Fudot v.

Cattleya
FACTS:

In July 1992, Cattleya Land, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as respondent)
asked someone to check, on its behalf, the titles of nine (9) lots, the subect land
included, !hich it intended to buy from the spouses "roadio and #suncion
"ecson. $indin% no defect on the titles, respondent purchased the nine lots
throu%h a &eed of Conditional 'ale on ( )o*ember 1992 and another &eed of
#bsolute 'ale o*er the same properties. "he attachment !as e*entually
cancelled. "itles to si+ (() of the nine (9) lots !ere issued, but the ,e%ister of
&eeds refused to issue titles to the remainin% three (-) lots , because the titles
co*erin% the same !ere still unaccounted for and there !as a pendin% case
in*ol*in% the - lots.
.uch to the surprise of respondent, the ,e%ister of &eeds had already
re%istered the deeds of sale in fa*or of petitioner and issued a ne! title in fa*or of
petitioner. ,espondent filed Complaint for /uietin% of "itle 012r ,eco*ery 2f
2!nership, Cancellation 2f "itle 3ith &ama%es. 2n 2( June 1994, #suncion filed
a complaint5in5inter*ention, claimin% that she ne*er si%ned any deed of sale
co*erin% any part of their conu%al property in fa*or of petitioner. "hus, said deed
should be declared null and *oid. 'he also claimed that she has disco*ered only
recently that there !as an amorous relationship bet!een her husband and
petitioner.

"rial Court6 rendered a decision6 7uietin% the title of o!nership in fa*or of
respondent and declarin% the deed of sale bet!een petitioner and "ecson *oid.
C#6 #$$I,.8& decision of "C holdin% that there !as no double sale
because the alle%ed sale to petitioner !as null and *oid in *ie! of the for%ery
of #suncion9s purported si%nature in the deed

ISSUE:
:8"388) 2 :;<8,' 2$ ,8=I'"8,8& L#)&, 3>2 >#' ">8
:8""8, ,I=>"5I' I" ">8 $I,'" :;<8, 3>2 3#' =I?8) ">8 23)8,9'
&;@LIC#"8 "C" "2=8">8, 3I"> # &88& 2$ '#L8 I) 19A(, 2, ">8
'8C2)& :;<8, I) 1992 3I"> 2)L< # &88& 2$ '#L8.
HELD6 @etitioner9s ar%uments, !hich rest on the assumption that there !as a
double sale, must fail.

In the first place, there is no double sale to speak of. #rt. 14BB of the Ci*il
Code, !hich pro*ides the rule on double sale, applies only to a situation !here
the same property is *alidly sold to different *endees. In this case, there is only
one sale to ad*ert to, that bet!een the spouses "ecson and respondent.

@etitioner ar%ues she has a better ri%ht o*er the property in 7uestion, as
the holder of and the first one to present, the o!ner9s copy of the title for the
issuance of a ne! "C". "he Court is not persuaded. "he re%istration of
petitioner9s *oid deed is not an impediment to a declaration by the courts of its
in*alidity.

8*en assumin% that there !as double sale in this case, petitioner !ould
still not pre*ail. Cno!led%e %ained by the second buyer of the first sale defeats his
ri%hts e*en if he is first to re%ister the second sale, since such kno!led%e taints
his prior re%istration !ith bad faith. It is thus essential, to merit the protection of
#rt. 14BB, second para%raph, that the second realty buyer must act in %ood faith
in re%isterin% his deed of sale.
D


,espondent !as able to re%ister its purchase ahead of petitioner. It !ill
be recalled that respondent !as able to re%ister its &eed of Conditional 'ale !ith
the ,e%ister of &eeds as early as ( )o*ember 1992, and its &eed of #bsolute
'ale on 1B 2ctober 199-. 2n the other hand, petitioner !as able to present for
re%istration her deed of sale and o!ner9s copy of the title only on 2- January
1994, or almost nine years after the purported sale. 3hy it took petitioner nine (9)
years to present the deed and the o!ner9s copy, she had no credible e+planationE
but it is clear that !hen she finally did, she already had constructi*e notice of the
deed of sale in respondent9s fa*or. 3ithout a doubt, respondent had ac7uired a
better title to the property.

@etition &8)I8&.
G.R. No. 165853 u!e ""# "$$6
Ro%a!a E&e!a v% '(da Da!a )ue&&e&*+au,,-a!
Fa.t%:
@etition for ,e*ie! on Certiorari of the decision of the C# re*ersin% the
decision of the ,"C of Las @inas.
?ida &ana /urrer5Cauffman is the o!ner of a lot in Las @inas City !hich
title and ta+ declarations co*erin% the property !ere kept in a safety5deposit bo+
!hen she left for the states. 'he entrusted the said property to the sister of her
li*e5in partner, .ira :ernal.
3hen she decided to sell the lot, she asked her sister, 8*elyn @ares, to
%et the title and the ta+ declarations from the safety5deposit bo+, ho!e*er, the
disco*ered that the articles that she !as suppose to %et !ere missin%. 'he then
communicated this incident to Cauffman.
3hen Cauffman arri*ed from the states, she, to%ether !ith her sister !ent
to the ,& of Las @inas to in7uire about the title and to their surprise, they learned
that the property !as already mort%a%ed to a certain ,osana 8rena. #lso, they
learned that the si%nature of Cauffman !as for%ed as to %i*e effect to the
mort%a%e.
I%%ue%:
1) 3hether ?ida &ana /uerrer5Cauffman is the absolute o!ner of the
mort%a%ed property
2) 3hether ,osana 8rena is a mort%a%ee in %ood faith
Rul(!/:
1) <es, ?ida &ana /uerrer5Cauffman is the ultimate o!ner of the property
!hich !as already pro*ed by the ,"C and C#. #%ain, the 'C is not a trier of facts
and is not to re5e+amine and re5e*aluate the testimonial and documentary
e*idence on record.
2) "he trial court !ron%ly applied in this case the doctrine of Fmort%a%ee in
%ood faithF !hich has been allo!ed in many instances but in a milieu dissimilar
from this case. "his doctrine is based on the rule that persons dealin% !ith
properties co*ered by a "orrens certificate of title are not re7uired to %o beyond
!hat appears on the face of the title. :ut this is only in a situation !here the
mort%a%or has a fraudulent or other!ise defecti*e title, but not !hen the
mort%a%or is an impostor and a for%er.
In a for%ed mort%a%e, as in this case, the doctrine of Fmort%a%ee in %ood faithF
cannot be applied and !ill not benefit a mort%a%ee no matter ho! lar%e is his or
her reser*oir of %ood faith and dili%ence. 'uch mort%a%e is *oid and cannot
preudice the re%istered o!ner !hose si%nature to the deed is falsified. 3hen the
instrument presented is for%ed, e*en if accompanied by the o!ner9s duplicate
certificate of title, the re%istered o!ner does not lose his title, and neither does the
assi%nee in the for%ed deed ac7uire any ri%ht or title to the property. #n innocent
purchaser for *alue is one !ho purchases a titled land by *irtue of a deed
e+ecuted by the re%istered o!ner himself not a for%ed deed.
4A
RURAL 0AN+ 1F C1231STELA# 4et(t(o!e&# v%. C1URT 1F A33EALS a!d
S4ou%e% NIC1LAS 2. 1RDAN a!d 3RUDENCIA F. 1RDAN# &e%4o!de!t%.
Fa.t%6
"he spouses @otenciano:arrosa (@otenciano) and CeferinaJu%albot !ere
the re%istered o!ners of Lot )o. 2G-9 co*ered by 2ri%inal Certificate of "itle )o.
1(AG issued on .arch 14, 19(A as a result of the issuance to them of $ree @atent
)o. -AA14(. "he lot contains an area of 2,4B2 s7. m. situated in Catarman, Liloan,
Cebu. 2n .ay 4, 19HA, #mado :arrosa, a son of @otenciano and his deceased
!ife, by a &eed of #bsolute 'ale (8+hibit F2F), sold for @1,(2G to #tty. Cornelio
#lbos a 2H- s7. m. portion of Lot 2G-9. :efore .ay 2, 19AG, one $idela&olloso,
!ho !as re7uested by @otenciano and his children to sell a portion of the lot Fto
ans!er for medical e+penses because of his s!ollen le%sF, offered the same to
)icolas Jordan. 2n .ay 2B, 19AG, @otenciano and his fi*e children, namely,
"eofista, >u%o, Concepcion, Carlosa, and Jo*ita, e+ecuted an 8+traudicial
'ettlement of 8state and &efinite 'ale for a consideration of @(,GGG.GG in fa*or of
plaintiffs5appellants co*erin% a portion of Lot )o. 2G-9 containin% an area of (1B
s7. m. "he Jordan spouses re%istered the deed of sale at the local re%istry of
deeds on #u%ust 21, 19AB by *irtue of !hich 2ri%inal Certificate of "itle )o. 1(AG
!as cancelled and in its stead !as issued Certificate of "itle )o. @52G9- in their
name and the :arrosas as co5o!ners. )o separate title could be issued to the
Jordans o*er the (1B s7. m. portion of Lot )o. 2G-9 as, based on the sur*ey plan
prepared by =eodetic 8n%r. "rason .. @edrera, a portion of the (1B s7. m. lot
consistin% of BGG s7uare meters, identified as Lot )o. H(((, !as co*ered by
2ri%inal Certificate of "itle )o. 251G2AA issued on 'eptember 2(, 19HB in the
name of one 8dmundo?eloso, one of the defendants herein. "his BGG s7. m. lot
had in fact been bou%ht by the ,ural :ank of Compostela, also a defendant
herein, after ?eloso mort%a%ed it, and the mort%a%e !as foreclosed but ?eloso
failed to redeem it. #ccordin% to 8dmundo ?eloso, he ac7uired the property
throu%h a free patent !hich !a co*ered by 2C" 251G2AA.
I%%ue%:
1. 32) 2C" )o. 251(AG should pre*ail o*er 2C" )o. 251G2AAI
2.32) the bank is a mort%a%ee in %ood faithI
RuL(!/:
1.) J 2C" )o. 251G2AA issued in the name of ?eloso cannot pre*ail o*er 2C".
)o. 251(AG issued in the name of :arrosa. $ree @atent )o. -AA14( and 2C" )2.
251(AG !ere issued more than 'IK <8#,' and 'IK .2)">' ahead of $ree
@atent )o. (?II5I) 9-9 and 2C" )o.251G2AA. "he prior %rant of $ree @atent )o.
-AA14( remo*ed or se%re%ated the property subect thereof from the mass of the
public domain. It is to be presumed that the %rant !as made because :arrosa had
been found to ha*e performed all the conditions prescribed in 'ection BB of C.#.
)o. 1B1. SEC. 44. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who since July
fourth, nineteen hundred and twenty-six or prior thereto, has continuously
occupied and cultiated, either by hi!self or throu"h his predecessors in interest,
a tract or tracts of a"ricultural public lands sub#ect to disposition, or who shall
hae paid the real estate tax thereon while the sa!e has not been occupied by
any other person shall be entitled, under the proisions of this chapter, to hae a
free patent issued to hi! for such tract or tracts of such land not to exceed
twenty-four hectares.
>a*in% so complied, he !as entitled to ha*e the free patent issued to him.
"herefore, it is rendered beyond the urisdiction or authority of the &irector of
Lands. "he principle then in respect to compliance !ith the conditions for udicial
confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles under 'ection BA (b) of C.#. )o. 1B1,
as further amended by ,.#. )o. 19B2, applies by analo%y. It follo!s then that the
&istrict Land 2fficer !as de*oid of authority to issue another free patent co*erin%
the lot or any portion thereof. #ccordin%ly, $ree @atent )o. (?II5I) 9-9 issued to
?eloso is *oid, like!ise !ith 2C" )o. 251G2AA issued pursuant thereto.
2.))2. J "he real estate mort%a%e e+ecuted by ?eloso in fa*or of the petitioner
o*er the lot co*ered by $ree @atent )o. (?II5I) 9-9 and 2C" )o. 251G2AA is not
*alid. "here is no doubt that the mort%a%e !as for *alueE ho!e*er, there is
enou%h e*idence of lack of %ood faith. "he mort%a%e !as e+ecuted one year, t!o
months and one day after the issuance of the $ree @atentE and ei%ht months and
se*enteen days after the issuance of the 2C". 3hile it may be true that under the
,ural :anks #ct (,.#. )o. H2G), as amended by ,.#. )o. 49-9, a mort%a%e may
be *alidly effected as an e+ception, there is no e*idence at all that the conditions
prescribed under the latter for the *alidity of the mort%a%e !ere complied !ith.
'ince the latter la! is an e+ception to the prohibitions mentioned in the $ree
@atent, it !as incumbent upon the party !ho claims the e+ception to pro*e
fulfillment of the re7uisites therefor. 'econdly, the rule that persons dealin% !ith
re%istered lands can rely solely on the certificate of title does not apply to banks.
"here is no proof at all that the petitioner obser*ed due dili%ence in ascertainin%
!ho the occupants or o!ners of the property !ere, considerin% that $ree @atent
)o. (?II5I) 9-9 and 2C" )o. 251G2AA !ere ust recently issued. >ad it done so
!hen ?eloso applied for a loan, the petitioner could ha*e determined !hether he,
a resident of Cebu City as per the said $ree @atent and 2C", !as indeed, the
farmer culti*atin% it in need of the loan to meet his normal credit needs pursuant
to 'ection 4 of ,.#. )o. H2G, as amended.
Sa5o!a% v CA
To4(.: adve&%e .la(-
Fa.t%:
'ps 8rnesto ;ychocde and Lucita Jarin a%reed to sell a parcel of land
located in #ntipolo, ,iLal to the 'ps #lfredo 'aonas and Conchita 'aonas on
Installment basis e*idenced by a contract to sell. "he land !as re%istered in the
names of sps ;ychocde. 'ps 'aonas caused the annotanion of an ad*erse
claim based on the said Contract to sell. ;pon full payment, the deed of absolute
sale !as re%istered a year after.
It appears that before the sale, &omin%o @ilares filed a case for collection
of money a%ainst the ;ychocdes, !ere a compromise a%reement !as entered by
the parties.
"he deed of sale !as cancelled and in lieu thereof, "C" !as sued in the
name of the 'aonas9. the 'aonas filed for a third party claim since there !as a
notice of le*y on e+ecution filed by the @ilares.
I%%ue:
32) the -G day period for ad*erse claim constitute an absolute title
under sec HG of @& 1429
Held:
"he court ruled in fa*or of the petitioner that the ad*erse claim constitute
as a *alid title to the property. "he court pointed out that sec HG should be read in
!hole specifically the aderse clai! shall be effectie for a period of thirty days
fro! the date of re"istration. After the lapse of said period, the annotation of
aderse clai! $!ay be cancelled% upon filin" of a erified petition therefor by the
party interest.
"he rational of the la! !as for the ad*erse claim to ipso facto lose force
and effect after the lapse of -G days then it !ould not ha*e been necessary to
include the ca*eat (!arnin%) to clarify and complete the rule. $or then, no ad*erse
claim need be cancelled. If it has been automatically terminated by mere lapse of
time, the la! !ould not ha*e re7uired the party in interest to do a useless act.
G.R. No. 13$35" Nove-6e& 3# 1778
R1GELIA 3. DIA8*DUARTE# petitioner, *s. S3S. 0EN a!d ETH9L 1NG# a!d
t:e C1URT 1F A33EALS# respondents.
FACTS:
.acario &iaL married 8ncarnacion ,eyes and out of this union, "rinidad
&iaL. 3hen 8ncarnacion ,eyes died, .acario &iaL married Cristina @edrosa and
out of this union, ,o%elia5&iaL &uarte !as born.
2n 2ctober 2A, 19-2, in Cadastral Case )o. 1H, =L,2 Cad. ,ecord )o.
1GBG, Jud%e Luciano 2rtiL adudicated Lot 12GA of the "acloban Cadastre to
.acario &iaL. "he decision ha*in% become final, &ecree )o. (-92G2 !as issued
by the =eneral Land ,e%istration 2ffice on #u%ust 1A, 19-H, and 2ri%inal
Certificate of "itle )o. 19BA( !as issued.
3hen .acario and Cristina died, ,o%elia &iaL5&uarte issued an #ffida*it
of #dudication and 'ale of Lot 12GA of the "acloban Cadastre in fa*or of 3ilfredo
.. Corre%idor for @2Gk. :y *irtue of this sale, 2C" )o. 19BA( of .acario &iaL
!as cancelled and in its place "C" )o. "51H4G1 !as issued by the ,e%ister of
&eeds of "acloban City in fa*or of 3ilfredo Corre%idor and then he sold back the
Lots 12GA, ---2, and --(B of the "acloban Cadastre to .rs. ,o%elia &iaL5&uarte
for @--k as e*idenced by a deed of repurchase e+ecuted by him. 2n 2ctober 1H,
19H9, .rs. ,o%elia &iaL5&uarte e+ecuted an ad*erse claim to Lot 12GA co*ered
by "C" )o. "51H4G1 of 3ilfredo Corre%idor on the basis of the deed of sale
e+ecuted by 3ilfredo to her on 2ctober 12, 19H9. 2n #pril 1G, 19AG, -G days
ha*in% elapsed, the affida*it of ad*erse claim of &iaL5&uarte !as cancelled by the
,e%ister of &eeds of "acloban City, albeit erroneously, pursuant to 'ec. HG of
@residential &ecree )o. 1429, other!ise kno!n as the @roperty ,e%istration
&ecree of the @hilippines.
2n $ebruary 2A, 19A1, not!ithstandin% the resale of the property made by
him in fa*or of .rs. ,o%elia &iaL5&uarte in 19H9, 3ilfredo Corre%idor sold a%ain
Lot 12GA to :en '. 2n% and his !ife 8thyl 2n% for @-4k under a deed of absolute
sale e+ecuted by him. 2n July 21, 19A1, :en '. 2n% mort%a%ed Lot 12GA and
some other properties to the ,iLal Commercial :ankin% Corporation to secure a
loan of @B4G,GGG.GG. "hen 8ncarnacion #. #rteche and the other children and
heirs of the deceased "rinidad &iaL5#rteche, filed a ci*il case for reco*ery of Lot
12GA of the "acloban Cadastre a%ainst herein petitioner ,o%elia &iaL5&uarte,
3ilfredo Corre%idor and his !ife, :en '. 2n% and his !ife, and the ,iLal
Commercial :ankin% Corporation and @ablo =. #mascual Jr., the ,e%ister of
&eeds of "acloban City.
@etitioner claims o!nership o*er Lot 12GA on the basis of the deed of
repurchase bet!een her and 3ilfredo Corre%idor. 3hen the latter refused to
surrender "C" )o. "51H4G1 to her, she caused to be annotated thereon a notice
of ad*erse claim. 2n the other hand, respondent spouses a*er that they o!n Lot.
12GA, ha*in% bou%ht the same from Corre%idor !ithout kno!led%e of its
encumbrance. "hey contend that petitionerMs notice of ad*erse claim in
Corre%idorMs title, !as already cancelled !hen they bou%ht the property. @etitioner
disputes the le%ality of said cancellation. 'he maintains that the ,e%istrar of
&eeds should not ha*e automatically cancelled the notice of ad*erse claim simply
because the -G5day period has lapsed.
ISSUE: 32) the petitioner lost his ri%hts o*er the subect property.
HELD:
In the 199( case of Sa#onas . Court of Appeals, a notice of ad*erse
claim remains *alid e*en after the lapse of the -G5day period pro*ided by 'ection
HG of @.&. )o. 1429 or the @roperty ,e%istration &ecree. 'ection HG pro*ides6
N3hoe*er claims any part or interest in re%istered land ad*erse to the re%istered
o!ner, arisin% subse7uent to the date of the ori%inal re%istration, may, if no other
pro*ision is made in this &ecree for re%isterin% the same, make a statement in
!ritin% settin% forth fully his alle%ed ri%ht or interest, and ho! or under !hom
ac7uired, a reference to the number of the certificate of title of the re%istered
o!ner, and a description of the land in !hich the ri%ht or interest is claimed."he
statement shall be si%ned and s!orn to, and shall state the ad*erse claimantMs
residence, and a place at !hich all notices may be ser*ed upon him. "his
statement shall be entitled to re%istration as an ad*erse claim on the certificate of
title. "he ad*erse claim shall be effecti*e for a period of thirty days from the date
of re%istration. #fter the lapse of said period, the annotation of ad*erse claim may
be cancelled upon filin% of a *erified petition therefor by the party in
interest. Proided, howeer that after cancellation, no second ad*erse claim
based on the same %round shall be re%istered by the same claimant.O
"he Court e+plained in 'aonas that for as lon% as there is yet no petition
for its cancellation, the notice of ad*erse claim remains subsistin%6 "hus, the
pro*ision in 7uestion !ould seem to restrict the effecti*ity of the ad*erse claim to
thirty days. :ut the abo*e pro*ision cannot and should not be treated separately,
but should be read in relation to the sentence follo!in%, !hich reads6 N#fter the
lapse of said period, the annotation of the ad*erse claim may be cancelled upon
filin% of a *erified petition therefor by the party in interest.OIf the rationale of the
la! !as for the ad*erse claim to ipso facto lose force and effect after the lapse of
thirty days, then it !ould not ha*e been necessary to include the fore%oin% ca*eat
to clarify and complete the rule. $or then, no ad*erse claim need be cancelled. If it
has been automatically terminated by mere lapse of time, the la! !ould not ha*e
re7uired the party in interest to do a useless act.
In a petition for cancellation of ad*erse claim, a hearin% must first be
conducted. "he hearin% !ill afford the parties an opportunity to pro*e the propriety
or impropriety of the ad*erse claim. @etitioner !as unla!fully denied this
opportunity !hen the ,e%istrar of &eeds automatically cancelled the ad*erse
claim. )eedless to state, the cancellation of her ad*erse claim is ineffecti*e.
#ppellant spouses alle%ed %ood faith is ne%ated by the e*idence on
record. #t the trial court, respondent spouses declared that they retained #tty.
,ufino ,eyes to assist them in buyin% Lot 12GA. #ccordin% to #tty. ,eyes, his
clients asked him to *erify the status of the land from the ,e%ister of &eeds.
>o!e*er, he failed to do so. >ad he done so, he !ould ha*e disco*ered the
ad*erse claim of the petitioner o*er the lot. >e !ould ha*e also kno!n that the
ad*erse claim !as cancelled by the ,e%istrar on his o!n and not because any
petition !as made by any party5in5interest. ,espondent spouses are bound by the
ne%li%ence of their la!yer.
# purchaser in %ood faith and for *alue is one !ho buys the property of
another !ithout notice that some other person has a ri%ht to or interest in such
property and pays a full and fair 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. "he ad*erse claim of petitioner ,o%elia &iaL5&uarte !as annotated in
Corre%idorMs title as early as 2ctober 1H, 19H9. It !as e+istin% !hen Corre%idor
sold the property to respondents 2n% on $ebruary 2A, 19A1. >ence, respondent
spouses cannot be considered innocent purchasers for *alue and in %ood faith.
"heir claim o*er Lot 12GA must yield to the lien in fa*or of petitioner.
Ro-e&o v%. CA
Fa.t%:
In 199( romero and her siblin%s e+ecuted a letter contract to sell !ith
saturnino orden. In said contract orden proposed to purchase romeros
property located at ne!york cubao, /C, co*ered by a "C" for 1H million
pesos. "he contract states that pri*ate respondent shall pay Hm upon the
e+ecution of the deed of absolute sale and shall pay the balance of 1G . not
later than dec. 199(, and pri*ate respondent shall shoulder e+penses to e*ict
the s7uatters on the property. 3hen orden failed to pay the remainin% balance
romero sou%ht for the rescission of the contract.
2rden filed for motion of specific performance, simultaneous !ith this, orden
caused the annotation of a notice of lispendens on "C".
Limsico subse7uent buyers of the property, filed a motion for cancellation of lis
pendens.
,"C6 %ranted the cancellation.
FIn the instant case, the e*idence so far presented by the plaintiff doPesD not
bear out the main alle%ations in the complaint. 3hile the filin% of the notice
may not ha*e been for the purpose of molestin% the defendants and the
defendants5in5inter*enors, still the inscription is not necessary to protect the
alle%ed ri%ht of the plaintiff o*er the subect property. "he plaintiff is not
entitled to the inscription of the notice on "C" )o. 1B42(9 in the name of the
defendants and others because he does not ha*e any actionable ri%ht o*er
the subect property there bein% no deed of sale e+ecuted bet!een him and
the defendants o*er the subect real properties as offered in the alle%ed
a%reement dated #pril 2-, 199(. "he alle%ed a%reement dated #pril 2-, 199(
althou%h !ith the conformity of .aria Corona '. ,omero cannot ser*e as
sufficient basis for the inscription of the notice on "C" )o. 1B42(9. "herefore
said notice should be cancelled.PHDF
I%%ue:
32) the cancellation of lis pendens by the ,"C is erroneousI
Rul(!/:
C#6re*ersed the rulin%. FIn the instant case, there !as not e*en a hearin%
upon !hich could be predicated a Nproper sho!in%O that any of the %rounds
pro*ided by la! e+ists. "he cited case of ?ictoriano presupposes that there
must be a hearin% !here the e*idence of the party !ho sou%ht the annotation
of the notice of lis pendens must be considered.
'econd, as sho!n in the abo*e cited pro*isions, there are only t!o %rounds
for the court to order the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens durin% the
pendency of an action, and they are6 (1) if the annotation !as for the purpose
of molestin% the title of the ad*erse party, or (2) !hen the annotation is not
necessary to protect the title of the party !ho caused it to be recorded. 3hile
the parties are locked up in le%al battle and until it becomes con*incin%ly
sho!n that either of the t!o %rounds e+ists, the court should not allo! the
cancellation.
"hird, the &octrine of Lis @endens is founded upon reasons of public policy
and necessity, the purpose of !hich is to keep the properties in liti%ation !ithin
the po!er of the court until the liti%ation is terminated, and to pre*ent the
defeat of the ud%ment or decree by subse7uent alienation. "his purpose
!ould be rendered meanin%less if the pri*ate respondents are allo!ed to file a
bond re%ardless of the amount, in substitution of said notice. .oreo*er, the
la! does not authoriLe a ud%e to cancel a notice of lis pendens pendin%
liti%ation, upon the mere filin% of a sufficient bond by the party on !hose title
said notice is annotated.F
'C6 affirmed the decision of C#.
S31USES 'ALENTIN S1LI'EL a!d 3ETRA 2ENTE
'S
THE H1N1RA0LE 2ARCELIN1 FRANCISC1 a!d 3AULIN1 CAGAS
FACTS:
'ps 'oli*el are the re%istered o!ners of t!o parcels of land located in the
.unicipality of &i%os in &a*ao del 'ur !ith a combined area of 2H
hectares.
2n .ay 24, 19H2, $ederico "ompon%, a practicin% la!yer, and Isaias
)%oho obtained the 'ps 'oli*el9s a%reement to sell their property to a
certain 8spinosa for @(G,GGG. "ompon% and )%oho %a*e the petitioners
@1G,GGG alle%edly comin% from 8spinosa as partial payment and
persuaded them to %i*e them the certificates of title to the property, for
!hich they issued a receipt and promised that the balance of @4G,GGG
!ould be paid !ithin ( months.
"ompon% and )%oho ne*er returned to make %ood on their promise, and
!ere only heard from !hen they !ere arrested on complaint of a certain
#tty. >ilario .apayo to !hom they sold a portion of the petitioners9
property.
$ollo!in% their arrest, they !ere confronted by ?alentin 'oli*el and his
son, ,afael. 'aid confrontation brou%ht to li%ht se*eral documents,
purportedly e+ecuted by the 'oli*els6 a deed of sale ratified by "ompon%
sellin% a portion of their property of their property to #tty. .apayo for
@-G,GGGE a po!er of attorney ratified by "ompon% constitutin% )%oho as
attorney5in5fact to recei*e partial payments from #tty. .apayoE a po!er of
attorney ratified by "ompon% authoriLin% )%oho to sell the propertiesE and
a deed ackno!led%ed before #tty. #ndres of &a*ao City, !hereby )%oho
as attorney5in5fact sold the property to @aulino Ca%as for @19,GGG.
2n the basis of the deed of sale, Ca%as had obtained cancellation of "C"
)o. "51G9A4 in the name of the 'oli*els and the issuance of a ne! one in
his name.
"he 'oli*els procured inscription of ad*erse claim on Ca%as9 "itle on the
%round that they ha*e ne*er e+ecuted the alle%ed sale, nor the po!er of
attorney in fa*or of )%oho.
Ca%as claims that he came to kno! of the property throu%h a certain .rs.
&uma7uin%, that after *isitin% the property, he !ent to the ,& and
ascertained it !as unencumberedE that he met !ith "ompon% and )%oho
!ho presented him the o!ner9s copy of the certificate of title and po!er of
attorneyE that he a%reed to buy the property for @19,GGG, after !hich
)%oho to%ether !ith "ompon% si%ned the deed of sale. >e !as able to
re%ister the deed and obtain a title in his name. Ca%as also claimed that
he did not kno! that the po!er5of5attorney !as for%ed.
"rial Court found that the documents !ere for%ed, but that Ca%as !as an
innocent purchaser for *alue, and had ac7uired *alid title to the property.
'oli*els filed petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
31) Ca%as is an innocent purchaser for *alue and has ac7uired *alid title
to the property
HELD: N1
In order that the holder of a certificate for *alue issued by *irtue of the
re%istration of a *oluntary instrument may be considered a holder in %ood faith for
*alue, the instrument re%istered should not be for%ed. 3hen the instrument
presented is for%ed, e*en if accompanied by the o!nerMs duplicate certificate of
title, the re%istered o!ner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the
assi%nee in the for%ed deed ac7uire any ri%ht or title to the property.
"he innocent purchaser for *alue protected by la! is one !ho purchases a titled
land by *irtue of a deed e+ecuted by the re%istered o!ner himself, not by a for%ed
deed, as the la! e+pressly states.
&I'@2'I"I?8 @2,"I2)6 3>8,8$2,8, findin% merit in the appeal, the Court
,8?8,'8' and ?#C#"8' the #mended &ecision of the "rial Court insofar as it
di*ests the petitioners ?alentin 'oli*el and @etra .ente of the o!nership of the
property in 7uestion and .2&I$I8' it insofar as it orders the defendants $ederico
"ompon% and Isaias )%oho to pay said petitioners @19,GGG.GG, plus interests from
#u%ust 1-, 19HB, said defendants bein% ordered to pay such amount instead to
pri*ate respondent @aulino Ca%as. "he deed of sale of 'eptember A, 19H2
e+ecuted by Isaias )%oho as purported attorney5in5fact of the petitioners in fa*or
of @aulino Ca%as is declared null and *oid, and "ransfer Certificate of "itle )o. "5
(G(B of the ,e%istry of &eeds of &a*ao del 'ur in the name of Ca%as by *irtue of
said deed is cancelled. @aulino Ca%as is ordered to recon*ey to the petitioners by
re%istrable deed the property co*ered by said certificate of title. "he reckless and
bare5faced deceits practiced by defendants $ederico "ompon% and Isaias )%oho
on the petitioners and the pri*ate respondent are clearly e*inci*e of e+treme bad
faith, intent to defraud and criminal propensities !hich, in the mind of the Court,
the "rial CourtMs a!ard of dama%es is inade7uate either to punish or to
discoura%e. #ccordin%ly, the #mended &ecision is further .2&I$I8& as to said
a!ard by sentencin% defendants $ederico "ompon% and Isaias )%oho ointly and
se*erally to pay6 (a) the petitioners @1G,GGG.GG as moral dama%es, @1G,GGG.GG as
e+emplary dama%es and @1G,GGG.GG as attorneyMs feesE (b) respondent @aulino
Ca%as the further sum of @1G,GGG.GG as e+emplary dama%esE and (c) the costs.