9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

TodayisTuesday,September20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.211972July22,2015
WILSONGOandPETERGO,Petitioners,
vs.
THEESTATEOFTHELATEFELISATAMIODEBUENAVENTURA,representedbyRESURRECCIONA.BIHIS,
RHEAA.BIHIS,andREGINAA.BIHISandRESURRECCIONA.BIHIS,RHEAA.BIHISandREGINAA.BIHIS,
intheirpersonalcapacities,Respondents.
xx
G.R.No.212045
ELLAA.GUERRERO,DELFINA.GUERRERO,JR.andLESTERALVINA.GUERRERO,Petitioners,
vs.
THEESTATEOFTHELATEFELISATAMIODEBUENAVENTURA,hereinrepresentedbyRESURRECIONA.
BIHIS,RHEAA.BIHISandREGINAA.BIHIS,andRESURRECIONA.BIHIS,RHEAA.BIHISandREGINAA.
BIHIS,intheirpersonalcapacities,Respondents.
DECISION
PERLASBERNABE,J.:
Assailedintheseconsolidated1petitionsforreviewoncertiorari2aretheDecision3datedDecember19,2013and
the Resolution4 dated April 1, 2014 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 96697, which
modified the Decision5 dated June 8, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 (RTC) in Civil
CaseNo.Q9732515,andtherebyordered:(a)thenullificationoftheDeedofSaledatedJanuary23,1997infavor
ofWilsonGo(Wilson)andPeterGo(Peter),petitionersinG.R.No.211972(b)thereconveyanceofthedisputed
propertytotheEstateofFelisaTamioand(c)thecancellationofTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.N170475,
aswellastheissuanceofanewtitleinthenameoftheEstateofFelisaTamiobytheRegisterofDeeds.
TheFacts
OnMarch17,1959,thelateFelisaTamiodeBuenaventura(Felisa)purchasedfromCarmenZaragosa,Inc.aparcel
of land with an area of 533 square meters, more or less, situated at Retiro corner Kanlaon Streets, Sta. Mesa
Heights,QuezonCity(subjectproperty)and,thus,TCTNo.45951/T233wasissuedinhername.Thereafter,she
constructedathreestoreybuildingthereon,calledD'LourdsBuilding,wheresheresideduntilherdeathonFebruary
19, 1994.6 On February 10, 1960, Felisa supposedly sold the subject property to one of her daughters, Bella
Guerrero (Bella), the latter's husband, Delfin Guerrero, Sr. (Delfin, Sr.), and Felimon Buenaventura, Sr. (Felimon,
Sr.), Felisa's commonlaw husband.7 Bella, copetitioner in G.R. No. 212045, and Delfin, Sr. paid P15,000.00 as
considerationtherefor.8Thus,TCTNo.45951/T233inthenameofFelisawascancelledandTCTNo.498699was
issuedinthenamesofFelimon,Sr.andBella,marriedtoDelfin,Sr..
Sometime in 1968, Resurrecion A. Bihis10 (Resurrecion), the other daughter of Felisa, sister of Bella, and
respondentinbothG.R.Nos.211972and212045,begantooccupythesecondflooroftheD'LourdsBuildingand
stayedthereinuntilherdeathin2007.11
AsitappearsthatTCTNo.49869inthenamesofFelimon,Sr.andBella,marriedtoDelfin,Sr.,wasirretrievably
destroyed in the interim, Bella caused its reconstitution and was issued TCT No. RT74910 (49869),12 again
registeredintheirnames.
WhenFelisadiedonFebruary19,1994,sheallegedlybequeathed,inadisputedlastwillandtestament,halfofthe
subject property to Resurrecion and her daughters, Rhea A. Bihis (Rhea) and Regina A. Bihis (Regina),
corespondentsinbothG.R.Nos.211972and212045(collectively,theBihisFamily).Thus,onApril19,1994,the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

1/8

9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

Bihis Family caused the annotation of an adverse claim on TCT No. RT74910 (49869). Felisa's purported will
likewisedeclaredBellaastheadministratorofthesubjectproperty.13
Onthestrengthofsuchappointment,Bellafiled,onMay24,1994,apetitionfortheprobateofFelisa'swill.Shewas
eventually appointed as the administratrix of the Estate of Felisa and, in an inventory of Felisa's properties, Bella
includedthesubjectpropertyaspartofsaidestate.14
On January 22, 1997, the adverse claim of the Bihis Family was cancelled. The following day, January 23, 1997,
Felimon Buenaventura, Jr. (Felimon, Jr.) and Teresita Robles, a.k.a. Rosalina Buenaventura Mariano15 (Teresita),
apparently the heirs of Felimon, Sr. (Heirs of Felimon, Sr.), executed a purported Extrajudicial Settlement of the
EstateofFelimonBuenaventura,Sr.,andcauseditsannotationonTCTNo.RT74910(49869).Byvirtuethereof,
TCTNo.RT74910(49869)wascancelledandTCTNo.N170416wasissuedinthenamesoftheHeirsofFelimon,
Sr.,Bella,andhercopetitionersinG.R.No.212045,DelfinA.Guerrero,Jr.(Delfin,Jr.)andLesterAlvinA.Guerrero
(Lester)(collectively,Bella,etal.).16
On the very same day, January 23, 1997, through a Deed of Sale of even date, the subject property was sold to
Wilson and Peter by Bella, et al. for the amount of P4,500,000.00, a transaction completely unknown to Felisa's
other heirs, the Bihis Family. Thus, TCT No. N170416 was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 170475 was
issuedinthenamesofWilsonandPeter.Thereafter,WilsonandPeterfiledejectmentcasesagainsttheoccupants
and/orlesseesofthesubjectproperty.17
In July 1997, the probate court revoked the appointment of Bella as administratrix of the Estate of Felisa and
eventually,grantedlettersofadministrationtoResurrecion.18Hence,onOctober17,1997,hereinrespondents,the
EstateofFelisa,asrepresentedbytheBihisFamily,andtheBihisFamily,intheirpersonalcapacities(collectively,
respondents),filedacomplaintforreconveyanceanddamagesbeforetheRTC,docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q97
32515,againstBella,etal.,Wilson,Peter,andtheRegisterofDeedsofQuezonCity,allegingthatFelisa,duringher
lifetime,merelyentrustedthesubjectpropertytoFelimon,Sr.,Bella,andDelfin,Sr.forthepurposeofassistingBella
andDelfin,Sr.toobtainaloanandmortgagefromtheGovernmentServiceInsuranceSystem(GSIS).Tofacilitate
the transaction, Felisa agreed to have the title over the subject property transferred to Bella and Felimon, Sr.
However,Felisaneverdivestedherselfofherownershipoverthesubjectproperty,asevidencedbyhercontinuous
residence thereon, as well as her act of leasing several units to various tenants. In fact, in a letter19 dated
September 21, 1970 (September 21, 1970 letter) addressed to Delfin, Sr., Felisa reminded Bella, Delfin, Sr., and
Felimon,Sr.thatthesubjectpropertywasmerelyentrustedtothemforBellaandDelfin,Sr.toprocurealoanfrom
theGSIS.20Atthebottomoftheletter,Bella'sandDelfin,Sr.'ssignaturesappearbesidetheirnames.21
Likewise,respondentsallegedthatWilsonandPeterwerebuyersinbadfaith,astheywereawareofthefactsand
circumstancesthatwouldhavewarrantedfurtherinquiryintothevalidityofthetitleofthesellers,Bella,etal.They
averredthatWilsonandPeterknewthatthebuildingwasoccupiedbyindividualsotherthanthesellers,asinfact,
theBihisFamilywasresidingtherein.22
Intheirdefense,BellaandFelimon,Jr.claimedthatthesubjectpropertywasownedbyBellaand(thelate)Felimon,
Sr., as evidenced by TCT No. RT74910 (49869), which title was issued to them as early as February 10, 1960.
Such title has therefore subsisted for almost thirty seven (37) years without having been voided or nullified by a
courtdecree.Moreover,theyhaveexercisedactsofownershipoverthesubjectproperty,suchasm01igagingthe
sameandleasingthebuildingtothirdparties.Finally,theyassertedthatBella'sactofincludingthesubjectproperty
intheinventoryofpropertiesoftheEstateofFelisawasmerelybecauseofinadvertence.23
Forhispart,Wilsonclaimedthatwhenheandhisbrother,Peter,purchasedthesubjectpropertyfromBella,etal.on
January23,1997,hewasnotawareofthejudicialsettlementoftheEstateofFelisa.Hetestifiedthatbeforethey
acquiredthesubjectproperty,heverifiedthevalidityofthetitlecoveringthesamewiththeRegistryofDeeds,and
thataperiodoftwo(2)monthshadlapsedbeforethesalewasconsummatedbecausehislawyeradvisedhimto
requestBellatocanceltheencumbranceannotatedonthetitleoverthesubjectproperty.However,heassertedthat
.his lawyer merely advised him to ask for the cancellation of the annotation but he was not aware of the details
surroundingthesame.Eventually,theannotationwascancelledandthatheonlyknewthatthesubjectpropertywas
included in the Estate of Felisa when herein respondents' complaint before the RTC was filed. As such, he
maintainedthatheandPeterwerepurchasersingoodfaith.24
TheRTCRuling
InaDecision25datedJune8,2009,theRTCfoundthattherewasanimpliedtrustbetweenFelisa,ontheonehand,
andBellaandFelimon,Sr.,ontheother,createdbyoperationoflaw.TheRTCconcludedthatitwastheintentionof
the late Felisa to merely entrust to Bella and Felimon, Sr. the subject property for the sole purpose of using the
sameascollateraltosecurealoanwiththeGSIS.Assuch,whileitistruethatatitlewasissuedinthenamesof
Bella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.byvirtueofthesaleofthesubjectpropertytothem,itwasclearthatFelisanever
intendedtorelinquishherownershipoverthesubjectproperty.Inconcludingso,theRTCgaveprobativeweightto
the September 21, 1970 letter executed and signed by Felisa which not only reminded Bella, Delfin, Sr., and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

2/8

9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

Felimon,Sr.thatthesubjectpropertywasmerelyentrustedtothemforpurposesofsecuringaloanfromtheGSIS,
butalsoexpressedFelisa'sdesiretohavethesubjectpropertydividedequallyamongherheirs.26
However,theRTCheldthatreconveyancecannolongerbeeffectedsincethesubjectpropertyhadalreadybeen
transferredtoWilsonandPeter,whomitfoundtobepurchasersingoodfaith.TheRTCfoundthatthroughWilson's
testimony,theywereabletodisproverespondents'allegationthattheywereawareofaninfirmityinthetitleofthe
sellerswhentheyacquiredthesubjectproperty.27
Consequently,asBella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.wereunjustlyenrichedattheexpenseoftherespondentswho,
ascompulsoryheirs,werealsoentitledtotheirshareinthesubjectproperty,theRTCdirectedBella,etal.topay
plaintiffs,jointlyandseverally,theamountsof:(a)P2,000,000.00 as compensatory damages, representing half of
thepurchasepriceofthesubjectpropertyconsideringthatreconveyancecannolongerbegranted(b)P200,000.00
asmoraldamages(c)P100,000.00asexemplarydamagesand(d)P200,000.00asattorney'sfees.28
Dissatisfied,thefollowingpartiesfiledtheirseparateappealsbeforetheCA:theEstateofFelisatheBihisFamily
theEstateofRosalindaB.Mariano29andBella,Delfin,Jr.,andLester.30TheCAsimplifiedtheissuesraisedinthe
separateappeals,asfollows:(a)whetherornottherewasatrustestablishedbyFelisainfavorofBella,Delfin,Sr.,
and Felimon, Sr. (b) whether or not the action for reconveyance had already prescribed and (c) whether or not
WilsonandPeterarepurchasersingoodfaith.31
TheCARuling
In a Decision32 dated December 19, 2013, the CA modified the RTC Decision, and thereby ordered: (a) the
nullificationoftheDeedofSaledatedJanuary23,1997infavorofWilsonandPeter(b)thereconveyanceofthe
disputedpropertytotheEstateofFelisaand(c)thecancellationofTCTNo.N170475inthenameofWilsonand
Peter,aswellastheissuanceofanewtitleinthenameoftheEstateofFelisabytheRegisterofDeeds.33
In its ruling, the CA upheld the RTC's finding that an implied trust was constituted between Felisa, during her
lifetime,andBella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.whentheformersoldthesubjectpropertytothelatter.LiketheRTC,
itgavesubstantialweightandcredencetotheSeptember21,1970letterexecutedbyFelisawhichexpressedher
intentiontoconveythesubjectpropertytoBella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.onlyforthepurposeofobtainingaloan
from the GSIS. The CA similarly found that Felisa had not intended to relinquish her ownership over the subject
propertyintheirfavor,asevidencednotonlybythesaidletterbutalsobyhercontemporaneousandsubsequent
actsofownership,i.e.,leasingthebuildingtotenants,institutingejectmentsuits,havingbusinesspermitsissuedin
hername,andincludingthesubjectpropertyinherlastwillandtestament.34
Moreover,theCAruledthattheissuanceofTCTNo.49869inthenamesofBella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.did
not operate to vest ownership of the subject property upon them, as a certificate of title is not equivalent to title.
Hence, the presentation of TCT No. 49869 does not conclusively prove their claim of ownership over the subject
property.35
With respect to the issue of whether or not the action for reconveyance based on an implied trust had already
prescribed, the CA found that prescription has not set in. Citing jurisprudence, it held that an action for
reconveyancebasedonanimpliedtrustprescribesinten(10)years,tobecountedfromthedateofissuanceofthe
Torrenstitleovertheproperty.However,theruleappliesonlywhentheclaimantorthepersonenforcingthetrustis
not in possession of the property. When the claimant is in actual possession of the property, the action for
reconveyance, which is effectively an action for quieting of title, is imprescriptible. In this case, it has been
indubitably established that the Bihis Family have been in actual possession of the subject property hence, their
actionforreconveyanceisimprescriptible.36
Finally,withregardtothequestionofwhetherornotWilsonandPeterarepurchasersingoodfaith,theCAruledin
thenegative.IttookintoconsiderationtheadmissionmadebyWilsonthathehasknowledgeoftheadverseclaimof
the Bihis Family annotated on the title of the subject property but denied knowledge of its contents. Likewise, he
admittedthathedirectedhislawyertohavethesaidannotationcancelledbeforepurchasingthesubjectproperty.
Records also show that he knew that the Bihis Family have been occupying the second floor of the D'Lourds
Building. However, despite knowledge of the foregoing facts, he and his brother failed to make the necessary
inquiriesastothevalidityofthetitleofthesellers,Bella,etal.Consequently,heandPetercannotbeconsideredas
buyersingoodfaith.37
WilsonandPeter,Bella,Delfin,Jr.,andLester,Felimon,Jr.,andtheEstateofRosalindaBuenaventuraMarianofiled
separatemotionsforreconsideration,38whichwerealldeniedintheResolution39datedApril1,2014hence,these
petitions.
TheIssuesBeforetheCourt
TheissuesadvancedfortheCourt'sconsiderationare:(a)whetherornottheCAerredinrulingthattherewasan
impliedtrustcreatedbetweenFelisa,ononehand,andBella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.,ontheother(b)whether
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

3/8

9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

ornottheactionforreconveyancehadnotyetprescribedand(c)whetherornotWilsonandPeterarepurchasers
ingoodfaith.
TheCourt'sRuling
Thepetitionsarebereftofmerit.
The following facts are undisputed: in 1960, Felisa, as owner of the subject property, transferred the same to her
daughter Bella, married to Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr. to assist them in procuring a loan from the GSIS. In view
thereof, her title over the property, TCT No. 45951/T233, was cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 49869, was
issued in the names of Bella, married to Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr. After it was lost, TCT No. 49869 was
reconstitutedandTCTNo.RT74910(49869)wasissuedintheirnames.
Upon Felisa's death in 1994, the Bihis Family, Felisa's other heirs who have long been occupying the subject
property,causedtheannotationoftheiradverseclaimoverthesameonTCTNo.RT74910(49869).Subsequently,
however, or on January 22, 1997, the said annotation was cancelled, and the next day, the Heirs of Felimon, Sr.
executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of his estate and caused its annotation on said title. TCT No. RT74910
(49869)wasthencancelledandTCTNo.N170416wasissuedinthenamesofBella,etal.Finally,byvirtueofa
DeedofSaledatedJanuary23,1997,thesubjectpropertywassoldtoWilsonandPeter,inwhosenamesTCTNo.
170475 currently exists. Months later, or on October 17, 1997,40 the complaint for reconveyance and damages,
docketedasCivilCaseNo.Q9732515,wasinstituted.
From the foregoing factual milieu, the Court holds that: one, a trust was established between Felisa, on the one
hand,andBella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.,ontheother,albeitnotanimpliedtrustasconcludedbytheRTCand
theCAbutanexpressonetwo,thepresentactionforreconveyancehasnotyetprescribedand,three,Wilsonand
Peterarenotpurchasersingoodfaith.
I.
Trustistherighttothebeneficialenjoymentofproperty,thelegaltitletowhichisvestedinanother.Itisafiduciary
relationship that obliges the trustee to deal with the property for the benefit of the beneficiary. Trust relations
betweenpartiesmayeitherbeexpressorimplied.Anexpresstrustiscreatedbytheintentionofthetrustororofthe
parties,whileanimpliedtrustcomesintobeingbyoperationoflaw.41
1wphi1

Expresstrustsarecreatedbydirectandpositiveactsoftheparties,bysomewritingordeed,orwill,orbywords
either expressly or impliedly evincing an intention to create a trust. Under Article 1444 of the Civil Code, "[n]o
particularwordsarerequiredforthecreationofanexpresstrust,itbeingsufficientthatatrustisclearlyintended."It
ispossibletocreateatrustwithoutusingtheword"trust"or"trustee."Conversely,themerefactthatthesewords
are used does not necessarily indicate an intention to create a trust. The question in each case is whether the
trustormanifestedanintentiontocreatethekindofrelationshipwhichtolawyersisknownastrust.Itisimmaterial
whether or not he knows that the relationship which he intends to create is called a trust, and whether or not he
knowstheprecisecharacteristicsoftherelationshipwhichiscalledatrust.42
Further, in the case of Tamayo v. Callejo,43 the Court recognized that a trust may have a constructive or implied
natureinthebeginning,buttheregisteredowner'ssubsequentexpressacknowledgementinapublicdocumentofa
previoussaleofthepropertytoanotherpartyeffectivelyconvertedthesameintoanexpresstrust.44
Inthepresentcase,boththeRTCandtheCAfoundthatanimpliedtrustwasestablished,heavilygivingcredence,
amongothers,totheSeptember21,1970letterexecutedbyFelisaduringherlifetime,whichpartlyreads:
DearDelfin,
Ipinaaabotkosaiyoangsulatkongitoupangmalamanmoangakingnagigingdamdamin.Hinihilingko
saiyoatipinakikiusapsaiyotungkoldoonsalateatbuildingngD'lourds.
Hindi naman kaila sa ivo kung papaano ko ito naisalin sa inyong pangalan nina Filemon C.
BuenaventuraSr.,BellaAlvarezGuerreroatDelfinGuerreroSr.Angdahilannitoaydahilsapagutang
saGSIS.
Kaya gusto kong malaman mo na ito ay nagpapatotoo na ito ay sarili kong pagaari at walang
sinumangnagbigayotumulongsaakinsalupangito.AtmaskisiKaFelingmoaywalangnaibigayna
peradito.
Kaya hinihiling ko ang gusto kong mangyari sa ngayon ay maging kaparehongkapareho ang
paghahatingbawatisasaanumangakingkabuhayan.
Kaya hinihiling ko sa iyo Delfin na kung maaari lamang ay ang lahat ng nakatala dito ay pirmahan
ninyo.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

4/8

9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

45

xxxx (Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
BeneaththeletterappearthesignaturesofBellaandDelfin,andthesignatureofFelisasigningas"MOMMY"as
well.46
Takingthecontentsoftheforegoingletterintoconsiderationthevalidityanddueexecutionofwhichwerenever
putinissue,hence,indubitablyestablishedtheCourtthereforediffersfromthefindingofthecourtsaquothatan
impliedtrustwasestablishedinstead,theCourtrulesthatanexpresstrustwasdulyprovedinthiscase.
ThewordsofFelisaintheabovequotedletterunequivocallyandabsolutelydeclaredherintentionoftransferringthe
titleoverthesubjectpropertytoBella,Delfin,Sr.,andFelimon,Sr.inordertomerelyaccommodatetheminsecuring
aloanfromtheGSIS.Shelikewisestatedclearlythatshewasretainingherownershipoverthesubjectpropertyand
articulated her wish to have her heirs share equally therein. Hence, while in the beginning, an implied trust was
merely created between Felisa, as trustor, and Bella, Delfin, Sr., and Felimon, Sr., as both trustees and
beneficiaries, the execution of the September 21, 1970 letter settled, once and for all, the nature of the trust
establishedbetweenthemasanexpressone,theirtrueintentionirrefutablyextantthereon.
Bella'sattempttothwarttheexpresstrustestablishedinthiscasebyclaimingthatsheaffixedhersignatureonthe
September21,1970letteronly"toappease"hermother,Felisa,andthatshecouldaffordtosignthelettersincethe
titlecoveringthesubjectpropertywasintheirnameasownersanyway,47doesnotholdwater.Ascorrectlyruledby
theCA,citingLeeTekShengv.CA,48the"[m]ereissuanceofthecertificateoftitleinthenameofanypersondoes
not foreclose the possibility that the real property may be under coownership with persons not named in the
ce1iificateorthattheregistrantmayonlybeatrusteeorthatotherpartiesmayhaveacquiredinterestsubsequentto
theissuanceofthecertificateoftitle,"49asinthiscase.50Registrationdoesnotvesttitleitismerelytheevidenceof
suchtitle.51 Moreover, the Court notes that even during the proceedings before the RTC, Bella never denied the
purposeforwhichthesaletothemofthesubjectpropertywaseffected.Instead,theyreliedheavilyandanchored
their defense on the existence of their certificate of title covering the subject property, which, to reiterate, was
insufficienttoprovetheirownershipoverthesameindependentoftheexpresstrust.
In light of the foregoing, while the Court agrees with the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that Bella, Delfin, Sr., and
Felimon,Sr.onlyholdthesubjectpropertyintrustforFelisa,theCourthoweverfindsthatanexpresstrust,notan
impliedone,wasestablishedinthiscase.
II.
Anenttheissueofprescription,theCourtfindsthattheactionforreconveyanceinstitutedbyrespondentshasnot
yetprescribed,followingthejurisprudentialrulethatexpresstrustsprescribeinten(10)yearsfromthetimethetrust
isrepudiated.52
In this case, there was a repudiation of the express trust when Bella, as the remaining trustee, sold the subject
propertytoWilsonandPeteronJanuary23,1997.53Asthecomplaintforreconveyanceanddamageswasfiledby
respondentsonOctober17,1997,54oronlyafewmonthsafterthesaleofthesubjectpropertytoWilsonandPeter,
itcannotbesaidthatthesamehasprescribed.
III.
Finally, with regard to the question of whether or not Wilson and Peter are purchasers of the subject property in
goodfaith,theCourtconcurswiththeCA'sfindingthattheyarenot.
Apurchaseringoodfaithisonewhobuysthepropertyofanotherwithoutnoticethatsomeotherpersonhasaright
to,oraninterestin,suchpropertyandpaysafullandfairpriceforthesameatthetimeofsuchpurchase,orbefore
hehasnoticeofsomeotherperson'sclaimorinterestintheproperty.55Corollarythereto,whenapieceoflandisin
theactualpossessionofpersonsotherthantheseller,thebuyermustbewaryandshouldinvestigatetherightsof
thoseinpossession.Withoutmakingsuchinquiry,onecannotclaimthatheisabuyeringoodfaith.Whenaman
proposestobuyordealwithrealty,hisdutyistoreadthepublicmanuscript,thatis,tolookandseewhoisthere
upon it and what his rights are. A want of caution and diligence, which an honest man of ordinary prudence is
accustomedtoexerciseinmakingpurchases,isincontemplationoflaw,awantofgoodfaith.Thebuyerwhohas
failedtoknowordiscoverthatthelandsoldtohimisinadversepossessionofanotherisabuyerinbadfaith.56
In his testimony57 before the R TC, Wilson claimed to have verified the validity of the title covering the subject
propertybeforetheRegistryofDeeds.However,healsoadmittedthattwo(2)monthshadlapsedbeforethesale
could be consummated because his lawyer advised him to request Bella, one of the sellers, to cancel the
encumbranceannotatedonthetitleofthesubjectproperty.Healsoclaimedthathehadnoknowledgeaboutthe
detailsofsuchannotation,andthathewasawarethatindividualsotherthanthesellerswereinpossessionofthe
subjectproperty.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

5/8

9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

AsaptlyconcludedbytheCA,suchknowledgeoftheexistenceofanannotationonthetitlecoveringthesubject
propertyandoftheoccupationthereofbyindividualsotherthanthesellersnegatesanypresumptionofgoodfaith
on the part of Wilson and Peter when they purchased the subject property. A person who deliberately ignores a
significant fact which would create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable man is not an innocent purchaser for
value,58asinthiscase.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionsareDENIED.TheDecisiondatedDecember19,2013andtheResolutiondatedApril1,
2014oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.96697areherebyAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.*
AssociateJustice
LUCASP.BERSAMIN**
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice
MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN***
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecaseswereassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,FirstDivision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
thattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecaseswereassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
ActingChiefJustice

Footnotes
*

DesignatedActingMemberperSpecialOrderNo.2114datedJuly22,2015.

**

PerSpecialOrderNo.2102datedJuly13,2015.

***

DesignatedActingMemberperSpecialOrderNo.2108datedJuly13,2015.

SeeCourt'sResolutiondatedJune2,2014rollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.3649androllo,(G.R.No.212045),
pp.3649.
2

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.830rollo,(G.R.No.212045),pp.1129.

Rollo (G.R. No. 211972), pp. 3649 rollo, (G.R. No. 212045), pp. 3649. Penned by Associate Justice
SocorroB.lntingwithAssociateJusticesJoseC.Reyes,Jr.andMyraV.GarciaFernandezconcurring.
4

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.5154rollo(G.R.No.212045),pp.5154.

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.6167.PennedbyPresidingJudgeTitaMarilynPayoyoVillordon.

Seerollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.6162.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

6/8

9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

7

Id.at64.

Id.at61.

Rollo(G.R.No.212045),pp.6667.

10

"Resurreccion"insomepartsoftherecords.

11

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.62.

12

Rollo(G.R.No.212045),p.114.

13

Seerollo(G.R.No.211972),p.62.

14

Id.

15

"Rosalinda"insomepartsoftherecords.

16

Seerollo(G.R.No.211972),p.62.

17

Id.

18

Id.

19

Rollo(G.R.No.212045),p.100.

20

Seerollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.61and63.

21

Rollo(G.R.No.212045),p.100.

22

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.63.

23

Id.

24

Id.at64.

25

Id.at6167.

26

Seeid.6465.

27

Seeid.6566.

28

Seeid.at6567.

29

Alsoknownas"TeresitaRobles"intheRTCproceedings.

30

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.37rollo(G.R.No.212045),p.37.

31

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.42rollo(G.R.No.212045),p.42.

32

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.3649rollo,(G.R.No.212045),pp.3649.

33

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.48rollo(G.R.No.212045),p.48.

34

Seerollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.4345rollo(G.R.No.212045),pp.4345.

35

Seerollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.4546rollo(G.R.No.212045),pp.4546.

36

Seerollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.4647rollo,(G.R.No.212045),pp.4647.

37

SeeRollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.4748rollo,(G.R.No.212045),pp.4748.

38

Notattachedtotherollos.

39

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.5154rollo(G.R.No.212045),pp.5154.

40

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.61.

41

HeirsofTranquilinoLabistev.HeirsofJoseLabiste,605Phil.495,503(2009).

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

7/8

9/20/2016

G.R. No. 211972

42

Torbelav.SpousesRosario,678Phil.I,3839(2011)emphasisandunderscoringsupplied.

43

150BPhil.31(1972).

44

Seeid.at3738.

45

Rollo(G.R.No.212045),p.100.

46

Id.

47

Seeid.at2021and132.

48

354Phil.556(1998).

49

Id.at561562.

50

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),pp.4546rollo(G.R.No.212045),pp.4546.

51

HeirsofRosaandCirilaDumaliangv.Serban,545Phil.243,256(2007).

52

See Torbela v. Rosario, supra note 42, at 40, citing Heirs of Maximo Labanon v. Heirs of Constancio
Labanon,556Phil.750,762763(2007),furthercitingEscayv.CA,158Phil.I008,1031(1974)andSecuya
v.DeSelma,383Phil.126,137.
53

SeeSecuyav.DeSelma,id.

54

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.61.

55

DeLeonv.Ong,625Phil.221,230(2010).

56

Rosarosov.Soria,G.R.No.194846,June19,2013,699SCRA232,247248.

57

Rollo(G.R.No.211972),p.66.

58

Sps.Sarmientov.CA,507Phil.101,127(2005).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jul2015/gr_211972_2015.html

8/8