G.R. No. L-18491 February 27, 1971
MELITON GODINEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICENTE PELAEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, heirs of spouses Benigno Godinez and Sabina Saberon, sought the annulment of transactions and titles, and reconveyance of Lot 2623. They claimed ownership based on a December 30, 1893 contract of sale between Benigno Godinez and the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu. However, the trial court found Benigno failed to pay the installments, causing the contract to be rendered without force and effect under its terms, thereby reverting ownership to the vendor. Subsequently, on December 12, 1913, Bernardino Totoy purchased the same property from the Seminario, evidenced by receipts and a later 1935 Deed of Absolute Sale executed in favor of his widow, Vicenta Godinez. After Bernardino Totoy’s death, the property was listed as conjugal property in estate proceedings, partitioned among his heirs, and subsequently sold to third parties, eventually leading to titles being issued in the names of the defendants-appellees.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether the appellants, as heirs of Benigno Godinez, had a valid claim to ownership of Lot 2623, thereby entitling them to annul subsequent transactions and seek reconveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The legal logic centered on the failure of the appellants’ predecessor-in-interest, Benigno Godinez, to perfect ownership. The 1893 contract was expressly conditional; failure to pay installments rendered it without legal force, causing ownership to revert to the Seminario. Therefore, Benigno Godinez and his heirs never acquired title. The property was lawfully acquired by Bernardino Totoy in 1913 through a valid purchase. The subsequent probate proceedings involving Totoy’s estate, the court-approved partition among his heirs, and the series of sales to innocent purchasers for value were all regular and binding. The appellants’ claim, arising from a failed conditional contract, could not prevail over the established chain of title originating from Totoy’s valid acquisition. The Court also found no basis for a constructive trust, as there was no showing that the registration under the subsequent owners was procured by fraud against the appellants’ predecessors. The titles of the defendants-appellees, including those of purchasers in good faith, were upheld.