Agripino Mendoza v. Primitivo Kalaw

Summary

This case involves competing ownership claims to a parcel of land in Manila. Federico Cañet sold the same property twice: first through a conditional sale to Primitivo Kalaw, then through an absolute sale to Agripino Mendoza. Mendoza took actual possession and sought Torrens registration, while Kalaw opposed claiming prior rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision favoring Mendoza, ruling that a conditional sale before performance of conditions is not a true sale, and that Kalaw's preventive annotation could not defeat Mendoza's superior rights acquired through absolute sale and actual possession. The case establishes important principles regarding conditional versus absolute sales and the limited protective effect of preventive annotations under the Mortgage Law.