assignment 8 - land titles and deeds

8/9/2019 Assignment 8 - Land Titles and Deeds

1/24


2/24

8 to pa" the costs.

:n like &anner, the &one" deposited in the >unicipal Treasurer=s 0ffice of

a"u%an in the a&ounts of 2,2+.9 covered '" 0fficial Receipt No.

++2(27 dated /epte&'er , #9** and #,(*.# covered '" 0fficial

Receipt No. +9# dated /epte&'er #+, #9**, as well as the su& of

7,92. deposited in Court pursuant to the Court=s 0rders of !anuar" #(,

#9* and >arch #7, #9*, consistin% of the proceeds fro& the sale of the

harvest taken fro& the area involved, is awarded to defendant Consorcia

Tenio 0'seuio, is owner thereof after deductin% the necessar" e


3/24

ever"one dealin% with propert" re%istered under the Torrens s"ste& would have to

inuire in ever" instance as to whether the title has 'een re%ularl" or irre%ularl"

issued '" the court. 1ver" person dealin% with re%istered land &a" safel" rel" on the

correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no wa" o'li%e

hi& to %o 'e"ond the certificate to deter&ine the condition of propert".1*

The Torrens s"ste& was adopted in this countr" 'ecause it was 'elieved to 'e the

&ost effective &easure to %uarantee the inte%rit" of land titles and to protect their

indefeasi'ilit" once the clai& of ownership is esta'lished and reco%ni@ed. :f a person

purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller=s title thereto is valid, he

should not run the risk of 'ein% told later that his acuisition was ineffectual after all.

This would not onl" 'e unfair to hi&. hat is worse is that if this were per&itted,

pu'lic confidence in the s"ste& would 'e eroded and land transactions would have to

'e attended '" co&plicated and not necessaril" conclusive investi%ations and proof

of ownership. The further conseuence would 'e that land conflicts could 'e even

&ore nu&erous and co&ple< than the" are now and possi'l" also &ore a'rasive, if

not even violent. The Govern&ent, reco%ni@in% the worth" purposes of the Torrens

s"ste&, should 'e the first to accept the validit" of titles issued thereunder once the

conditions laid down '" the law are satisfied. 1+

>oreover, there is no reason to dou't the authenticit" of the deed of sale which

constituted the 'asis for the issuance of the transfer certificate of title in the na&e of

1duardo 3e%uro, considerin% that not onl" was the contract notari@ed 'ut that it was

also approved '" the /ecretar" of A%riculture and Natural Resources in co&pliance

with /ection ##* of the u'lic )and Act. 14

There is no indu'ita'le, le%al and convincin% reason for nullif"in% the deed of sale.

erein private respondents have not presented an" co%ent, co&plete and convincin%

proof to override the evidentiar" value of the dul" notari@ed deed of sale. A notarial

docu&ent is evidence of the facts in the clear uneuivocal &anner therein e


4/24


5/24

G.R. No. L-4+40. Ma/ *, 19*.

REBECCA LEIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, 2. 3OAQUIN . BASS, ET

AL., Defendants. EUGENIO MINTU, Defendant-Appellant.

G.R. No. )-+7+ is an action 5case No. + of the Court of Eirst :nstanceof >anila8 for annul&ent of sales of, and &ort%a%e on, a lot and two houses erected

thereon and da&a%es 'rou%ht '" Re'ecca )evin a%ainst !oauin V. ass, 1&iliano

R. 1ustauio, Co Chin )en% and 1u%enio >intu where the last na&ed defendant is

the appellant4 G. R. No. )-+7+7 is the sa&e case where !oauin V. ass is the

appellant4 G. R. No. )-+7+# is an action 5case No. #+9 of sa&e court8 for detainer

'rou%ht '" !oauin V. ass a%ainst !ose C. Ro'les and A&inta T. de Ro'les, in

which Re'ecca )evin and 1u%enio >intu intervened, and where the last na&ed

intervenor is the appellant4 G. R. No. )-+7+ is the sa&e case for detainer where

!oauin V. ass is the appellant4 G. R. No. )-+7+2 is an action 5case No. #( of the

sa&e court8 for annul&ent of sale 'rou%ht '" !oauin V. ass a%ainst 1u%enio >intu

where the latter is the appellant4 G. R. No. )-+7++ is an action 5case No. ##9 of

the sa&e court8 for detainer of a 'uildin% located at No. 72* /an Rafael street'rou%ht '" !oauin V. ass a%ainst Re'ecca )evin where the for&er is the appellant4

and G. R. No. )-+7+( is an action 5case No. 27# of the sa&e court8 for detainer

'rou%ht '" !oauin V. ass a%ainst A&inta T. de Ro'les where the for&er is the

appellant. The two &ain cases 5G. R. Nos. )-+7+ and )-+7+28 around which the

others revolve fall under the appellate $urisdiction of this court.

After a $oint hearin% the trial court rendered $ud%&ent annullin% 1artine@ v. !oauin V. ass,? entr" No.

294 holdin% that Re'ecca )evin is entitled to recover fro& !oauin V. ass

da&a%es for losses which she &a" suffer '" reason of said &ort%a%e annotation and

notice of lis pendens4 dis&issin% the co&plaint of !oauin V. ass in civil case No.

#(, holdin% that the deed of sale under certain conditions eartine@, a 'oarder, and >eliton VillaseHor, a house'o". :n addition to collected'" her as &onthl" rental for the house at No. 72(, the !apanese rentin% the two

roo&s paid her 2 &onthl" and supplied her with rice and other foodstuffs without

char%e. Re'ecca )evin told !oauin V. ass that she was not sellin% her house at No.

72( /an Rafael street. 0n su'seuent calls !oauin V. ass told Re'ecca )evin that it

would 'e to her advanta%e and 'enefit to sell the lot and house at No. 72( /an Rafael

street and with the proceeds of the sale to purchase another house. e told her that if

she would not sell the lot and house the !apanese who had 'een lookin% for houses to

occup" &i%ht deprive her thereof without %ettin% an"thin% in e


6/24

apart&ents 5accessorias8 not far fro& the Tutu'an railroad station. The" were not

a'le to see the second stor" of the 'uildin% 'ecause, accordin% to !oauin V. ass,

the owner had %one to a&pan%a. Eor the second ti&e, the" went to see the 'uildin%

on Antonio Rivera street 'ut the" a%ain failed to see the second stor" of the 'uildin%

for the sa&e reason %iven '" !oauin V. ass when the" went to see it the first ti&e.

Rel"in% upon the representations &ade '" !oauin V. ass, Re'ecca )evin finall"

consented to sell her house. 0ne of the last da"s of 3ece&'er #9+7 or of the first

da"s of !anuar" #9++, while Re'ecca )evin was en%a%ed in conversation with 3r.

astor ). >anlapa@ and An%elita >artine@, !oauin V. ass called on her 'rin%in%

alon% with hi& certain papers. Bpon !oauin V. assI su%%estion Re'ecca )evin

followed '" hi& entered a roo& ad$oinin% that where she, 3r. >anlapa@ and An%elita

>artine@ were conversin%, and upon repeated representations and assurances &ade

'" !oauin V. ass that the papers he 'rou%ht were $ust an authorit" to sell the house

at No. 72( /an Rafael street, Re'ecca )evin si%ned five docu&ents and ass took

fro& her 'a% which she placed on a s&all ta'le in the roo& her residence certificate

and the receipt showin% pa"&ent of realt" ta< on her propert". None of the

docu&ents Re'ecca )evin si%ned was left to her. The followin% da" 5( !anuar"

#9++8, !oauin V. ass called on Re'ecca )evin at her house and handed to her

#, sa"in% that it was a partial pa"&ent of the purchase price of the lot and

house at No. 72( /an Rafael street which he represented had 'een sold to a !apanese

and asked her to %ive hi& the Torrens title of the lot and house. Bpon 'ein% infor&ed

'" her that the Torrens title of the houses and lot was in the possession of the

A%ricultural and :ndustrial ank, to which the" were &ort%a%ed for 2,, !oauin

V. ass took fro& her 2, and reuested her to %o with hi& to the A%ricultural

and :ndustrial ank where the" paid the &ort%a%e de't of :sidore Reich 5presu&a'l"

the predecessor of the late hus'and of Re'ecca J18 'ut also the 'alance of *, tellin% her that he

would pa" it to the owner of the 'uildin% on Antonio Rivera street4 that the 'alance

of the purchase price of her house at No. 72( /an Rafael street would 'e paid to her

as soon as the lot and house sold 'e se%re%ated or separated fro& the lar%er lot on

which her house at No. 72* /an Rafael street stood4 and that it was necessar" to

&ake such su'division to 'e approved '" the court in order that the sale of her house

and lot at No. 72( /an Rafael could 'e carried out. :n order not to arouse an"

suspicion on her part !oauin V. ass %ave her a receipt for the partial a&ount paid

for the 'uildin% on Antonio Rivera street si%ned '" one >ariano :rurin " Re"es 'ut

the a&ount written therein was $ust (,. The si%ner of the receipt pro&ised to

deliver the deed of sale of the 'uildin% on Antonio Rivera street within # da"s fro&

the date of pa"&ent of 2,, the 'alance of the purchase price 51eliton VillaseHor to

'rin% a %lass of water where he diluted the dru% and asked Re'ecca )evin to take it.

The latter did not hesitate to take it as until then she did not have the least suspicion

of hi& who succeeded in winnin% and en$o"ed her trust and confidence. After takin%

the &edicine she 'e%an to vo&it and suffer sto&ach pains and her face and lips

'eca&e swollen. /he sent for 3r. astor ). >anlapa@ who found that she was

poisoned. After application of antidotes she recovered fro& the poisonin%. This

incident coupled with the failure of !oauin V. ass to return to her the docu&ents

she had 'een askin% &ade Re'ecca )evin suspicious of hi& and consulted with 3r.

astor ). >anlapa@ and Eile&on o'lador, the latter then workin% in the office of the

resident of the Repu'lic. As o'lador was not a law"er he talked to attorne"

1ste'an Nedruda who 'ein% also an e&plo"ee in the office of the resident of the

Repu'lic at >alacaHan% refused to handle the case 'ut pro&ised to investi%ate it.

After investi%ation Nedruda found that the lots were transferred and re%istered in the

na&e of !oauin V. ass and &ort%a%ed '" hi&. Einall", the services of attorne"

Cesar de )arra@a'al were en%a%ed. The latter went to %et copies of the docu&ents on

the propert" of Re'ecca )evin which were re%istered in the office of the Re%ister of

3eeds of >anila. :t was found out that the papers si%ned '" her on !anuar" #9++

were a deed of sale of her house and lot at No. 72( /an Rafael street for 7, in

favor of 1&iliano R. 1ustauio acknowled%ed on the sa&e da" 'efore notar" pu'lic

1lie@er A. >anikan 51arch #9++, for and in consideration of

7*,, 1&iliano R. 1ustauio sold to !oauin V. ass the lot and the house at No.

72( /an Rafael street 51anikan in

the na&e of Re'ecca )evin pra"in% for the su'division of a parcel of land into two

lots the certificate of title to lot No. # containin% an area of 7#. suare &eters to

'e issued in the na&e of 1&iliano R. 1ustauio and the certificate of title to lot No. 2

containin% an area of #,(.* suare &eters to 'e issued in the na&e of Re'ecca

)evin 51anila, Eourth ranch, presided over '" !ud%e Gervasio 3ia@

51


7/24

of 1&iliano R. 1ustauio for a parcel of land containin% an area of 7#. suare

&eters, &ore or less, and the house erected thereon, and transfer certificate of title

No. #9* in the na&e of Re'ecca )evin for the re&ainin% area of #,(.* suare

&eters and the house erected thereon, were issued '" the Re%istrar of 3eeds of

>anila on 2 Ee'ruar" #9++, pursuant to the order of the court dated 22 Ee'ruar"

#9++ referred to 51anila entitled ?:sa'elo >artine@ v. !oauin V. ass.? 0n #+ 0cto'er #9++, for and

in consideration of 2, ?present circulatin% currenc",? !oauin V. ass sold to

1u%enio >intu the lot and house at No. 72* /an Rafael street descri'ed in transfer

certificate of title No. 7+, 9, of which was paid on the date of the eintu8 upon instructions of the

vendor 5!oauin V. ass8 with the clerk of court of >anila after return of the for&er

fro& a trip to :locos Norte, the deposit to 'e &ade within 7 da"s fro& the date of

the deed of sale and for the purpose of securin% the release of the &ort%a%e in favor

of Co Chin )en%, the vendor 5!oauin V. ass8 undertakin% to o'tain the release of

the &ort%a%e on the propert" sold and to deliver it 5the &ort%a%e release8 to the

vendee 51u%enio >intu8 and the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens on or

'efore * April #9+ 51intu8 his title, ri%hts, interest, participation or share in and

to lot No. 2, the lar%er lot on which house No. 72* /an Rafael street is erected, and

'oth parties a%reed that if the condition provided for in para%raph 5d8 of the deed of

sale 'e fulfilled, the condition in para%raph 5e8 thereof relative to the assi%n&ent,

transfer and conve"ance of lot No. 2 to the vendee would 'e null and void and

without le%al effect, otherwise it would re&ain in full force and effect. The followin%

clause was inserted with initials of 'oth parties; ?force &a$eure and fortuitous events

eintu and !ose C. Ro'les entered into a lease contract on the house

and lot at No. 72( /an Rafael street, >anila 51intu 'ecause there was a dispute as to who was the owner

of the house. 0n 7 Nove&'er #9++, 1u%enio >intu deposited with the sheriff of

>anila for the account of !oauin V. ass the su& of #,+#(.( as full pa"&ent of

the purchase price of the propert" sold to hi& on #+ 0cto'er #9++. The su& of

#, is the total of assI inde'tedness to Co Chin )en%-, secured '"

&ort%a%e and 7, unsecured, the su& of +#(.( represents the interest on the

a&ount owned to Co Chin )en% up to the ti&e of the deposit 51intu8. 0n * Nove&'er #9++, 1u%enio >intu presented and filed with the office of

the Re%istrar of 3eeds of >anila the ori%inal of the deed of sale 51anila 'ut said docu&ents were not a&on% those

salva%ed and were presu&ed to have 'een lost or 'urned accordin% to the

certification of the Re%istrar of 3eeds in and for the Cit" of >anila 51anila 'ears No. ##94 that after

he acuired the propert" at No. 72( /an Rafael street fro& 1&iliano R. 1ustauio

the latter 'rou%ht hi& to the tenant, Rosario Vda. de Altona%a, who left the pre&ises

to %o to Ca%a"an to look for her dau%hter4 that Vicente Ta%le rented the pre&ises

si%nin% a contract for one "ear 'ut after 2 or + &onths he left the pre&ises and his

dau%hter A&inta T. de Ro'les &arried to !ose C. Ro'les 'eca&e the tenant4 that in

Ee'ruar" #9+ !ose C. Ro'les left the pre&ise after a uarrel he had with his wife

A&inta T. de Ro'les4 that in April #9+ he 'rou%ht a%ainst !ose C. Ro'les and

A&inta T. de Ro'les an action for detainer which on appeal to the Court of Eirst

:nstance of >anila 'ears No. #+94 that on # >a" #9+( A&inta T. de Ro'les and he

si%ned a lease contract 51


8/24

as testified to '" 3r. >anlapa@4 that he did not show to Re'ecca )evin an" house on

calle Antonio Rivera to 'e eanlapa@, >eliton VillaseHor and An%elita >artine@4 that

it is not true that Re'ecca )evin did not receive the consideration for the sale of her

house at No. 72* /an Rafael street4 that on #+ 0cto'er #9++ he sold for 2, the

house and lot at No. 72( /an Rafael street to 1u%enio >intu, who handed to hi&

(, and a check for 2, which the 'ank refused to cash, 'ut later on >intu

told hi& that he had deposited funds in the 'ank and so the check was honored and

cashed at the 'ank of the hilippine :slands4 that all in all he was paid 9, and

#, for #( %antas of rice %iven hi& to >intu4 that the 'alance of #, was

never and has not 'een paid to hi&4 that he has not %iven possession of the propert"

to 1u%enio >intu the transaction not havin% 'een consu&&ated 'ecause of force

&a$eure4 and that he was 'ound to return to 1u%enio >intu the #, received '"

hi&.

1lie@er A. >anikan, the notar" pu'lic 'efore who& the deeds of sale sou%ht

to 'e annulled were acknowled%ed, testifies that Re'ecca )evin appeared 'efore hi&

and acknowled%ed the eanila 1lectric Co. as &echanical en%ineer 'ut on cross eanila 1lectric Co. 3urin% the occupation of

the countr" '" the ene&" he was en%a%ed in the 'u"-and-sell 'usiness and had no

known inco&e. :t is un'elieva'le that he could acuire the house and lot of Re'ecca)evin at No. 72* /an Rafael street for (, and the one alle%edl" sold to

1&iliano R. 1ustauio at No. 72(, sa&e street, throu%h his &achinations, for

7*,. e clai&s he deposited his &one" in the ank of Taiwan 'ut in the sa&e

wa" that he presented his pass 'ook 51anikan did not tell the truth when he testified that the deed of sale

&arked 1


9/24

account there is no evidence as to the outco&e of the co&plaint for consi%nation

filed on 7 Nove&'er #9++ '" !oauin V. ass a%ainst Co Chin )en% in the Court of

Eirst :nstance of >anila 5case No. 29*+8.

As re%ards 1u%enio >intu, the evidence shows that he paid 2, to

!oauin V. ass in the &anner and for& a'ove stated4 that the ori%inal deed of sale

51anila and entered in the da" 'ook - entr" No. 2#(#, 'ut that,

accordin% to the certification of the re%istrar, the ori%inal deed of sale and theownerIs duplicate certificates of title have not 'een found, were not a&on% the

salva%ed records and were, therefore, presu&ed to have 'een lost or 'urned 51intu8. 0n the other hand, on 29 0cto'er #9+, a notice of lis pendens was filed in

the office of the Re%istrar of 3eeds of >anila and noted on the 'ack of transfer

certificates of title Nos. 7+ and 7+# in connection with civil case No. + of

the Court of Eirst :nstance of >anila entitled ?Re'ecca )evin v. !oauin V. ass 1t.

Al..?

The clai& of !oauin V. ass that the sale 'etween hi& and >intu was

conditional is devoid of &erit, 'ecause the conditional part of the deed of sale

concerns the %uarantee undertaken '" hi& as vendor to o'tain the release of the

&ort%a%e of Co Chin )en% and the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in

connection with civil case No. 2(2 entitled ?:sa'elo >artine@ v. !oauin V. ass,?

which release and cancellation he pro&ised he would secure on or 'efore * April

#9+. :t is not a condition which, if not fulfilled, would avoid the sale &ade of the lot

and house on No. 72( /an Rafael street, 'ut one which, if not perfor&ed, would

cause the vestin% in the vendee 51u%enio >intu8 of the title to the lot and house on

No. 72*, sa&e street, which was %iven as securit" for the fulfill&ent of the

undertakin%.

e now take up the uestion 'etween 1u%enio >intu and Re'ecca )evin.

Bnder the Torrens s"ste& the act of re%istration is the operative act to conve" andaffect the land. # 3o the entr" in the da" 'ook of a deed of sale which was presented

and filed to%ether with the ownerIs duplicate certificate of title with the office of the

Re%istrar of 3eeds and full pa"&ent of re%istration fees constitute a co&plete act of

re%istration which operates to conve" and affect the landL :n voluntar" re%istration,

such as a sale, &ort%a%e, lease and the like, if the ownerIs duplicate certificate 'e not

surrendered and presented or if no pa"&ent of re%istration fees 'e &ade within #

da"s, entr" in the da" 'ook of the deed of sale does not operate to conve" and affect

the land sold. 2 :n involuntar" re%istration, such as an attach&ent, lev" upon

eintu is as a%ainst Re'ecca )evin without force

and effect 'ecause of the eintu who ad&ittedl" is

an innocent purchaser for value, for the reason that the latter thou%h an innocent

purchaser for value is not a holder of a certificate of title. The pronounce&ent of the

court 'elow is to the effect that an innocent purchaser for value has no ri%ht to the

propert" 'ecause he is not a holder of a certificate of title to such propert" acuired

'" hi& for value and in %ood faith. :t a&ounts to holdin% that for failure of the

Re%istrar of 3eed to co&pl" and perfor& his dut" an innocent purchaser for value

loses that character - he is not an ?innocent holder for value of a certificate of title.?

The court 'elow has strictl" and literall" construed the provision of law applica'le to

the case. :f the strict and literal construction of the law &ade '" the court 'elow 'e

the true and correct &eanin% and intent of the law&akin% 'od", the act of re%istration

the operative act to conve" and affect re%istered propert" would 'e left to the

Re%istrar of 3eeds. True, there is a re&ed" availa'le to the re%istrant to co&pel the

Re%istrar of 3eeds to issue to hi& the certificate of title 'ut the step would entail

eintu is the ri%htful owner of the lot and

house at No. 72( /an Rafael street since * Nove&'er #9++ and entitled to collect the


10/24

rentals due and unpaid fro& that date until possession of the pre&ises shall have

'een restored to hi& and the 'alance that &a" result fro& an accountin% to 'e

rendered '" !oauin V. ass of rentals and &one"s received '" hi& i&puta'le to

such rentals as ordered '" the trial court, su'$ect to the re%istered &ort%a%e in favor

of Co Chin )en%. hat has 'een awarded to Re'ecca )evin in the $ud%&ent

appealed fro&, in so far as the lot and house at No. 72( /an Rafael street are

concerned, is dee&ed awarded to 1u%enio >intu.

The rest of the $ud%&ent appealed fro& not inconsistent herewith is

affir&ed, with costs a%ainst !oauin V. ass.

)et a cop" of this decision 'e furnished the Cit" Eiscal of >anila who is

directed to conduct an investi%ation of !oauin V. ass and attorne" and notar"

pu'lic 1lie@er A. >anikan in connection with the e


11/24

G.R. No. 1794+ Oco5'r 6, *010

CAM)ER REALT" COR).,etitioner,

vs.

MARIA NENA )A3O-RE"ES represented '" her Attorne"-in-EactE#$'o B.

Ba##ao, AUGUSTO ). BA3ADO, RODOL(O )A3O a! GODO(REDO )A3O,

3R.,Respondents.

3 1 C : / : 0 N

CAR)IO MORALES, J.:

Rodolfo a$o 5Rodolfo8 caused the notari@ation on >arch 2, #9+ '" Att". Ca&ilo

Naraval of a /pecial ower of Attorne" 5/A8 ea" , #997.

0n April 2, #997, #9 "ears after RodolfoIs co-owners of the propert" were notified

two da"s after the notari@ation of /A of the for%ed si%natures, Nena, RodolfoIs

sister-co-owner, filed a co&plaint a%ainst Au%usto and her 'rothers Rodolfo and

Godofredo, !r. for "declaration of nullity and/or inexistence of contracts,

cancellation of title, quieting of title and possession, damages and attorneys fees

!it prayer for !rit of preliminary in#unction and a temporary restraining

order,"#'efore the Re%ional Trial Court 5RTC8 of 3avao Cit". Godofredo, !r. was

i&pleaded as defendant alle%edl" 'ecause he refused to 'e a co-plaintiff.

Nena alle%ed that onl" her 'rother Godofredo, !r. re&ained as co-owner, her other

'rothers Rodolfo and Tito havin% ceded to her their respective shares in the propert"

'" a notari@ed 3eed of Confir&ation on >a" , #9(4 and her 'rother :saias had died

without issue.

" 0rder of April , #997, the RTC issued a Te&porar" Restrainin% 0rder

restrainin% the ?defendants Au%usto . a$ado, his privies and all persons workin%

for hi& or under his control or order to cease and desist fro& co&&ittin% acts of

harass&ent a%ainst the plaintiff 5Nena8 . . . ?2

0n learnin% of Au%ustoIs sale of part of his interest in the propert" to petitioner,

Nena, '" A&ended Co&plaint dated April 2, #997, i&pleaded petitioner as a

necessar" part". Nena contended that no ri%ht could have 'een trans&itted to )i%a"a

and the su'seuent transferees, the /A 'ein% a for%ed docu&ent.

" 3ecision of /epte&'er , #99,7ranch #( of the 3avao RTC dis&issed NenaIs

co&plaint, disposin% as follows;

R1>:/1/ C0N/:31R13, $ud%&ent, is here'" rendered;

#8 dis&issin% plaintiffIs co&plaint a%ainst defendants Au%usto a$ado and

Ca&per Realt" Corporation4

28 orderin% defendant Rodolfo a$o to pa" plaintiff the su&s of;

a8 ,. as &oral da&a%es4
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt1


12/24

'8 #,. as earia Nena a$o-Re"es %uilt" of laches M defined

as the failure or ne%lect to do that which, '" eotion for Reconsideration on >arch *, 2 of the appellate courtIs

decision.

" Resolution of !ul" 2, 2, the Court of Appeals resolved to den" petitionerIs

&otion for review for 'ein% filed out of ti&e, it rel"in% on the ost&asterIs

certification that a cop" of its decision was actuall" received '" petitioner on3ece&'er 2*, 2(.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/oct2010/gr_179543_2010.html#fnt8


13/24

ence, the present petition for review on certiorari.

The records show that service viare%istered &ail of the cop" of the decision

addressed to petitioner was &ade on 3ece&'er 2*, 2( on a certain 3ais" elle@a

53ais"8 who, petitioner avers, was not authori@ed to receive the cop", she 'ein% a

&ere househelper of petitionerIs director Arturo E. Ca&po.

Althou%h petitionerIs principal office and Ca&poIs residence are housed in the sa&e

'uildin%, Ca&poIs househelper 3ais" cannot 'e considered as a person-in-char%e of

petitionerIs office to consider her receipt of cop" of the decision on 'ehalf of

petitioner.9Neither can the househelperIs receipt suffice as service to Ca&po, even if

he is a &e&'er of petitionerIs oard of 3irectors, a'sent a showin% that he had 'een

authori@ed '" petitioner to accept service.

0n to the &erits of the petition.

:n sales involvin% real propert" or an" interest therein, a written authorit" in favor of

the a%ent is necessar", otherwise the sale is void. #/ince the propert" was su'$ected

to ensuin% transfers, it is necessar" to esta'lish the ri%hts, if an", of the transferees

vis--vis that of NenaIs.

Respondent Au%usto acuired the propert" as his share in his &other )i%a"aIs estate.

As co&pulsor" heir, he &erel" stepped into the shoes of )i%a"a. /ince )i%a"aIs title

was derived fro& RodolfoIs sale to her on the 'asis of a for%ed /A, Au%ustoIs title

&ust 'e cancelled.$emo dat quod non abet.:n fact, it appears that Au%usto did not

interpose an appeal fro& the appellate courtIs decision divestin% hi& of his title,

renderin% it final and eoreover, the propert" was re%istered in )i%a"aIs na&e in #9+ "et, and

Au%ustoIs in #9*(, and no encu&'rance or lien was annotated either on )i%a"aIs or

Au%ustoIs title. Eor #* "ears or in #992, there was no controvers" or dispute

houndin% the propert" to caution petitioner a'out Au%ustoIs title thereto.

Contrar" to NenaIs assertion that the sale to petitioner was a &ere su'terfu%e '"

Au%usto to validate his clai& on the propert", evidence shows that it was not.

Au%usto presented a certified true cop" of a Certificate Authori@in% Re%istration

issued '" the ureau of :nternal Revenue on /epte&'er 7, #992 #+ to show that

capital %ains ta< had 'een dul" paid on the transfer. The Court takes $udicial notice

that said certificate is necessar" for presentation to the Re%ister of 3eeds to re%isterthe transfer.

AT A)) 1V1NT/, factual findin%s of the trial court are accorded %reat respect and

shall not 'e distur'ed on appeal, save for e


14/24

#8 The 3eed of A'solute /ale dated >arch 2*, #9+ earia Nena a$o-Re"es and Godofredo a$o, !r., the

a&ount to 'ear le%al interest of (O per annu& fro& the date of filin% of the

co&plaint.

The Re%ister of 3eeds of 3avao Cit" is EBRT1R 0R31R13 to cancel Transfer

Certificate of Title No. T-#*99 in the na&e of respondent Au%usto a$ado and to

issue in its stead a title in the na&es of respondents >aria Nena a$o-Re"es and

Godofredo a$o, !r.

/0 0R31R13.


15/24


16/24

&a" 'e %iven due course. At the hearin% of the &otion no oral evidence was

su'&itted4 onl" docu&entar" evidence was presented.

Thereafter the Court of Eirst :nstance of >anila issued the order alread" &entioned

a'ove, directin% respondents to surrender the certificates of title to the Re%ister of

3eeds of >anila in order that petitioners-appellees= contract of lease &a" 'e noted

thereon. :t e


17/24

the a'ove issues should, therefore, 'e set aside and their deter&ination reserved in a

proper proceedin%.

herefore, the opposition to the &otion for the surrender of the certificates of title to

the Re%ister of 3eeds of >anila is overruled, and the order appealed fro&, in so far

as it orders the surrender of the certificates of title for the re%istration of the contracts

of lease, is here'" affir&ed, 'ut the other rulin%s are reversed, and the other issues

raised '" respondents-appellants reserved for deter&ination in a proper proceedin%.

ith costs a%ainst the respondents-appellants.

1aras, C. J., 0eng2on, 1adilla, 3ontemayor and Jugo, JJ., concur.


18/24

G.R. No. 1+44 3%' +0, *014

S)OUSES DOMINADOR )ERALTA AND O(ELIA )ERALTA,etitioners,

vs.

8EIRS O( BERNARDINA ABALON, r'=r'$''! 5/ MANSUETO

ABALON,Respondents.

< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

RESTITUTO RELLAMA, r'=r'$''! 5/ h$ ch#!r' ALE, IMMANUEL,

3ULIUS a! S"LIA, a## $%ra&'! RELLAMA.

3 1 C : / : 0 N

SERENO, CJ:

efore us are the consolidated etitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule + of

the Rules of Court assailin% the 7 >a" 2 3ecision #of the Court of Appeals

5CA8 /eventeenth 3ivision in CA-G.R. CV No. *+2. The CA had reversed the #+

April 2 3ecision2of the Re%ional Trial Court 5RTC8, Eifth !udicial Re%ion of

)e%aspi Cit", ranch , in Civil Case No. 92+7.

The civil case 'efore the RTC of )e%aspi Cit" involved a parcel of land re%istered

under the na&e of ernardina A'alon and fraudulentl" transferred to Restituto

Rella&a and who, in turn, su'divided the su'$ect propert" and sold it separatel" to

the other parties to this case M /pouses 3o&inador and 0felia eralta4 and >arissa,

)eonil and Arnel, all surna&ed Andal. Thereafter, /pouses eralta and the Andals

individuall" re%istered the respective portions of the land the" had 'ou%ht under their

na&es. The heirs of ernardina were clai&in% 'ack the land, alle%in% that since it

was sold under fraudulent circu&stances, no valid title passed to the 'u"ers. 0n the

other hand, the 'u"ers, who were now title holders of the su'$ect parcel of land,

averred that the" were 'u"ers in %ood faith and sou%ht the protection accorded to

the& under the law.

T1 EACT/

The RTC and the CA have the sa&e findin%s of fact, 'ut differ in their le%al

conclusions. There 'ein% no factual issues raised in the etitions, we adopt the

findin%s of fact of the CA in CA-G.R. No. *+2, as follows;

The su'$ect parcel of land, descri'ed as )ot #(9 of the Cadastral /urve" of )e%aspi,

consistin% of *,# suare &eters, was ori%inall" covered '" 0ri%inal Certificate of

Title 50CT8 No. 508 #( and re%istered in the na&e of ernardina A'alon 5A'alon8. :t

appears that a 3eed of A'solute /ale was e


19/24

A'alon had alwa"s 'een in possession of the su'$ect propert" throu%h her tenant

edro ellen who was thereafter succeeded '" his wife, Ruperta ellen, and then his

son, Godofredo ellen. 0n the other hand, the" said that Rella&a had never set foot

on the land he was clai&in%. The" further alle%ed that after the ownership over the

su'$ect propert" was transferred to the& upon the death of A'alon, the" took

possession thereof and retained Godofredo as their own tenant. owever, the"

averred that in #99 the defendants-appellants were a'le to wrest possession of the

su'$ect propert" fro& Godofredo ellen. The" alle%ed that the defendants-appellants

are not 'u"ers in %ood faith as the" were aware that the su'$ect land was in thepossession of the plaintiffs-appellees at the ti&e the" &ade the purchase. The" thus

clai& that the titles issued to the defendants-appellants are null and void.

:n his answer, Rella&a alle%ed that the deed of a'solute sale eiscellaneous Cadastral Case No.

#(+* is a 5&ere8 strate%e& JsicK fraudulentl" concocted ... for the issuance of a

fa'ricated 5second8 ownerIs duplicate certificate of 0ct No. 508 #(? since the

ownerIs duplicate cop" of 0CT No. 508 #( has not 'een lost at all. :t said that an"

su'seuent re%istration procured '" the presentation of such for%ed instru&ent is null

and void. The dispositive portion of the court a uoIs decision reads; 1R1E0R1,

JpKre&ises JcKonsidered, $ud%&ent is rendered as follows, to wit;

#. 0rderin% the restoration of 0ri%inal Certificate of Title No. 508 #(

e&'racin% )ot #(9 in the na&e of ernardina A'alon into the official files

of the Re%istr" of 3eeds of )e%aspi Cit" M a cop" of the ownerIs duplicate

certificate e&'od"in% the technical description of )ot #(9 for&in% official

part of the record as 1


20/24

for%er" a%ainst Rella&a. :t found that A'alon had not parted with her ownership over

the su'$ect propert" despite the clai& of Rella&a that the" 'oth e


21/24

As for the heirs of A'alon, their etition, docketed as G.R. No. #*7+(+, raises the

followin% issues;

a8 The Andals cannot 'e considered as 'u"ers in %ood faith '" si&pl"

appl"in% the ordinar" presu&ption in the a'sence of evidence showin% the

contrar".

'8 The CA erred in appl"in% in favor of the Andals, the doctrine that a

for%ed instru&ent &a" 'eco&e the root of a valid title in the hands of aninnocent purchaser for value, 'ecause A'alon never parted with her

possession of the valid and uncancelled title over the su'$ect propert"

c8 The CA erred in declarin% the validit" of the title issued in the na&es of

the Andals, 'ecause Rella&a was 'ereft of an" trans&issi'le ri%ht over the

portion of the propert" he had sold to the&.#(

T1 C0BRTI/ RB):NG

e den" the etitions and affir& the rulin% of the CA.

The &ain issue to 'e resolved in this case is whether a for%ed instru&ent &a"

'eco&e the root of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, even

if the true owner thereof has 'een in possession of the %enuine title, which is valid

and has not 'een cancelled.

:t is well-settled that ?a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasi'le and

incontroverti'le title to the propert" in favor of the person whose na&e appears

therein. The real purpose of the Torrens s"ste& of land re%istration is to uiet title to

land and put a stop forever to an" uestion as to the le%alit" of the title.?#

:n Tenio-0'seuio v. Court of Appeals,#*we e


22/24

The aforesaid principle ad&its of an unchallen%ed e


23/24

The A'alons counter this rulin% and alle%e that the CA erred in rel"in% on Euleto

$ustif" its assailed 3ecision. The" ar%ue that Torres v. Court of Appeals2is the

applica'le rulin%, 'ecause the facts therein are on all fours with the instant case.2*

:n Torres, the su'$ect propert" was covered '" TCT No. 7(2* re%istered in the

na&e of >ariano Torres. is 'rother-in-law Erancisco Eernande@, &isrepresentin%

that the cop" of the title had 'een lost, succeeded in o'tainin% a court 0rder for the

issuance of another cop" of TCT No. 7(2*. e then for%ed a si&ulated deed of sale

purportedl" showin% that Torres had sold the propert" to hi& and caused thecancellation of TCT No. 7(2*, as well as the issuance of TCT No. *(#* in his

na&e. /oon, Eernande@ &ort%a%ed the propert" to >ota. Bpon learnin% of the fraud

co&&itted '" Eernande@, Torres caused the annotation of an adverse clai& on the

for&erIs cop" and succeeded in havin% Eernande@Is title declared null and void.

>eanwhile, >ota was a'le to foreclose on Eernande@Is real estate &ort%a%e, as well

as to cause the cancellation of TCT No. *(#* and the issuance of a new oneM TCT

No. #97 M in her na&e. The issue to 'e resolved in Torres was whether >ota can

'e considered an innocent &ort%a%ee for value, and whether her title can 'e dee&ed

valid. Rulin% in the ne%ative, the Court e


24/24

annotation of the adverse clai&. " this act, the &ort%a%ee was shown to 'e in 'ad

faith.

:n the instant case, there is no evidence that the chain of re%istered titles was 'roken

in the case of the Andals. Neither were the" proven to have knowled%e of an"thin%

that would &ake the& suspicious of the nature of Rella&aIs ownership over the

su'$ect parcel of land. ence, we sustain the CAIs rulin% that the Andals were 'u"ers

in %ood faith. Conseuentl", the validit" of their title to the parcel of the land 'ou%ht

fro& Rella&a &ust 'e upheld.

As for /pouses eralta, we sustain the rulin% of the CA that the" are indeed 'u"ers in

'ad faith. The appellate court &ade a factual findin% that in purchasin% the su'$ect

propert", the" &erel" relied on the photocop" of the title provided '" Rella&a. The

CA concluded that a &ere photocop" of the title should have &ade /pouses eralta

suspicious that there was so&e flaw in the title of Rella&a, 'ecause he was not in

possession of the ori%inal cop". This factual findin% was supported '" evidence.

The CA pointed out /pouses eraltaIs Answer to the Co&plaint of the A'alons in

Case No. 92+7 in the RTC of )e%aspi Cit", ranch . :n their Answer, the"

specificall" alle%ed as follows;

2- These defendants J/pouses eraltaK acuired lot No. #(9-A '" purchase

in %ood faith and for value fro& Restituto Rella&a under 3oc. No. ##2#2,

pa%e No. 2(, ook No. (, /eries of #99( of Notar" u'lic Att". 0tilio

on%on, )e%aspi Cit" on >arch 2, #99 cop" of which is attached as and

&ade part of this answer as 1ansueto and A&elia, 'ein% her le%alheirs, acuired the su'$ect propert" '" virtue of succession, and not '" ordinar"

acuisitive prescription.

1R1E0R1, the petitions in G.R. Nos. #*7++* and #*7+(+ are 31N:13 for lack

of &erit. The 3ecision in CA-G.R. CV No. *+2 is here'" AEE:R>13.

/0 0R31R13.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt39http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jun2014/gr_183448_2014.html#fnt39

assignment 8 - land titles and deeds

Documents