Ltd Week 4_final Term_curtain and Mirror Principle

7/25/2019 Ltd Week 4_final Term_curtain and Mirror Principle

1/44

CURTAIN PRINCIPLE

SPOUSES ALFONSO AND MARIA ANGELES CUSI,Petitioners, vs. LILIA V.

DOMINGO,Respondent.

G.R. No. 195825 Februar 2!, 2"1#

RAMONA LI$A L. DE VERA,Petitioner, vs LILIA V. DOMINGO AND SPOUSES RADELIA

AND ALFRED S%,Respondents.

G.R. No. 1958!1

&ERSAMIN,J.:

Under the Torrens system of land registration, the registered owner of realty cannot be

deprived of her property through fraud, unless a transferee acquires the property as an

innocent purchaser for value. A transferee who acquires the property covered by a reissued

owner's copy of the certicate of title without ta!ing the ordinary precautions of honest

persons in doing business and e"amining the records of the proper Registry of #eeds, or who

fails to pay the full mar!et value of the property is not considered an innocent purchaser for

value.

Under review in these consolidated appeals is the #ecision promulgated on $uly %&,

(%(,%whereby the )ourt of Appeals *)A+ in )A-.R. ) /o. 0(12 a3rmed the revised

decision rendered on 4arch %, ((5 by the Regional Trial )ourt in 6ue7on )ity *RT)+ against

the petitioners and their seller.

A'(e)e*e'(+

The property in dispute was a vacant unfenced lot situated in 8hite Plains, 6ue7on )ity and

covered by Transfer )erticate of Title *T)T+ /o. /%&2&(& issued in the name of respondent

9ilia . #omingo by the Registry of #eeds of 6ue7on )ity. :t had an area of &2; square

meters.ecting her property.

?n $uly %;, %005, one Radelia =y *=y+,1representing herself as the owner of the property,

petitioned the RT) for the issuance of a new owner@s copy of #omingo@s T)T /o. /%&2&(&,appending to her petition a deed of absolute sale dated $uly %1, %005 purportedly e"ecuted

in her favor by #omingo2and an a3davit of loss dated $uly %5, %005,&whereby she claimed

that her bag containing the owner@s copy of T)T /o. /%&2&(& had been snatched from her

on $uly %


2/44

=y subsequently subdivided the property into two, and sold each half by way of contract to

sell to =pouses Bdgardo and Ramona 9i7a #e era and to =pouses Alfonso and 4aria Angeles

)usi. The e"istence of the individual contracts to sell was annotated on the dorsal portion of

=y@s T)T /o. %;&%1 as Bntry /o. PB;0(5C/%;&%1,0stating that the consideration of the

sale was P%,(((,(((.(( for each set of buyers, or for a total ofP,(((,(((.(( for the entire

property that had an actual worth of not less than P%1,(((,(((.((. T)T /o. %;&%1 in the

name of =y was then cancelled by virtue of the deeds of sale e"ecuted between =y and

=pouses #e era, and between =y and =pouses )usi, to whom were respectively issued T)T

/o. %;02&;%(and T)T /o. %;02&0.%%All the while, the transactions between =y and the #e

eras, and between =y and the )usis were un!nown to #omingo, whose T)T /o. /%&2&(&

remained in her undisturbed possession.%

:t turned out that the construction activities ta!ing place on the property that #omingo

learned about were upon the initiative of the #e eras in the e"ercise of their dominical and

possessory rights.

#omingo commenced this action against =y and her spouse, the #e eras and the )usis in

the RT), the complaint being doc!eted as )ivil )ase /o. 600


3/44

9ilia . #omingo liable *sic+ for

damages, as followsE

%. ?ne 4illion Pesos *P%,(((,(((.((+ representing moral damages

. Give Fundred Thousand Pesos *P2((,(((.((+ representing e"emplary

damages


4/44

This #ecision is without preDudice to whatever civil action for recovery and damages, the

defendants =ps. #e era and =ps. )usi may have against defendant =pouses Radelia and

Alfred =y.

=? ?R#BRB#.

Ru-' o/ (0e CA

?n appeal, the assignment of errors each set of appellants made was as followsE

=pouses )usi

a+ TFB RB-:?/A9 TR:A9 )?URT -RAB9H BRRB# :/ G:/#:/- TFAT #BGB/#A/T=

=P?U=B= A9G?/=? A/# 4AR:A A/-B9B= )U=: ARB /?T PUR)FA=BR= :/ -??#

GA:TF A/# G?R A9UB.

b+ TFB RB-:?/A9 TR:A9 )?URT -RAB9H BRRB# :/ GA:9:/- T? RB=?9B TFB :==UB

?G 8FBTFBR ?R /?T )?#BGB/#A/T= =P?U=B= RA#B9:A =H A/# A9GRB# =H ARB9:AI9B G?R =P?U=B= )U=:@= )R?==)9A:4.

c+ TFB RB-:?/A9 TR:A9 )?URT BRRB# :/ GA:9:/- T? A8AR# #A4A-B= A/#

ATT?R/BH@= GBB= T? #BGB/#A/T= =P?U=B= )U=:.%5

=pouses =y

a+ TFB TR:A9 )?URT A 6U? BRRB# :/ F?9#:/- TFAT TFB =A9B IBT8BB/ 9:9:A

#?4:/-? A/# RA#B9:A =H ?:# A/# ?G /? BGGB)T A/# 8A= PR?)URRB# *sic+

TFR?U-F GRAU#U9B/T 4BA/=.

b+ TFAT TFB F?/?RAI9B )?URT BRRB# :/ A8AR#:/- A)TUA9 4?RA9 #A4A-B=,

BJB4P9ARH #A4A-B= A/# ATT?R/BH@= GBB= A/# 9:T:-AT:?/ BJPB/=B= TFB =A4B

IB:/- /U99 A/# ?:# G?R IB:/- )?/TRARH T? 9A8.

c+ TFAT TFB =A:# #B):=:?/ := )?/TRARH T? 9A8 A/# $UR:=PRU#B/)B A/# := /?T

=UPP?RTB# IH B:#B/)B, A= TFB =A4B )?/TA:/ =BR:?U= RBBR=:I9B BRR?R=

8FB/ TFB )?URT A 6U? #B)9ARB# TFAT T)T /?=. %;02&; A/# %;02&0

)A/)B99B# A/# #B)9ARB# /U99 A/# ?:# AI :/:T:?.

d+ TFB :/=TA/T A==A:9B# #B):=:?/ ?G TFB F?/?RAI9B )?URT FAB *sic+

#BPR:B# #BGB/#A/TK=L =P?U=B= =H ?G TFB:R IA=:) )?/=T:TUT:?/A9 R:-FT T?#UB PR?)B== ?G 9A8.%;

=pouses #e era

a+ TFB 9?8BR )?URT BRRB# :/ F?9#:/- TFAT TFB #B BRA =P?U=B= ARB /?T

PUR)FA=BR= :/ -??# GA:TF A/# /?T B/T:T9B# T? TFB P?==B==:?/ ?G TFB

PR?PBRTH )?BRB# IH T)T /?. /%;02&;.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt18


5/44


6/44

:::. -RA/T:/-, 8:TF?UT A#4:TT:/-, TFAT TFB #B):=:?/ ?G TFB F?/?RAI9B

)?URT ?G APPBA9= := )?RRB)T 8:TF RB=PB)T T? TFB =B)?/# :==UB, 8FBTFBR

?R /?T PBT:T:?/BR= ARB B/T:T9B# T? RB:4IUR=B4B/T ?G A99 TFB PAH4B/T=

4A#B IH PBT:T:?/BR= T? TFB:R )?#BGB/#A/T= =P?U=B= A9GRB# A/# RA#B9:A =H

:/ A##:T:?/ T? #A4A-B= A/# ATT?R/BH@= GBB=.

:n -.R. /o. %02;5%, #e era asserts that the primordial issue is whether or not she was an

innocent purchaser for value and in good faith.

Ru-' o/ (0e Cour(

The petitions for review are bereft of merit.

Girstly, now beyond dispute is the nullity of the transfer of #omingo@s property to =y because

both lower courts united in so nding. The unanimity in ndings of both the RT) and the )A

on this allimportant aspect of the case is now conclusive on the )ourt in view of their

consistency thereon as well as by reason of such ndings being fully supported by

preponderant evidence. 8e consider to be signicant that the =ys no longer came to the)ourt for further review, thereby rendering the Dudgment of the )A on the issue of nullity

nal and immutable as to them.

=econdly, the )usis and #e era commonly contend that the )A gravely erred in not

considering them to be purchasers in good faith and for value. They argue that =y@s T)T /o.

%;&%1 was free of any liens or encumbrances that could have e"cited their suspicion and

that they nonetheless even went beyond the tas! of e"amining the face of =y@s T)T /o.

%;&%1, recounting every single detail of their quest to ascertain the validity of =y@s title,

but did not nd anything by which to doubt her title.

The )ourt concurs with the nding by the )A that the )usis and #e era were notpurchasers for value and in good faith. The records simply do not support their common

contention in that respect.

Under the Torrens system of land registration,1the =tate is required to maintain a register of

landholdings that guarantees indefeasible title to those included in the register. The system

has been instituted to combat the problems of uncertainty, comple"ity and cost associated

with old title systems that depended upon proof of an unbro!en chain of title bac! to a good

root of title. The =tate issues an o3cial certicate of title to attest to the fact that the person

named is the owner of the property described therein, subDect to such liens and

encumbrances as thereon noted or what the law warrants or reserves.2

?ne of the guiding tenets underlying the Torrens system is the curtain principle, in that one

does not need to go behind the certicate of title because it contains all the information

about the title of its holder. This principle dispenses with the need of proving ownership by

long complicated documents !ept by the registered owner, which may be necessary under a

private conveyancing system, and assures that all the necessary information regarding

ownership is on the certicate of title. )onsequently, the avowed obDective of the Torrens

system is to obviate possible conMicts of title by giving the public the right to rely upon the

face of the Torrens certicate and, as a rule, to dispense with the necessity of inquiring
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt25


7/44

further on the part of the registered owner, the system gives him complete peace of mind

that he would be secured in his ownership as long as he has not voluntarily disposed of any

right over the covered land.&

The Philippines adopted the Torrens system through Act /o. 10&, 5also !nown as the Land

Regis&ra&ion A(&, which was approved on /ovember &, %0( and too! e>ect on Gebruary %,

%0(ort as buyers to determine

whether the property did rightfully belong to =y. Gor one, they did not nd any encumbrance,li!e a notice of lis pendens, being annotated on the T)T of =y. /onetheless, their observance

of a certain degree of diligence within the conte"t of the principles underlying the Torrens

system

was not their only barometer under the law and Durisprudence by which to gauge the validity

of their acquisition of title. As the purchasers of the property, they also came under the clear

obligation to purchase the property not only in good faith but also for value.

Therein lay the problem. The petitioners were shown to have been decient in their vigilance

as buyers of the property. :t was not enough for them to show that the property was

unfenced and vacant otherwise, it would be too easy for any registered owner to lose her

property, including its possession, through illegal occupation. /or was it safe for them to

simply rely on the face of =y@s T)T /o. %;&%1 in view of the fact that they were aware that

her T)T was derived from a duplicate owner@s copy reissued by virtue of the loss of the

original duplicate owner@s copy. That circumstance should have already alerted them to the

need to inquire beyond the face of =y@s T)T /o. %;&%1. There were other circumstances,

li!e the almost simultaneous transactions a>ecting the property within a short span of time,

as well as the gross undervaluation of the property in the deeds of sale, ostensibly at the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/feb2013/gr_195825_2013.html#fnt31


8/44

behest of =y to minimi7e her liabilities for the capital gains ta", that also e"cited suspicion,

and required them to be e"tracautious in dealing with =y on the property.

To the )ourt, the )A@s treatment of =y@s T)T /o. %;&%1 as similar to a reconstituted copy of

a Torrens certicate of title was not unwarranted. :n doing so, the )A cited the ruling

in Bars&o*e %ilippines Corpora&ion v. Repu+li(,orts e"erted for that purposeN orts e"erted for that purpose. Ioth, therefore,

are su+seuen& copies of the originals thereof. A cursory e"amination of these subsequent

copies would show that they are not the originals. Anyone dealing with such copies are put

on notice of such fact and thus warned to be e"tracareful. This warning the mortgagees

9a7aros did not heed, or they Dust ignored it.N


9/44

The fraud committed in Gar(ia paralleled the fraud committed here.-*p%iThe registered

owner of the property was #omingo, who remained in the custody of her T)T all along the

impostor was =y, who succeeded in obtaining a duplicate owner@s copy and the )usis and

the #e eras were similarly situated as the =pouses 9a7aro, the mortgagees in Gar(ia. The

)usis and the #e eras did not investigate beyond the face of =y@s T)T /o. %;&%1, despite

the certicate derived from the reissued duplicate owner@s copy being a!in to a

reconstituted T)T. Thereby, they denied themselves the innocence and good faith they

supposedly clothed themselves with when they dealt with =y on the property.

The records also show that the forged deed of sale from #omingo to =y appeared to be

e"ecuted on $uly %1, %005 that the a3davit of loss by which =y would later on support her

petition for the issuance of the duplicate owner@s copy of #omingo@s T)T /o. %&2&(& was

e"ecuted on $uly %5, %005, the very same day in which =y registered the a3davit of loss in

the Registry of #eeds of 6ue7on )ity that =y led the petition for the issuance of the

duplicate owner@s copy of #omingo@s T)T /o. %&2&(& that the RT) granted her petition on

August &, %005 and that on ?ctober


10/44

responsible for the undervaluation that had inured only to her benet as the seller. Fowever,

such insistence was rendered of no consequence herein by the fact that neither she nor her

late husband had seen t to rectify the undervaluation. :t is notable that the #e eras were

contracting parties who appeared to have transacted with full freedom from undue inMuence

from =y or anyone else.

Although the petitioners argue that the actual consideration of the sale was

nearly P5,(((,(((.(( for each half of the property, the )ourt reDects their argument as

devoid of factual basis, for they did not adduce evidence of the actual payment of that

amount to =y. Accordingly, the recitals of the deeds of sale were controlling on the

consideration of the sales.

-ood faith is the honest intention to abstain from ta!ing unconscientious advantage of

another. :t means the Nfreedom from !nowledge and circumstances which ought to put a

person on inquiry.N


11/44

:t was only on $uly %000 when the respondent learned the situation.=he led an action

against =pouses =y, =pouses #e era, and the =pouses )usi see!ing annulment of titles,

inDuction, and damages. =he also applied for the issuance of writ of preliminary prohibition

and mandatory inDunction, and a temporary restraining order *TR?+.

The RT) granted her application, however, the title of =pouses #e era and =pouses

)usiremain valid as they were held purchasers in good faith. #issatised with the decision,#omingo led a motion for reconsideration. The RT) set aside its rst decision and declaring

the sale between the respondent and =y void the buyers were not purchasers in good faith

cancellation of T)T /os. %;02&; and %;02&0 the T)T /o. %&2&(& shall be revalidated in the

name of #omingo.

This decision was brought up to the )A led by the petitioners but was denied. A motion for

reconsideration was also led but the same was denied.Fence, this petition.

:ssueE 8hether or not the petitioners are purchasers in good faith and for value.

FeldE The petitioners were /?T purchasers in good faith. Under the Torrens =ystem of land

registration, Oa person dealing in the registered land has the right to rely on the Torrenscerticate title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, e"cept when the party has

actual !nowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to

ma!e such inquiry. The registered owner of realty cannot be deprived of her property

through fraud, unless a transferee acquires the property as an innocent purchaser for value.

A transferee who acquires the property covered by a reissued owner@s copy of the certicate

of title without ta!ing the ordinary precautions of honest persons in doing business and

e"amining the records of the proper Registry of #eeds, or who fails to pay the full mar!et

value of the property is not considered an innocent purchaser for value.

Their observance of a certain degree of diligence within the conte"t of the principles

underlying the Torrens =ystem was not the only barometer for them to verify the acquisition

of title. Under the law and Durisprudence, it was not enough for them to show that theproperty was unfenced and vacant nor it was safe for them to rely on the face of =y@s T)T

/o. %;&%1 because they were aware that the T)T was derived only from a duplicate

owner@s copy reissued by virtue of the loss of the original duplicate owner@s copy. That

circumstance should have already alerted them to the need to inquire beyond the face of

the =y@s T)T. ?ther circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to ma!e

such inquiry in dealing with the property are the almost simultaneous transactions a>ecting

the acquisition of the property that the petitioners were also aware of and the material,

undervaluation of the property in the deed of sale, e.i. the price in consideration of the

property of Php%4 each half when the mar!et value is at least Php %14ostensibly at the

request of =y to minimi7e her liabilities for )apital -ains Ta".


12/44

M-rror Pr-')-4e

SPOUSES MANUEL CU, SR. a'* CATALINA &. CU, (0e /orer +ub+(-(u(e* b

TEANL%N &. CU, TEAN CING LEE &. CU, TEAN LEEN &. CU a'* MARTIN

LARENCE &. CU, (0e a((er re4re+e'(e* b 0-+ o(0er a'* uar*-a' a* -(e,

4e(-(-o'er CATALINA &. CU,petitioners, vs. &ENELDA ESTATE DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION,respondent.

G.R. No. 162#1# Mar)0 1, 2""1

DE LEON, 7R.,J.3

Iefore us is a petition for review on certiorari of the #ecision%and Resolutionof the )ourt of

Appeals,< dated /ovember 0, %000 and 4arch %1, (((, respectively, which reversed the

?rder1dated 4arch


13/44

Register of #eeds of Pampanga. The petitioners amended their complaint to include

respondent Ienelda Bstate #evelopment )orporation as a defendant, alleging, insofar as the

latter is concerned thatE

%s, defendant Trinidad /. )unanan without any lawful right and authority

whatsoever sold the remaining two *+ parcels of land involved in this case previously

covered by Transfer )erticates of Title /os. s, the deed of conveyances e"ecuted bydefendant Trinidad /. )unanan relative to the subDect ve *2+ parcels of land in

litigation in favor of defendant )ool Town Realty Q #evelopment )orporation and in

favor of the spouses Amado 9. )arlos and -loria A. )arlos and the deed of absolute

sale dated /ovember %


14/44

The respondent led its answer with a motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that

the amended complaint states no cause of action against herein respondent. :t alleged that

respondent corporation, through its o3cers, acted in good faith in buying the properties

inasmuch as it e"erted all e>orts to verify the authenticity of the titles and that no defect

was found therein. After the petitioner led an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the trial

court rendered a decision denying the motion to dismiss.

The respondent led a petition for certiorari under Rule &2 of the Rules of )ourt before the

)ourt of Appeals alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying

its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The )ourt of Appeals reversed the order of the

trial court and dismissed the case as against herein respondent on the ground of lac! of

cause of action and for failure of the petitioners to include the spouses )arlos as

indispensable parties in the complaint.

Petitioner raises the following assignments of errorE

:

8:TF A99 #UB RB=PB)T T? TF:= F?/?RAI9B )?URT )?/TRARH T? :T=

)?/)9U=:?/ :/ :T= #B):=:?/ =?U-FT T? IB =BT A=:#B, PBT:T:?/BR=' A4B/#B#

)?4P9A:/T #ATB# $U/B 0, %005 =TATB= A A9:# )AU=B ?G A)T:?/ A-A:/=T

RB=P?/#B/T IB/B9#A B=TATB #BB9?P4B/T )?RP?RAT:?/.

::

8:TF A99 #UB RB=PB)T T? TF:= F?/?RAI9B )?URT TFB =P?U=B= A4A#? B.

)AR9?= A/# -9?R:A A. )AR9?= ARB /?T RBA9 A/# :/#:=PB/=AI9B PART:B= :/ TFB

)A=B AT IB/)F.

:::

:T := RB=PB)TGU99H =UI4:TTB# TFAT TFB ABR4B/T= 4A#B :/ TFAT #BB# ?G

AI=?9UTB =A9B, 8F?=B JBR?J )?PH := ATTA)FB# A= A//BJB= N%N A/# N%N ?G

TFB A4B/#B# )?4P9A:/T :/?9B# :/ TF:= )A=B T? TFB BGGB)T TFAT TFB

=P?U=B= A4A#? B. )AR9?= A/# -9?R:A A. )AR9?= 8ARRA/TB# NA9:# T:T9B= T?

A/# P?==B==:?/ ?G TFB PR?PBRT:B= =?9# A/# )?/BHB#N A/# TFAT TFB:R

T:T9B= TFBRBT? ARB N GRBB A/# )9BAR ?G A99 9:B/= A/# B/)U4IRA/)B= ?G A/H

S:/# 8FAT=?BBRN )A//?T IB A9:#9H )?/=:#BRB# :/ #BTBR4:/:/- 8FBTFBR

?R /?T PBT:T:?/BR=' A4B/#B# )?4P9A:/T #ATB# $U/B 0, %005 =TATB= A A9:#

)AU=B ?G A)T:?/ A-A:/=T RB=P?/#B/T.

:

:T := RB=PB)TGU99H =UI4:TTB# TFAT TFB =P?U=B= A4A#? B. )AR9?= A/# -9?R:A

A. )AR9?= )A//?T TRA/=GBR A9:# T:T9B T? TFB T8? *+ PAR)B9= ?G 9A/#

:/?9B# :/ TF:= PBT:T:?/ 8F:)F TFBH TFB4=B9B= #? /?T FAB.


15/44

:T := RB=PB)TGU99H =UI4:TTB# TFAT TFB BJTRA?R#:/ARH 8R:T ?G )BRT:?RAR: :=

/?T AA:9AI9B T? )FA99B/-B TFB A==A:9B# ?R#BR= ?G 4AR)F


16/44

allege bad faith on the part of the respondent corporation. :n fact, respondent's claim that it

bought the two *+ parcels of land in good faith are supported by the Anne"es N%N and N%N

*#eeds of Absolute =ale+ attached to petitioner's amended complaint. These deeds e"ecuted

by the spouses )arlos in favor of herein private respondent state that the spouses )arlos

warranted Nvalid title*s+ to and possession of the properties sold and conveyed,N and

furthermore declare that their titles thereto are Nfree and clear of all liens and encumbrances

of any !ind whatsoever.N%%There is no way for the trial court to render Dudgment against

herein respondent whose title to the subDect parcels of land remains indefeasible and

conclusive, there being no allegation in the amended complaint that it allegedly acquired

the said properties in bad faith.

Petitioners contend that since the ground of respondent's motion to dismiss is lac! of cause

of action, the allegations in the amended complaint are hypothetically assumed to be true or

admitted, and consequently the respondent's claim of good faith is defeated by its

!nowledge of the allegedly admitted facts in the amended complaint regarding the

fraudulent circumstances involving the passing of the titles. 8e nd that the technical or

assumed admission on the part of respondent, in such an event, does not defeat its status

as an innocent purchaser for value. The defense of good faith of respondent is valid for thereason that such mental disposition was present at the time it purchased those two *+

parcels of land from the )arlos spouses up to the time the corresponding two *+ transfer

certicates of title thereto were issued in its favor. 8hat is important is that when

respondent bought the subDect properties, it was not aware of any defect in the covering

certicates of title thereto at the time of such purchase. There is no allegation to the

contrary in the amended complaint. Therefore, the title of respondent, being that of an

innocent purchaser for value, remains valid.

Iy allowing the cancellation of their certicates of title and the issuance of new ones in lieu

thereof in the name of Trinidad /. )unanan despite alleged nonpayment of the full purchase

price for their subDect two *+ parcels of land, the petitioners too! the ris! of losing theirtitles on the said properties inasmuch as the subDect deed of sale with assumption of

mortgage constitutes their consent and announcement to the whole world that )unanan was

indeed the legal owner of the properties by virtue of the said deed which is a public

document.

Petitioners' reliance on Ma&%ay v. Cour& of Appeals%which held that N/o one can transfer a

greater right to another than he himself hasN is not applicable to the instant case for the

reason that the said legal ma"im, according to the same case, only holds true if the same

land had already been registered and an earlier certicate for the same is in e"istence. :n

the case at bar, the petitioners no longer have any title to the subDect two *+ parcels of land

inasmuch as petitioners spouses 4anuel )hu, =r. and )atalina I. )hu, as sellers, have

consented to the cancellation of their certicates of title in favor of )unanan, as buyer. Thus,the conclusiveness of respondent's certicates of title is binding on the whole world

including the petitioners.

Petitioners also claim that since the orders of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss

are merely interlocutory, the same cannot be the subDect of a petition for certiorari.

Fowever, as correctly pointed out by the respondent, the rule admits of an e"ception. Thus,

where the denial of the motion to dismiss by the trial court was tainted with grave abuse of


17/44

discretion amounting to lac! or e"cess of Durisdiction, as in the case at bar, the aggrieved

party may assail the order of denial on certiorari. A wide breadth of discretion is granted in

certiorari proceedings in the interest of substantial Dustice and to prevent a substantial

wrong.%orts to verify the authenticity of the titles and that no defect was found.

After the petitioner led an opposition to the motion to dismiss, the trial court rendered a

decision denying the motion to dismiss.


18/44

The respondent led a petition for certiorari under Rule &2 of the Rules of )ourt before the

)ourt of Appeals alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying

its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The )ourt of Appeals reversed the order of the

trial court and dismissed the case as against the respondent on the ground of lac! of cause

of action and for failure of the petitioners to include the spouses )arlos as indispensable

parties in the complaint.

:ssuesE a+ 8hether the spouses Amado B. )arlos and -loria A. )arlos *sellers of the subDect

titled parcels of land to respondent+ are real and indispensable parties in the case at bar.

b+ 8hether or not the respondent corporation is an innocent purchaser for value.

FeldE A cause of action is dened as an act or omission by which a party violates a right of

another. The test of the su3ciency of the facts found in a petition as constituting a cause of

action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid Dudgment

upon the same in accordance with the prayer thereof.

:n land title cases, the court held that a person dealing with registered land may safely rely

on the correctness of the certicate of title issued and the law will in no way oblige him to gobehind the certicate to determine the condition of the property.

A person is considered in law as an innocent purchaser for value who is dened as one who

buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right or interest in

such property and pays a full price for the same, at the time of such purchase or before he

has notice of the claims or interest of some other person in the property. :n this connection,

=ection 2< of Presidential #ecree /o. %20, otherwise !nown as the Property Registration

#ecree, provides thatE

The production of the owners duplicate certicate, whenever any voluntary instrument is

presented for registration, shall be conclusive authority from the registered owner to the

Register of #eeds to enter a new certicate or to ma!e a memorandum of registration inaccordance with such instrument, and the new certicate or memorandum shall be binding

upon the registered owner and upon all persons claiming under him, in favor of every

purchaser for value and in good faith.

Thus, a title procured through fraud and misrepresentation can still be the source of a

completely legal and valid title if the same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for

value.

:n a case for annulment of title, therefore, the complaint must allege that the purchaser was

aware of the defect in the title so that the cause of action against him will be su3cient.

Gailure to do so, as in the case at bar, is fatal for the reason that the court cannot render a

valid Dudgment against the purchaser who is presumed to be in good faith in acquiring thesaid property. Gailure to prove, much less impute, bad faith on said purchaser who has

acquired a title in his favor would ma!e it impossible for the court to render a valid Dudgment

thereon due to the indefeasibility and conclusiveness of his title.

8hat is important is that when respondent bought the subDect properties, it was not aware

of any defect in the covering certicates of title thereto at the time of such purchase. There


19/44

is no allegation to the contrary in the amended complaint. Therefore, the title of respondent,

being that of an innocent purchaser for value, remains valid.

Iy allowing the cancellation of their certicates of title and the issuance of new ones in lieu

thereof in the name of Trinidad /. )unanan despite alleged nonpayment of the full purchase

price for their subDect two *+ parcels of land, the petitioners too! the ris! of losing their

titles on the said properties inasmuch as the subDect deed of sale with assumption ofmortgage constitutes their consent and announcement to the whole world that )unanan was

indeed the legal owner of the properties by virtue of the said deed which is a public

document.

The appellate court therefore was correct in entertaining the petition for the reason that the

trial court committed a grave abuse of discretion when it refused to dismiss the case against

the respondent, despite the obvious insu3ciency of the amended complaint against the

corporation respondent.

To implead the respondent in the case at bar, absent an allegation of bad faith on its part, is

to undermine a wellsettled rule protecting innocent purchasers for value and the

indefeasibility and conclusiveness of certicates of title issued under the Torrens =ystem.The petition is #B/:B# for lac! of cause of action.


20/44

REPU&LIC OF TE PILIPPINES, re4re+e'(e* b (0e DIRECTOR OF

LANDS, petitioner, vs.ONORA&LE MARIANO M. UMALI, -' 0-+ )a4a)-( a+ Pre+-*-'

7u*e, Re-o'a Tr-a Cour(, Four(0 7u*-)-a Re-o', &ra')0 2#, Tre)e Mar(-re+ C-(,

REMEDIOS MICLAT, 7UAN C. PULIDO, ROSALINA NAVAL, a'* (0e REGISTER OF

DEEDS OF CAVITE, respondents.

G.R. No. 8"8! A4r- 1", 1989

CRU$,J.:

The petitioner see!s reversion of a parcel of land on the ground that the original sale thereof

from the government was tainted with fraud because based on a forgery and therefore

void a+ ini&io. The present holders of the property claiming to be innocent purchasers for

value and not privy to the alleged forgery, contend that the action cannot lie against them.

The land in question is situated in Tan7a, )avite, and consists of 5;,;&2 square meters. 1:t

was originally purchased on installment from the government on $uly %, %0%( by GlorentinaIobadilla, who allegedly transferred her rights thereto in favor of 4artina, Tomasa, -regorio

and $ulio, all surnamed )eni7al, in %0.2Tomasa and $ulio assigned their shares to 4artina,

4aria and -regorio. #:n %05% these three assignees purportedly signed a Doint a3davit

which was led with the Iureau of 9ands to support their claim that they were entitled to the

issuance of a certicate of title over the said land on which they said they had already made

full payment. 6?n the basis of this a3davit, the =ecretary of Agriculture and /atural

Resources e"ecuted #eed /o. %(0%( *=ale )erticate /o. %;(+ on =eptember %(, %05%, in

favor of the said a3ants. 5=ubsequently, on ?ctober %


21/44

The respondent court, in its order dated ?ctober , %0;5, granted the motion. 11The

petitioner, contesting this order, now insists that it has a valid cause of action and that it is

not barred by either prescription or res 0udi(a&a.

The )ourt will observe at the outset that the Doint a3davit is indeed a forgery. Apart from the

fact that two of the supposed a3ants were already dead at the time they were supposed to

have signed the sworn statement, even the most cursory e"amination of the document will

show that the three signatures a3"ed thereto were written by one and the same

hand. 12There is no doubt about it. :t is indeed di3cult to understand how such an obvious

forgery could have deceived the people in the Iureau of 9ands who processed the papers of

this case and made possible the fraudulent transfer of the land.

Iut given such deception, would the sale itself be considered null and void from the start, as

the petitioner insists, so as to ma!e all titles derived therefrom also ine>ectual a+ ini&io

8e agree with the contention that there is no allegation in the complaint 1#led by the

petitioner that any one of the defendants was privy to the forged Doint a3davit or that they

had acquired the subDect land in bad faith. Their status as innocent transferees for value wasnever questioned in that pleading. /ot having been disproved, that status now accords to

them the protection of the Torrens =ystem and renders the titles obtained by them

thereunder indefeasible and conclusive. The rule will not change despite the Maw in T)T /o.

22(11.

=ection by such certicate if not noted thereon, and the

certicate so issued binds the whole world, including the government. 16

""" """ """

A holder in bad faith is not entitled to the protection of =ec.


22/44

""" """ """

The real purpose of the Torrens =ystem of land registration is to quiet title to

land to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the title, e"cept

claims which were noted at the time of registration in the certicate, or which

may arise subsequent thereto. That being the purpose of the law, it would

seem that once the title was registered, the owner might rest secure, without

the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court, or sitting in the Nmirador

de su casa,N to avoid the possibility of losing his land. 1

The decision in i1ero v. Dire(&or of Lands1! is not applicable to the present proceeding

because the lands involved in that case had not yet passed to the hands of an innocent

purchaser for value. They were still held by the Pineros. The action for reversion was led by

the government against them as the original transferees of the properties in question. They

were the direct grantees of the free patents issued by the government pursuant to which the

corresponding certicates of title were issued under the Torrens system. The fraud alleged

by the government as a ground for the reversion sought was imputable directly to the

Pineros, who could not plead the status of innocent purchasers for value.

The di>erence between them and the private respondents is that the latter acquired the

land in question not by direct grant but in fact after several transfers following the original

sale thereof to Iobadilla in %0%(. The presumption is that they are innocent transferees for

value in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The petitioner contends that it was Pedro

4iclat who caused the falsication of the Doint a3davit, but that is a bare and hardly

persuasive allegation, and indeed, even if true, would still not prove any collusion between

him and the private respondents. The mere fact that Remedios 4iclat was the daughter and

heiress of 4iclat, without more, would not necessarily visit upon her the alleged sins of her

father.

The =olicitor -eneral also argues that Remedios is an e"tension of the Duridical personality of

her father and so cannot claim to be an innocent purchaser for value because she is charged

with !nowledge of her father's deceit. =uch conclusion has no basis in fact or law. 4oreover,

there is evidence that Remedios did not merely inherit the land but actually purchased it for

valuable consideration and without !nowledge of its original defect. The agreement to

subdivide, 18which she presented to show that she had acquired the land for valuable

confederation, is more acceptable than the conDectures of the petitioner. :t is also consonant

with the presumption of good faith.

The land being now registered under the Torrens system in the names of the private

respondents, the government has no more control or Durisdiction over it. :t is no longer part

of the public domain or, as the =olicitor -eneral contends as if it made any di>erence

of the Griar 9ands. The subDect property ceased to be public land when ?)T /o. %;( was

issued to Glorentina Iobadilla in %0%( or at the latest from the date it was sold to the

)eni7als in %05% upon full payment of the purchase price. As private registered land, it is

governed by the provisions of the 9and Registration Act, now denominated the Property

Registration #ecree, which applies even to the government.

The pertinent provision of the 9and Registration Act was =ection %, which read as followsE


23/44

=ec. %. 8henever public lands in the Philippine :slands belonging to the

-overnment of the United =tates or to the -overnment of the Philippine

:slands are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or to public or private

corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith under the operation of this

Act and shall become registered lands. 19

This should be related to =ection % of the Griar 9ands Act, providing thusE

=ec. %. . . . upon the payment of the nal installment together with all

accrued interest, the -overnment will convey to such settler and occupant the

said land so held by him by proper instrument of conveyance, which shall be

issued and become e>ective in the manner provided in section one hundred

and twentytwo *=ec. %+ of the 9and Registration Act.

The petitioner claims that it is not barred by the statute of limitations because the original

transfer of the land was null and void a+ ini&ioand did not give rise to any legal right. The

land therefore continued to be part of the public domain and the action for this reversion

could be led at any time. The answer to that is the statement made by the )ourt in Feirsof $ana# anga*aran a&i*ayan v. Mar&inez2"that Neven if respondent Tagwalan eventually

is proven to have procured the patent and the original certicate of title by means of fraud,

the land would not revert bac! to the =tate,N precisely because it has become private land.

4oreover, the petitioner errs in arguing that the original transfer was null and void a+

ini&io,for the fact is that it is not so. :t was only voidable. The land remained private as long

as the title thereto had not been voided, but it is too late to do that now. As the )ourt has

held in Ramirez vs. Cour& of Appeals. 21

A certicate of title fraudulently secured is not null and void a+ ini&io,unless

the fraud consisted in misrepresenting that the land is part of the public

domain, although it is not. :n such case the nullity arises, not from the fraud ordeceit, but from the fact that the land is not under the Durisdiction of the

Iureau of 9ands. :nasmuch as the land involved in the present case does not

belong to such category, ?)T /o. ;A would be merely voidable or

reviewable *da. de )uaycong vs. da. de =engbengco, %%( Phil. %%ective, until annulled or

reviewed in a direct proceeding therefor *9egarda vs. =aleeby,


24/44

. . .4n(e a pa&en& is regis&ered and &%e (orresponding (er&i/(a&e of &i&le is

issued, &%e land (eases &o +e par& of pu+li( domain and +e(omes priva&e

proper&y over *%i(% &%e dire(&or of Lands %as nei&%er (on&rol nor 0urisdi(&ion.

A public land patent, when registered in the corresponding Register of #eeds,

is a veritable Torrens Title, and becomes as indefeasible as Torrens Title upon

the e"piration of one *%+ year from the date of issuance thereof. =aid title is,

li!e one issued pursuant to a Dudicial decree, subDect to review within one *%+

year from the date of the issuance of the patent. Ieyond said period, the

action for the annulment of the certicate of title issued upon the land grant

can no longer be entertained. *Bmphasis supplied+.

:t is worth observing here that in two earlier cases, the private respondents were challenged

by the heirs of 4atilde )eni7al Arguson but both were dismissed and the titles of the

registered owners were conrmed by the trial court. 2#This decision was later sustained by

this )ourt. 268hile this is not to say that the present petition is barred by res 0udi(a&a,as the

government was not a party in these cases, it does suggest that the issue it wants to ra!e

up now has long been settled. :t should not be the subDect of further Dudicial inquiry,

especially at this late hour. 9itigation must stop at some point instead of dragging oninterminably.

The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was believed to be the most

e>ective measure to guarantee the integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility

once the claim of ownership is established and recogni7ed. :f a person purchases a piece of

land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he should not run the ris! of

being told later that his acquisition was ine>ectual after all. This would not only be unfair to

him. 8hat is worse is that if this were permitted, public condence in the system would be

eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily

conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further consequence would be that

land conMicts could be even more numerous and comple" than they are now and possiblyalso more abrasive if not even violent. The government, recogni7ing the worthy purposes of

the Torrens system, should be the rst to accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once

the conditions laid down by the law are satised. As in this case.

8e nd that the private respondents are transferees in good faith and for value of the

subDect property and that the original acquisition thereof, although fraudulent, did not a>ect

their own titles. These are valid against the whole world, including the government.

A))?R#:/-9H, the petition is #B/:B#, without any pronouncement as to costs. :t is so

ordered.


25/44

REPU&LIC OF TE PILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. DOMINGO ESPINOSA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 1!1516 7u 18, 2"12

RE%ES,J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari from the #ecision%dated /ovember %%, ((1 and

Resolutiondated Gebruary %


26/44

registration be issued in favor of the herein applicant in accordance with =ection


27/44

than


28/44

" " " "

As long as the identity of and location of the lot can be established by other competent

evidence li!e a duly approved blueprint copy of the advance survey plan of 9ot ;100 and

technical description of 9ot ;100, containing and identifying the boundaries, actual area and

location of the lot, the presentation of the original tracing cloth plan may be e"cused.%;

4oreover, the )A ruled that Bspinosa had duly proven that the property is alienable and

disposableE

Bspinosa has established that 9ot ;100 is alienable and disposable. :n the duly approved

Advance =urvey Plan As(5((((;0< *sic+ duly approved by the 9and 4anagement =ervices,

#B/R, Region 5, )ebu )ity, it is certiedCveried that the subDect lot is inside the alienable

and disposable area of the disposable and alienable land of the public domain.%0

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the )A in its Resolution(dated

Gebruary %


29/44

warranted in view of evidence supposedly showing his compliance with the requirements

thereof.

This )ourt is of a di>erent view.

Iased on Bspinosa@s allegations and his supporting documents, it is patent that his claim of

an imperfect title over the property in question is based on =ection %1*+ and not =ection

%1*%+ of P.#. /o. %20 in relation to =ection 1;*b+ of the P9A. Bspinosa did not allege that his

possession and that of his predecessorininterest commenced on $une %, %012 or earlier as

prescribed under the two *+ latter provisions. ?n the contrary, Bspinosa repeatedly alleged

that he acquired title thru his possession and that of his predecessorininterest, :sabel, of

the subDect property for thirty *


30/44

?n $une , %025, Republic Act *R.A.+ /o. %01 amended =ection 1;*b+ of the P9A by

providing a thirty *


31/44

)onsequently, for one to invo!e =ection 1;*b+ and claim an imperfect title over an alienable

and disposable land of the public domain on the basis of a thirty *


32/44

possession and occupation for thirty *ect before the property may be rendered susceptible to prescriptionE

/onetheless, Article 1 of the )ivil )ode states that Nproperty of public dominion, when no

longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial

property of the =tate.N :t is this provision that controls how public dominion property may be

converted into patrimonial property susceptible to acquisition by prescription. After all,

Article 1(*+ ma!es clear that those property Nwhich belong to the =tate, without being for

public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national

wealthN are public dominion property. Gor as long as the property belongs to the =tate,although already classied as alienable or disposable, it remains property of the public

dominion if when it is Nintended for some public service or for the development of the

national wealth.N *Bmphasis supplied+

Accordingly, there must be an e"press declaration by the =tate that the public dominion

property is no longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth

or that the property has been converted into patrimonial. 8ithout such e"press declaration,

the property, even if classied as alienable or disposable, remains property of the public

dominion, pursuant to Article 1(*+, and thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. :t is

only when such alienable and disposable lands are e"pressly declared by the =tate to be no

longer intended for public service or for the development of the national wealth that theperiod of acquisitive prescription can begin to run. =uch declaration shall be in the form of a

law duly enacted by )ongress or a Presidential Proclamation in cases where the President is

duly authori7ed by law.5

Thus, granting that :sabel and, later, Bspinosa possessed and occupied the property for an

aggregate period of thirty *


33/44

matter how lengthy will not ripen to ownership or give rise to any title that would defeat that

of the =tate@s if such did not commence on $une %, %012 or earlier.

At any rate, as petitioner correctly pointed out, the notation on the survey plan does not

constitute incontrovertible evidence that would overcome the presumption that the property

belongs to the inalienable public domain.

All lands of the public domain belong to the =tate, which is the source of any asserted right

to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are

presumed to belong to the =tate. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been

reclassied or released as alienable agricultural land, or alienated to a private person by the

=tate, remain part of the inalienable public domain. The burden of proof in overcoming the

presumption of =tate ownership of the lands of the public domain is on the person applying

for registration *or claiming ownership+, who must prove that the land subDect of the

application is alienable or disposable. To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible

evidence must be established that the land subDect of the application *or claim+ is alienable

or disposable.;

:n Republic v. =armiento,0this )ourt reiterated the earlier ruling in 4enguito v.

Republic


34/44

concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a

title.N To overcome such presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be shown by the

applicant. Absent such evidence, the land sought to be registered remains inalienable.

:n the present case, petitioners cite a surveyor geodetic engineer@s notation in B"hibit NBN

indicating that the survey was inside alienable and disposable land. =uch notation does not

constitute a positive government act validly changing the classication of the land in

question.

erily, a mere surveyor has no authority to reclassify lands of the public domain. Iy relying

solely on the said surveyor@s assertion, petitioners have not su3ciently proven that the land

in question has been declared alienable.Nord certainty as to the

e"act identity of the property applied for registration and to ensure that the same does not

overlap with the boundaries of the adDoining lots, there stands to be no reason why a

registration application must be denied for failure to present the original tracing cloth plan,especially where it is accompanied by pieces of evidencesuch as a duly e"ecuted blueprint

of the survey plan and a duly e"ecuted technical description of the propertywhich may

li!ewise substantially and with as much certainty prove the limits and e"tent of the property

sought to be registered.ered as evidence of the

identity, location and the boundaries of the property applied for, the notation therein may

not be admitted as evidence of alienability and disposability. :n Republic v. Feirs of $uan

Gabio,


35/44

President. =uch copy of the #B/R =ecretary@s declaration or the President@s proclamation

must be certied as a true copy by the legal custodian of such o3cial record.-*p%iThese

facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable.


36/44

LEONCIO C. OLIVEROS, re4re+e'(e* b 0-+ 0e-r+, XMOISES DE LA CRU$,XXa'* (0e

EIRS OF LUCIO DELA CRU$, re4re+e'(e* b FELI DELA CRU$, Petitioners, vs. SAN

MIGUEL CORPORATION, TE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CALOOCAN CIT%, a'* TE

REGISTER OF DEEDS OF VALEN$UELA, METRO MANILA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 1!#5#1 Februar 1, 2"12

DEL CASTILLO,J.:

?nly holders of valid titles can invo!e the principle of indefeasibility of Torrens titles.

Iefore the )ourt is a Petition for Review %of the April %, ((& #ecision of the )ourt of

Appeals *)A+ in )A-.R. ) /o. 205(1, as well as its $uly 5, ((& Resolution, denying

reconsideration of the assailed #ecision. The dispositive portion of the April %, ((&

#ecision readsE

EREFORE, the appealed #ecision dated August %, %005 is a3rmed, subDect to the

modication that the award of attorney@s fees is reduced to P%((,(((.((.

SO ORDERED.

The )A a3rmed the trial court@s Dudgment, which *-+-++e*petitioners@ complaint for the

nullication of the title of =an 4iguel )orporation@s *=4)+ predecessorininterest, Ramie

Te"tile *Ramite"+, :nc., over 9ot %%


37/44

Troubles began for Ramite" on Gebruary , %0;0, when ?liveros led a petition2in Iranch

%5 of the Regional Trial )ourt of alen7uela *alen7uela RT)+ for the reconstitution of T)T

/o. T%5%;&, his alleged title over 9ot %%ect that all its records, titles and documents were burned.%&Fe

also presented a certication from the )aloocan R# to the e>ect that it did not receive the

original certicate of title bearing T)T /o. T%5%;& from the Iulacan R#, after Presidential

#ecree /o. ;1%5removed Durisdiction over the 4unicipality of alen7uela from the Province
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_173531_2012.html#fnt17


38/44

of Iulacan to )aloocan.%;The alen7uela R# li!ewise certied that it has no record of the

original of T)T /o. T%5%;&.%0

8hen questioned why the original of his title was not transmitted to the )aloocan R# and

the alen7uela R# when the Durisdiction over the properties of the 4alinta Bstate was

transferred to these o3ces, ?liveros e"plained that it was only the titles with new

transactions that were transferred. =ince his title was dormant, meaning he did not ma!e

any transaction on it, it was never trasmitted to the )aloocan or alen7uela R#.

/otably, ?liveros failed to present his owner@s duplicate of T)T /o. T%5%;& during the entire

trial but only presented a machine copy thereof. Fe claimed that he had already sold 9ot

%%


39/44

/o. %(0# with =erial /o. %1&(1 in /ovember %02& *as stated in ?liveros@ title+, Pascual

presented the record of consumption that was submitted by the Iulacan R# for the said

month and year. The record states that the Iulacan R# consumed or issued 2 pieces of

$udicial Gorm /o. %(0#, with serial numbers starting from %%


40/44

derived, T)T /o. T%&0%. Gor this purpose, =4) presented )hristian Iautista *Iautista+, the

land registration e"aminer from the alen7uela R#, who testied that the only record it has

of T)T /o. T%&0% pertains to 9ot (# of the 9olomboy Bstate in the name of Ieatri7 #ela

)ru7. :t does not pertain to 9ot %%


41/44

+. ?rdering the plainti>s, Dointly and severally, to pay defendant =4) the amount

of P5((,(((.(( as attorney@s fees, plus the costs of suit.

=? ?R#BRB#.&2

Ru-' o/ (0e Cour( o/ A44ea+&&

Petitioners appealed to the )A. They as!ed for the reversal of the nding that ?liveros@ title

over 9ot %%


42/44

Petitioners pray that ?liveros@ title over 9ot %%


43/44

Petitioners are oversimplifying the rule. The principle that the earlier title prevails over a

subsequent one applies when there are two apparently valid titles over a single property.

The e"istence of the earlier valid title renders the subsequent title void because a single

property cannot be registered twice. As stated in 4etropolitan 8aterwor!s and =ewerage

=ystems v. )ourt of Appeals,;%which petitioners themselves cite, Na certicate is not

conclusive evidence of title -/ -( -+ +0o;'that the same land had area* bee'

re-+(ere*and an earlier certicate for the same -+ -' e


44/44

8FBRBG?RB, premises considered, the petition is #B/:B#. The April %, ((& #ecision and

the $uly 5, ((& Resolution of the )ourt of Appeals in )A-.R. ) /o. 205(1 are AGG:R4B#.

=? ?R#BRB#.

Documents

Ltd Week 4_final Term_curtain and Mirror Principle