
P1,500.00, " 1 hectare of whatever share I shall have over Lot No. 191 of the
inheritance'.
cadastral survey of Gerona, Tarlac and covered by Title T-13829.
o in holding that defendants-appellees acted in good faith in
o Said property being his “future inheritance from parents”
registering the deed of sale with the Register of Deeds of Tarlac and
 Upon the death of his father Matias, Lazaro executed an "Affidavit of
therefore ownership of the land in question passed on to
Conformity to "re-affirm respect, acknowledge and validate the sale I made
defendants-appellees.
in 1962."
o in ignoring and failing to consider the testimonial and
 Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale in favor of respondents documentary evidence of plaintiffs-appellants which clearly
covering his "undivided 1/12 of a parcel of land (Lot 191)” with P10,000 as established by preponderance of evidence that they are indeed the
consideration thereof legitimate and lawful owners of the property in question.
 Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children, o the decision is contrary to law and the facts of the case and the
petitioners herein, through a deed of sale conclusions drawn from the established facts are illogical and off-
 Respondents recorded the Deed of Sale in their favor in the Registry of tangent."
Deeds and the corresponding entry was made in TCT No. 166451
ISSUES/RATIO  While petitioners conceded the fact of registration, they nevertheless
1. Is the sale of a future inheritance valid? NO contended that it was done in bad faith.
 A contract of sale of anticipated future inheritance is null and void.  All the above contentions involve questions of fact, appreciation of evidence
 Pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "(n)o contract may be entered into and credibility of witnesses, which are not proper in this review.
upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law."  The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. In petitions for review under Rule
 Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot be the 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised and
source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties. passed upon.
 Hence, the "affidavit of conformity" dated February 28, 1980, insofar as it o Absent any whimsical or capricious exercise of judgment, and
sought to validate or ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless and, in the words of unless the lack of any basis for the conclusions made by the lower
the respondent Court, "suffers from the same infirmity." courts be amply demonstrated, the Supreme Court will not disturb
 The documents that are critical to the resolution of this case are: their findings
1. the deed of sale in favor of private respondents covering Lazaro's  We are far from convinced that both courts gravely abused their respective
undivided inheritance of 1/12 share in Lot No. 191, which was authorities and judicial prerogatives
subsequently registered on June 7, 1982; and
2. the deed of sale in favor of petitioners covering the same property.
 These two documents were executed after the death of Matias (and his WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of
spouse) and after a deed of extra-judicial settlement of his (Matias') estate Appeals is AFFIRMED.
was executed, thus vesting in Lazaro actual title over said property.
o In other words, these dispositions, though conflicting, were no
longer infected with the infirmities of the 1962 sale.

2. Was the subsequent execution on January 13, 1981 (and registration with
the Registry of Property) of a deed of sale covering the same property to
the same buyers valid? YES
 Petitioners: What was sold on January 13, 1981 was only one-half hectare out
of Lot No. 191, citing as authority the trial court's decision
 SC: What is on review in these proceedings is the CA’s decision — which
correctly identified the subject matter of the January 13, 1981 sale to be the
entire undivided 1/12 share of Lazaro in Lot No. 191 and which is the same
property disposed of on December 29, 1980 in favor of petitioners.
 Critical in determining which of these two deeds should be given effect is
the registration of the sale in favor of private respondents with the register
of deeds on June 7, 1982.
 Article 1544 of the Civil Code governs the preferential rights of vendees in
cases of multiple sales (see PROVISIONS)
 The property in question is land, an immovable, and following the above-
quoted law, ownership shall belong to the buyer who in good faith registers
it first in the registry of property.
o Thus, although the deed of sale in favor of private respondents was
later than the one in favor of petitioners, ownership would vest in
the former because of the undisputed fact of registration.
o On the other hand, petitioners have not registered the sale to them
at all.

3. May this Court review the findings of the respondent Court (a) holding
that the buyers acted in good faith in registering the said subsequent deed
of sale and (b) in "failing to consider petitioners' evidence"? Are the
conclusions of the respondent Court "illogical and off-tangent"? NO