Mathay Jr. vs. CA, Et. Al

8/18/2019 Mathay Jr. vs. CA, Et. Al.

1/13

[G.R. No. 115788. September 17, 1998]

SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL MATAY, !R., petitioners, vs. ON. "O#RT O$ APPEALS, SPS.TEO%#L$O & SYLIA ATANGAN, SPS. AG#STINA & AMOR PO'LETE, SPS.E%#AR%O & $ELI"ISIMA TIRONA, respondents.

% E " I S I O N

P#RISIMA, J.(

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court,seeking to set aside the Decision[1] of the Court of Aeals[!] dated "ove#ber 1$, 1%%& inCA'()R) C* "o) &+%!, reversing the Decision[&] dated -arch &, 1%%! in Civil Case "os) .-'1+5, 1$ and !/ of0 ranch !&, [4] Regional .rial Court of .rece -artires Cit2, Province of

Cavite) .he antecedent facts which gave rise to rivate resondents co#laints are

su##ari3ed in the Decision of the lower court, as follows

Civil Case No. TM-175 entitled Spouses Teodulfo T. Atangan and Silvia [sic] L. Atangan vs. Spouses Sonya Matay and !s"ael Matay# $%.# and te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite# involves ()* [sic] pa%cels of land situated in Tan+a# Cavite# cove%ed,y T%ansfe% Ce%ticate of Title Nos. T-15/50 cove%ing Lot No. )12-A# issued ,y te34ce of te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite in te na"e of Spouses Teodulfo T. Atanganand Silvia [sic] L. Atangan# and TCT No. T-15/51# cove%ing Lot No. )12-C# issued inte na"e of Silvia [sic] L. Atangan and Teodulfo T. Atangan# on $uly )# 15.

6LA!NT!S allege tat8

1* tey a%e te %egiste%ed o9ne%s of t9o ()* pa%cels of land situated in Tan+a# Caviteaving pu%cased te sa"e f%o" Spouses To"as Lucido and :usta;uia s= * vendo%s titles 9ic 9e%e t%ansfe%%ed to

plainti>s 9e%e o,tained ,y vi%tue of te decision in Civil Case No. NC-70 entitledTo"as Lucido vs. $uana 3nate ?atallones and 6et%onilla C. @ui"io# 'i%ecto% of Lands#and &egiste%s (sic* of 'eeds of Cavite= 5* te ei%s of 3nof%e ?atallones andNo%,e%to @ui"io a%e te vendees of te said lands f%o" te ?u%eau of Lands asevidenced ,y a Ce%tication issued ,y Adel9isa 6. 3nga# (sic* &eco%d 34ce% of te'ist%ict Land 34ce of T%ece Ma%ti%es City= 2* te sale of te said pa%cels of land f%o"

te ?u%eau of Lands in favo% of te ei%s of ?atallones and @ui"io 9as alsoevidenced ,y a 'eed of Conveyance duly issued ,y ?u%eau of Lands= 7* f%o" teti"e tey o,tained titles of te t9o pa%cels of land [tey] ave taen possession and

paid te co%%esponding %ealty p%ope%ty taBes= * defendants ave enclosed a po%tionof said p%ope%ty 9it a fence and occupied )/#00 s;ua%e "ete%s 9itout teconsent and 9ill of plainti>s= * plainti>s ave lea%ned tat defendants as vendeesave also issued title cove%ing te sa"e land in te na"e of te plainti>s unde% TCT No. T-11/07= 10* te titles issued to defendants 9as (sic* te p%oduct of fo%ge%y ,ecause it 9as ,ased on an alleged TCT No. T-/ in favo% of 6ed%o ?anayo and

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn1


2/13

6a,lo 6ugay of T%ece Ma%ti%es City 9o ave no %igt 9atsoeve% on te %eal estatein ;uestion= 11* upon investigation# it 9as ce%tied ,y te ?u%eau of Lands tat tesaid titles 9e%e falsied and fo%ged ,ecause alleged 'eed No. s su>e%edsleepless nigts# anBiety# "ental anguis fo% 9ic tey a%e entitled to clai" fo% "o%al da"ages in te su" of 6100#000.00= 1* despite %epeated de"ands f%o" te

plainti>s fo% te defendnats (sic* to desist f%o" enclosing te titled p%ope%ty 9it afence# te latte% 9itout any la9ful %igt insisted and actually closed tei% p%ope%ty 9it a fence# causing i%%epa%a,le da"age and p%eudice to te plainti>s= 15* in vie9of te illegal# unla9ful# "alicious and ,ad fait of te defendants and in dis%ega%d of te %igts of te plainti>s# te latte% a%e const%ained to i%e te se%vices of counselfo% 9ic tey ag%eed to pay te su" of 650#000.00 in addition to te appea%ancefee of 6500.00 eve%y ea%ing of tis case.

!nvolved in Civil Case No. TM-10 entitled Sps. Agustina 6o,lete and A"o% 6o,letevs. Sps. Sonya Matay and !s"ael Matay# $%.# and te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavitefo% Annul"ent of Titles and &ecove%y of 6ossession# is a pa%cel of land situated inTan+a# Cavite# cove%ed ,y T%ansfe% Ce%ticate of Title Nos. T-1)5/) %egiste%ed inte na"e of $uana ?atallones and Daudencio @ui"io 9ic 9as allegedly sold to tee%ein plainti># as pe% 'eed of Conditional Sale dated 'ece",e% )# 17.

6LA!NT!S allege tat8

1* 6lainti>s a%e te %egiste%ed o9ne%s of a pa%cel of land situated in Tan+a# Caviteaving pu%cased te sa"e f%o" $uana ?atallones and Daudencio @ui"io fo% te"selves and on ,ealf of tei% co-ei%s as evidenced ,y 'eed of Sale=

)* 6lainti>s-p%edecesso%s-in-inte%est 9e%e duly issued Ce%ticate of Title No. T-1)5/)=

/* said vendees 9ose titles afo%esaid 9as t%ansfe%%ed in favo% of te plainti>s aveo,tained te title ,y vi%tue of te decision ,y ten Cou%t of i%st !nstance of Naic#Cavite in Civil Case No. NC-70 entitled To"as Lucido ve%sus $uana 3nate ?atallonesand 6et%onilla @. @ui"io# 'i%ecto% of Lands# te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite=

* te ei%s of 3nof%e ?atallones and Modesta @ui"io a%e te vendees of te landf%o" te ?u%eau of Lands as evidenced ,y a Ce%tication issued ,y Adel9isa 6. 3ng#&eco%d 34ce% of te 'ist%ict Land 34ce of T%ece Ma%ti%es City=

5* te sale of te said pa%cel of land f%o" te ?u%eau of Lands in favo% of te ei%s of ?atallones and @ui"io 9as also evidenced ,y a 'eed of Conveyance duly issued ,y te ?u%eau of Lands=

2* plainti>s ave taen possession te%eof=


3/13

7* defendants ave enclosed a po%tion of said p%ope%ty 9it a fence and occupied11#7 s;ua%e "ete%s te%eof 9itout te consent and against te 9ill of plainti>s=

* plainti>s ave lea%ned tat defendants as vendees ave ,een also issuedT%ansfe% Ce%ticate of Title cove%ing te sa"e land titled in te na"e of te

plainti>s unde% TCT No. T-11)07=

* te title issued to defendants 9as te p%oduct of fo%ge%y ,ecause it 9as ,ased onan alleged TCT No. T-111070 in favo% of 6ed%o ?anayo and 6a,lo 6ugay of T%eceMa%ti%es City 9o ave no %igt 9atsoeve% on te %eal estate in ;uestion=

10* upon investigation it 9as ce%tied ,y te ?u%eau of Lands tat te said title 9asfalsied and fo%ged ,ecause alleged 'eed No. s 9e%e dep%ived of te use of te said pa%cel of land unla9fully and illegally occupied ,y te" and tey failed to int%oduce te necessa%y i"p%ove"ents te%eon and fo% 9ic tey su>e%ed da"ages in te a"ount of not less tan 650#000.00=

1/* in vie9 of te ,ad fait# illegal and unla9ful actuations of te defendants in

o,taining title ove% te p%ope%ty [# plainti>s] su>e%ed f%o" sleepless nigts# anBiety#"ental anguis fo% 9ile (sic* tey a%e also entitled to clai" fo% "o%al da"ages inte su" of 6100#000.00=

1* despite %epeated de"ands f%o" te plainti>s fo% te defendants to desist f%o"enclosing te titled p%ope%ty 9it a fence# te latte% 9itout any la9ful %igt insistedand actually enclosed tei% p%ope%ty 9it a fence# causing i%%epa%a,le da"age and

p%eudice to te plainti>s=

15* in vie9 of te illegal# unla9ful# "alicious and ,ad fait of defendants anddis%ega%d of te %igt of te plainti>s# te latte% a%e const%ained to i%e te se%vicesof counsel fo% 9ic tey ag%eed to pay te su" of 650#000.00 in addition toappea%ance of 6500.00 eve%y ea%ing of tis case=[5]

!n Civil Case No. TM-)02 entitled Spouses :dua%do and elicisi"a Ti%ona# et al.# vs.Spouses Sonia (sic* Matay# et al.# fo% @uieting of Title# Annul"ent of Title and&ecove%y of 6ossession 9it 'a"age# etc.

6LA!NT!S# allege tat8

/* on 'ece",e% /1# 15# Spouses ?onifacio Motas and $uliana Motas ,ougt a pa%cel of land situated at (sic* Tan+a# Cavite no9n as Lot )12-? of 6su-0-01)#

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn5


4/13

containing an a%ea of 1#/ s;ua%e "ete%s cove%ed ,y T%ansfe% of (sic* Ce%ticateof Title No. T-1)5/0 of te &egist%y of 'eeds of Cavite f%o" 'avid @ui"io asevidenced ,y a 'eed of A,solute Sale=

* Spouses ?onifacio Motas and $uliana Motas issued TCT No. T-)0/7/0 ,y te&egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite=

5* ose !1$/'D'$ !/+$ 1,5%1 s;) #)

&) Anania Cervania !1$/'D'& !&+!5 !,5 s;) #)

4) Ricardo -alabanan !1$/'D'4 !&+!/ !,5 s;) #)

5) Plocer?na .an2ag !1$/'D'! !&+!4 + s;) #)

/) Ruerta artolo#e !1$/'D'5 !!// 55 s;) #)!1$/'D'5C !!/+ + s;) #)!1$/'D'5D !!/$ + s;) #)!1$/'D'A !!/5 55 s;) #)

* plainti>s a%e te one (sic* paying te co%%esponding %eal p%ope%ty taBes te%eonand 9e%e issued co%%esponding taB decla%ation ,y te 34ce of te 6%ovincial

Assesso% of Cavite=

10* plainti>s ave co"e to no9 tat defendants Spouses Sonia (sic* Matay and!s"ael Matay# $%. ave enclosed a"ong ote%s said %eal p%ope%ties of te plainti>s9it a fence and too pysical possession te%eof 9itout te no9ledge andconsent of te plainti>s=

11* plainti>s ave lea%ned also tat defendants ave also issued T%ansfe% Ce%ticateof Title cove%ing a"ong ote%s te sa"e land titled in te na"e of te plainti>sunde% T%ansfe% Ce%ticate of Title No. T-11/07=

1)* te title issued to defendants 9as te p%oduct of fo%ge%y ,ecause it 9as ,asedon an alleged T%ansfe% of Ce%ticate of Title No. / in favo% of 6ed%o ?anayoand 6a,lo 6ugay of T%ece Ma%ti%es City 9o ave no %igt 9atsoeve% on te %ealestate in ;uestion and 9o ave ,een in p%io% pysical possession te%eof# as sucsaid title is void-a,-initio=


5/13

1/* upon investigation# it 9as ce%tied ,y te ?u%eau of Lands tat te said titles9e%e ,ased on falsied and fo%ged docu"ents ,ecause alleged 'eed No. s ave te %igt to eBclude defendants Matays f%o" tei% enoy"ent of tei% p%ope%ty and conside%ing tat said defendants ave ,een duly info%"ed of tedefect and nullity of tei% title yet tey insisted and continue to insist in teenoy"ent of te %igt f%o" a void title=

17* as a %esult of te illegal# unla9ful# unust and "alicious actuations of tedefendants# plainti>s 9e%e dep%ived of te use of te said pa%cel of lands unla9fully and illegally occupied ,y defendants Matay as tey failed to int%oduce tenecessa%y i"p%ove"ents te%eon and fo% 9ic tey su>e%ed da"ages in tea"ount of not less tan 650#000.00 and te a"ount of 6500.00 a "ont fo% eac lot as %easona,le co"pensation fo% te use of tei% lands=

1* in vie9 of te ,ad fait# illegal and unla9ful actuations of te defendants ino,taining titles ove% te p%ope%ty in ;uestion t%u fo%ged and falsied docu"ents#

plainti>s su>e%ed f%o" sleepless nigts# anBiety# "ental anguis fo% 9ic tey a%ealso entitled to clai" fo% "o%al da"ages in te su" of 6150#000.00=

1* in vie9 of te illegal# unla9ful# "alicious and ,ad fait of te defendants and indis%ega%d of te %igt of te plainti>s# te latte% a%e const%ained to i%e te se%vices

of counsel fo% 9ic tey ag%eed to pay te su" of 650#000.00 in addition to anappea%ance fee of 61#000.00 eve%y ea%ing.[/]

BBB BBB BBB

After trial on the #erits, the lower court decided for defendant souses 9on2a -atha2and =s#ael -atha2, >r), and against the lainti@s in the three consolidated cases disosing,thus

EF:&:3&:# fo%egoing conside%ed# (sic* udg"ent is e%e,y %ende%ed in favo% of te defendants8

a* decla%ing Cont%act of Sale //7 in favo% of To"as Lucido# te Assign"ent of SaleCe%ticate No. //7 issued ,y To"as Lucido in favo% of 3nof%e ?atallones andNo%,e%to @ui"io# te 'eed of Conveyance in favo% of 3nof%e ?atallones andNo%,e%to @ui"io and T%ansfe% Ce%ticate of Title No. 522 in te na"e of 3nof%e?atallones and No%,e%to @ui"io# as null and void=

,* decla%ing T%ansfe% Ce%ticates of Title No. T-15/50# T-15/51# T-1)5)7# T-1)5)# T1)5)# T-1)5/)# T-)5)2# T-)5)7# T-)5)# T-)5)# T-)5/000# T-)5/001# T-)5/00)# T-)5/00/# T-)5/00# T-)5/005# T-)5/0/7# T-)0207# T-)0/7)# T-))0502# T-))0207# T-))020# T-))0205# T-)0/7)# T-)0/7)2# T-)0/7/0# T-)0/7)/and T-)0/7)5# as null and void# and di%ecting te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite6%ovince to cancel te"=

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn6


6/13

c* o%de%ing Spouses Teodulfo Atangan G Sylvia Atangan# 3nof%e ?atallones# No%e%to(sic* @ui"io# Spouses To"as Lucido and $uana ?atallones# Agustin 6o,lete# $uanco

Al,e%t 6o,lete# Spouses ?onifacio Motas and $uliana Motas# Soledad Mateo# &ica%doMala,anan# loce%na ?a%tolo"e# Spouses :ugenio ?a%tolo"e and &upe%to?a%tolo"e# Spouses :dua%do Ti%ona and elicisi"a Ti%ona and Anania De%vania (sic*to su%%ende% to te 34ce of te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite tei% o9ne%s copy of

tei% T%ansfe% of Ce%ticates of Title cove%ing po%tions of Lot )12=d* decla%ing TCT No. T-11/0 [sic][+] valid and te defendants to ave supe%io% %igtsto te p%ope%ty in ;uestion and to ,e te t%ue and la9ful o9ne%s of te sa"e=

e* o%de%ing plainti>s ointly and seve%ally lia,le to pay defendants atto%neys feesof 650#000.00 and to pay te costs=

f* denying all ote% clai"s of te pa%ties fo% lac of ,asis in la9 andHo% evidence.

S3 3&':&:'.

8n aeal, the Court of Aeals culled fro# the records on hand the following facts [$], towit

6lainti>-appellants and defendants-appellees a%e all olde%s of T%ansfe% Ce%ticatesof Title 9ic all appea% duly issued ,y te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite.

6lainti>s de%ived tei% titles as follo9s8

Te land clai"ed ,y te pa%ties is no9n as Lot )12 of te Sta. C%u+ de Mala,on:state o%iginally consisting of 17#1 s;. "ete%s and p%eviously cove%ed ,y asu%vey in te na"e of plainti>s p%edecesso%-in-inte%est Fei%s of 3nof%e ?atallonesand Fei%s of 6at%onillo @ui"io and To"as Lucido evidenced ,y 6sd 0-0102) (:B.

A*.[%] Te Fei%s of ?atallones and 6at%onillo @ui"io 9e%e issued TCT No. 522 on August # 172 (:B. C*.[1] 3n $uly 1/# 172# te 'i%ecto% of Lands t%ans"itted tote &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite te 'eed of Conveyance and fo% issuance of co%%esponding TCT to te Fei%s of 3nof%e ?atallones and No%,e%to @ui"io%ep%esented ,y $uana S. ?atallones and 6at%onillo @ui"io (:B. I.*[11] Te o%iginalvendee of said lot f%o" te ?u%eau of Land 9as To"as Lucido 9o 9as issuedcont%act of Sale //7 dated Ma%c 12# 1/2 (:B. M*.[1!] Lucido assigned is %igtsove% said pa%cel of land to 3nof%e ?atallones and No%,e%to @ui"io on 3cto,e% 17#1 evidenced ,y assign"ent of Sale Ce%ticate No. //7 (:B. N*.[1&] !n an [3]%de% dated $une 1# 172# said assign"ent 9as app%oved ,y te 'i%ecto% of Lands (:B.3*.[14] 3n $uly 1# 172 te ten 'epa%t"ent of Natu%al &esou%ces t%oug $ose A.

$analo# Assistant Sec%eta%y issued Sales Ce%ticate No. //7# 'eed No. T-112) toFei%s of ?atallones and @ui"io (:B. @*.[15] 3n $une 1# 172# te ?u%eau of Landsfo%9a%ded to te 'epa%t"ent of Natu%al &esou%ces fo% signatu%e te 'eeds of Conveyance in favo% of Fei%s of ?atallones and @ui"io (:B. S*.[1/]

Afte% te Fei%s of ?atallones and @ui"io 9e%e duly issued TCT No. 522[1+] on August # 172# To"as Lucido led Civil Case No. NC 70 ,efo%e te ten Cou%t of

i%st !nstance of Cavite# ?%anc 1# Naic# Cavite (:B. DD*[1$] 9ic ended in a'ecision ,y said cou%t ,ased on a Co"p%o"ise Ag%ee"ent duly eBecuted ,y $uana3nate ?atallones %ep%esenting te ei%s of 3nof%e ?atallones and 6at%onillo 3nate@ui"io# %ep%esenting te ei%s of No%,e%to @ui"io and pu%suant te%eto /5#000 s;."ete%s on te soute%n po%tion 9as given to To"as Lucido "a%%ied to :usta;uia


7/13

land cove%ed ,y TCT No. T-522 of te &egiste% of 'eeds 9as su,divided into siB (2* lots no9n as Lots )12-A# )12-?# )12-C# )12-'# )12-: and )12-#

pu%suant to app%oved tecnical desc%iptions and su,division plan 6sd-0-102)# andtat lots )12-A containing an a%ea of #100 s;. "ete%s and lot )12--C containingan a%ea of )#700 9e%e assigned to To"as Lucido 9ile te %est of te lots assignedto $uana ?atallones et al.# (:B. *.[!] Afte% secu%ing clea%ance f%o" te 'epa%t"ent

of Ag%a%ian &efo%" (:B. 66-1*

[!1]

and pay"ent of %e;ui%ed fees and co"pliance 9itte %e;ui%e"ents o% %egist%ation te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite# T%ece Ma%ti%e+ (sic*City issued te co%%esponding T%ansfe% Ce%ticates of Title to te Fei%s of ?atallonesand @ui"io and To"as Lucido# as follo9s8

7ot !1$/'A .C. "o) 1%!5!+ 7ucido, .o#as Bsic6h) 6, *'![!!]

7ot !1$/' .C. "o) 1%!5!$ 6h) AAA[!&]

7ot !1$/'C .C. "o) 1%!5!% .o#as 7ucido6h) D, *'&[!4]

7ot !1$/'D .C. "o) 1%!5&

7ot !1$/'6 .C. "o) 1%!5&1 6h) AAA'17ot !1$/'< .C. "o) 1%!5&! 6h) ([!5]

To"as Lucido "a%%ied to :usta;uia s8

7ot !1$/'


8/13

7ot !1$/'uliana -otas6h) 99'+[4!]

7ot !1$/' $uliana Motas "a%%ied to ?onifacio Motas evidenced ,y a nota%i+ed deed of a,solutesale dated 'ece",e% /1# 15 (:B. ose : 7ucila 9an >ose 6h) 99'1&

&) Anania 9ervnia Bsic 6h) 99'![4%]

6h) 99'1%

4) Ricardo -alabanan 6h) ""'4[5]

5) Plocer?na .an2ag 6h) ""'&[51]

/) Ruerta -alabanan 6h) ""'/[5!]

6h) ""'+6h) ""'$6h) ""'%

+) Plainti@ >uliana -otas : 7ot) "o) !1$/'Donifacio -otas .C. "o)!&+&6h) **'1[5&]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/sep1998/115788.htm#_edn53


9/13

Said plainti>s 9e%e duly issued co%%esponding TaB 'ecla%ation and ave paid te%ealty taBes[54] te%eon and tey 9e%e in actual possession of te contested pa%celsof land until te sa"e 9e%e fenced ,y defendants Matays "en ove% tei% o,ectionand upon in;ui%es# tey discove%ed tat te defendants Matay 9e%e issued TCT No. T-11/07 cove%ing sa"e pa%cel of land (:B. )*[55] ,ased on a 'eed of A,solute[S]ale eBecuted allegedly on )1 May 10 ,y 6ed%o ?anayo and 6a,lo 6ugay (:B.

/*

[5/]

and nota%i+ed ,y Manalad Sante%a (:B. /-A*.

[5+]

'efendants-appellees Spouses Sonya Matay and !s"ael Matay# $%. clai"ed tat te land desc%i,ed as Lot )12 of te Sta. C%u+ de Mala,on :state# situated inTan+a# Cavite# containing an a%ea of 17#17 s;ua%e "ete%s cove%ed ,y TCT No. T-111070 (:B. *#[5$] %egiste%ed in te na"e of 6ed%o ?anayo and 6a,lo 6ugay one,%ua%y )# 10 9as pu%cased ,y te defendants f%o" 6ed%o 6ugay on May /1#10 (:Bs. /# /-A*#[5%] and TCT No. T-11/07 (:B. )*[/] 9as issued in tei% favo% on

$une /# 10 ,y te 34ce of te &egiste% of 'eeds of Cavite 6%ovince# decla%ed fo% taBation pu%posed (sic* (:B. # 5*[/1] and co%%esponding taBes paid (:B. 1# 1# )0#)1# ))*.[/!]

!t appea%s tat 'i%ecto% of Lands &a"on N. Casanova# unde% te 'eed No.


10/13

E=.F DG6 R69P6C., .F6 C8GR. 8< APP6A79 6RR6D =" 96..="( A9=D6 .F6(6"G="6 .RA"9R) 8*6R A"D A8*6 .F67A.6R 1%$/'$$ A776(6D .=.769 8< R69P8"D6".9'A.A"(A" 6. A7), EF=CF =9C76AR7H C8".RARH .8 .F6 APP7=CA76 7AE 8" .F6 -A..6R, "A-67H AR.) 15448< .F6 C=*=7 C8D6 8< .F6 PF=7=PP="69

III.

E=.F DG6 R69P6C., .F6 C8GR. 8< APP6A79 6RR6D =" "8. C8"9=D6R="( .FA.

.F6 D66D 8< 9A76 6K6CG.6D H *6"D8R9 ' A"AH8 : PG(AH =" R) =9 DG7H "8.AR=J6D =" 98


11/13

recautionar2 stes would #ean negligence on his art and would thereb2 reclude hi#fro# clai#ing or invoking the rights of a urchaser in good faith)

9o also, before the fence around subect roert2 was erected, rivate resondentsco##unicated their obection to the fencing of the area b2 etitioners but the2 were ignoredb2 the etitioners, who continued enclosing the re#ises under controvers2 in the resenceof ar#ed #en e#lo2ed b2 the# (petitione%s*.

Conse;uentl2, not being innocent urchasers for value, within legal conte#lation,etitionerss reliance on Article 1544 of the "ew Civil Code is #islaced) 9uch stance of theirs lacks legal and factual basis) .he funda#ental re#ise of referential rights under thelaw is good fait)[+1]

*iewed in roer ersective, we uhold the ?nding b2 the Court of Aeals that theetitioners cannot invoke Art) 1544 of the Civil Code in view of the ;uestionable docu#entsfro# which their title e#anated) As the Court of Aeals ratiocinated

Ee think the alicable rule as stated in alta3ar v) Court of Aeals, "o) 7'+$+!$,Dece#ber $, 1%$$, 1/$ 9CRA &&4, is that as between two ersons both of who# arein good faith and both innocent of an2 negligence, the law #ust rotect and referthe lawful holder of registered title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of an2

trans#issible rights) Gnder the foregoing rincile derived fro# the above case law,the -atha2s have no rights as against lainti@s'aellants, their recourse is againsttheir vendors ana2o and Puga2)[+!]

.he aforesaid ruling of the Court of Aeals accords with the 7atin #ai# ne"o potest plus u%is ad aliu" t%ansfe%%e ;ua" ipse a,et. "o one can transfer a greater right toanother than he hi#self has) .hus, in Calalang vs) Register of Deeds of Iue3on Cit2 #[+&] thisCourt held

"eedless to state, all subse;uent certi?cates of title including etitioners titles arevoid because of the legal truis# that t)e *pr+- /ot r+*e )+-)er t)/ +t**o0re) .he law #ust rotect and refer the lawful owner of registered title over thetransferee of a vendor bereft of an2 trans#issible rights)

=n su#, defective titles cannot be uheld against the unble#ished titles of the rivateresondents)[+4]

Petitioners further sub#it that re;uiring the# to in;uire be2ond the face of the torrenstitle defeats the ri#ordial obective of the torrens s2ste#, which is that a erson dealing onregistered land has the right to rel2 on the torrens title)

ut a certi?cate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the sa#e land hadalread2 been registered and an earlier certi?cate for the sa#e is in eistence)[+5] =n the caseat bar, as borne out b2 ertinent records, the rivate resondents obtained their rights andtitle fro# .C. "o) .'$5$//, which was registered on August %, 1%+/ under the na#e of Feirsof 8nofre atallones and Patronillo Iui#io) 8n the art of etitioners, their suosed titleoriginated fro# a surious title of Pedro ana2o and Pablo Puga2 illegall2 registered on


12/13

=n light of the attendant facts and circu#stances, there is therefore a need to refer tothe background or histor2 of the land under controvers2) As conceded b2 etitioners, their

.C. "o) .'11&4+ was derived fro# .C. "o) 111+ under the na#es of Pedro ana2o andPablo Puga2) Fence, the necessit2 of looking into and deter#ining the legiti#ac2 of the titleof the two, ana2o and Puga2)

=n an e@ort to suort their clai# of ownershi over subect 7ot !1$/, Pedro ana2o and

Pablo Puga2 resented two theories) uana -otas, one of the lainti@s in Civil Case "o) .-'1$, Alicia *) Da2rit, 8Mce Caretaker of 7and -anage#ent Division of the ureau of 7ands,corroborated what -r)


13/13

noticed that for#er Director Ra#on Casanova issued another Deed *'1!%1$ but, bearing9ales Certi?cate "o) &&%+ and dated

Documents

Mathay Jr. vs. CA, Et. Al