Short answer. Yes. Article 766 of the Civil Code provides that alienations and mortgages effected after the complaint for revocation is annotated in the Registry of Property are void. A transfer made after the annotation cannot defeat your right to the land.
What the law says
Although the donation is revoked on account of ingratitude, nevertheless, the alienations and mortgages effected before the notation of the complaint for revocation in the Registry of Property shall subsist. Later ones shall be void.
Civil Code, Article 766 — Effect Of Revocation On Third Persons. Read the full provision →
The annotation as the dividing line
Article 766 of the Civil Code draws a clear boundary using the annotation of the revocation complaint in the Registry of Property. Before the annotation: alienations and mortgages effected by the donee "shall subsist" — the prior buyer or mortgagee keeps what they acquired. After the annotation: "Later ones shall be void." If the donee transferred the property to a third party after your complaint was annotated, that transfer is void. The annotation is the constructive notice to the world that the property is under legal challenge.
Why annotation matters
The annotation of the revocation complaint in the Registry of Property converts what was a private dispute into public notice. Any person dealing with the property after that annotation — whether buying, mortgaging, or otherwise acquiring rights — is deemed to know that the donation is under challenge. The law refuses to protect those who take after the notice: their transactions are void, and they acquire nothing against the donor who ultimately succeeds in the revocation. This protects the donor from having the property stripped away while the case is still pending.
Transfers before the annotation are protected
The flip side of Article 766 is that transfers or mortgages made before the annotation are protected. A buyer who purchased the donated property in good faith before the complaint was annotated takes good title and is not affected by the subsequent revocation. In that situation, the donor cannot recover the property itself — the third-party buyer is safe. The donor's remedy shifts: instead of recovering the land, the donor may seek its value from the donee who transferred it after receiving the donation.
Practical steps for donors pursuing revocation
If you are filing a case to revoke a donation for ingratitude, having the complaint annotated in the Registry of Property as early as possible is critical. Without the annotation, a donee can freely transfer the property to a third party who will be protected, leaving you without the land. Once the annotation is in place, any subsequent transfer the donee attempts is void by operation of Article 766, and you can recover the property itself when you win the case. Consulting a lawyer immediately upon deciding to pursue revocation — before a transfer can be made — is the most important protective step.