1

Page

THIRD DIVISION

Civil Case No. TM-180, filed by Spouses Agustina Poblete and Amor
Poblete against the Mathay spouses and the Register of Deeds of

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

Cavite, for annulment of title and recovery of possession, involved

a parcel of land situated in Tanza, Cavite, covered by TCT Nos. T-

SPS.

SONYA

&

ISMAEL

MATHAY,

JR., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS,

SPS. TEODULFO & SYLVIA ATANGAN, SPS.
AGUSTINA & AMOR POBLETE, SPS. EDUARDO
& FELICISIMA TIRONA, respondents.

Elmor P. Orajay for petitioners.

Tinoco Tinoco & Associates collaborating counsel for petitioner.
Franco L. Loyola for private respondents.

192532 registered in the name of Juana Batallones and Gaudencio

Quimio per Deed of Conditional Sale dated December 28, 1987.
Civil Case No. TM-206, filed by Spouses Eduardo and Felicisima
Tirona, et al. against the Mathay spouses for quieting of title,
annulment of title and recovery of possession with damages,
involved a parcel of land which was subdivided into eight lots.
After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered a decision in
favor of the Mathay spouses against the plaintiffs in the three
consolidated cases. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of the lower court. Hence, the instant petition. TaDSCA

SYNOPSIS

Petitioners, the Mathay spouses, claimed that they were buyers in

good faith, as their title, TCT No. 111070, the derivative title of their

These are three (3) separate cases filed by different parties against
the spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr. cdasia

TCT T-113047, appeared to be free from any encumbrance; that a

person dealing on a registered land may safely rely on the

Civil Case No. TM-175, filed by Spouses Teodulfo T. Atangan and

correctness of the covering certificate of title and is not required to

Silvia L. Atangan against the Mathay spouses and the Register of

go beyond the certificate of title to determine the condition of the

Deeds of Cavite, involved two parcels of land situated in Tanza,

property.

Cavite, covered by TCT No. T-195350 covering Lot No. 2186-A, and
TCT No. T-195351, covering Lot No. 2186-C, issued in the name of
the Atangan spouses. aHTDAc

The Supreme Court held that petitioners cannot be categorized as

purchasers in good faith. Prior to the fencing of the subject land,

possessed the land. At the time the property was sold to

2
Page

neither the Spouses Mathay nor their predecessors-in-interest ever

1. CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; SALE; PURCHASER IN GOOD

FAITH; CONSTRUED. A purchaser in good faith and for value is

petitioners, the private respondents were not only in actual

defined as "one who buys property of another, without notice that

possession of the same but also built their houses thereon,

some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property and

cultivated it and were in full enjoyment of the produce and fruits

pays a full and fair price for the same at the time of such purchase,

gathered therefrom. Not being innocent purchasers for value,

or before he has notice of the claims or interest of some other

petitioner's reliance on Article 1544 of the New Civil Code is

person in the property." As a rule, he who asserts the status of a

misplaced as the documents from which their title emanated were

purchaser in good faith and for value, has the burden of proving

questionable.

such assertion. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere

The circumstances surrounding the execution of the Deed of

Absolute Sale of the property in favor of the petitioners spouses by

invocation of the legal presumption of good faith, i.e., that

everyone is presumed to act in good faith."

their predecessors-in-interest beclouded the issuance of the title,

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF PROSPECTIVE BUYER TO TAKE SUCH

TCT No. 113047. The said Deed did not comply with legal

PRECAUTIONARY STEPS WOULD MEAN NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART

formalities and was not duly notarized. To bolster their submission

AND

that their title is genuine and authentic, private respondents

INVOKING THE RIGHT OF A PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH. Here,

introduced several documentary evidence and also presented

petitioners cannot be categorized as purchasers in good faith. Prior

officials concerned and the caretakers of the said documents. On

to the fencing of subject land, neither they (Mathays) nor their

the other hand, petitioners utterly failed to discharge the burden of

predecessors-in-interest (Banayo and Pugay) ever possessed the

proving the sustainability of their posture. Worse, the title of their

same. In fact, at the time the said property was sold to petitioners,

predecessors-in-interest relied upon by petitioners has been shown

the private respondents were not only in actual possession of the

by preponderance of evidence to be the product of forgery. EDISaA

same but also built their houses thereon, cultivated it and were in

WOULD

THEREBY

PRECLUDE

HIM

FROM

CLAIMING

OR

full enjoyment of the produce and fruits gathered therefrom.

Judgment affirmed.

Although it is a recognized principle that a person dealing on a

SYLLABUS

registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title, it is also a

firmly settled rule that where there are circumstances which would

property

being

sold

to

him,

such

as

the

presence

of

3
Page

put a party on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the

Court of Appeals ratiocinated: "We think the applicable rule as

stated in Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, No. L-78728, December 8,

occupants/tenants thereon, it is, of course, expected from the

1988, 168 SCRA 334, is that as between two persons both of whom

purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or

are in good faith and both innocent of any negligence, the law must

nature of possession of the occupants, i.e., whether or not the

protect and prefer the lawful holder of registered title over the

occupants possess the land en concepto de dueo, in concept of

transferee of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rights. Under the

owner. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an

foregoing principle derived from the above case law, the Mathays

ocular inspection of the premises involved is a safeguard a cautious

have no rights as against plaintiffs-appellants, their recourse is

and prudent purchaser usually takes. Should he find out that the

against plaintiffs-appellants, their recourse is against their vendors

land he intends to buy is occupied by anybody else other than the

Banayo and Pugay." The aforesaid ruling of the Court of Appeals

seller who, as in this case, is not in actual possession, it would then

accords with the Latin maxim: nemo potest plus juris ad alium

be incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the

transferre quam ipse habet. "No one can transfer a greater right to

occupant's possessory rights. The failure of a prospective buyer to

another than he himself has." Thus, in Calalang vs. Register of

take such precautionary steps would mean negligence on his part

Deeds of Quezon City, this Court held: "Needless to state, all

and would thereby preclude him from claiming or invoking the

subsequent certificates of title including petitioner's titles are void

rights of a "purchaser in good faith." AEDcIH

because of the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PREFERENTIAL RIGHT IS PREMISED ON GOOD

FAITH. Consequently, not being "innocent purchasers for value,"
within legal contemplation, petitioners' reliance on Article 1544 of
the New Civil Code is misplaced. Such stance of theirs lacks legal

its source. The law must protect and prefer the lawful owner of
registered title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of any
transmissible rights." In sum, "defective titles cannot be upheld
against the unblemished titles of the private respondents."

and factual basis. The fundamental premise of preferential rights

4. ID.;

LAND

under the law is good faith. Viewed in proper perspective, we

CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF TITLE IF IT IS SHOWN THAT THE SAME

uphold the finding by the Court of Appeals that the petitioners

LAND

cannot invoke Art. 1544 of the Civil Code in view of the

CERTIFICATE FOR THE SAME IS IN EXISTENCE. Petitioners further

questionable documents from which their title emanated. As the

submit that requiring them to inquire beyond the face of the

HAD

REGISTRATION;

ALREADY

BEEN

CERTIFICATE

REGISTERED

OF

AND

TITLE;

AN

NOT

EARLIER

which is that a person dealing on registered land has the right to

rely on the torrens title. But "a certificate is not conclusive evidence
of title if it is shown that the same land had already been registered
and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence." In the case
at bar, as borne out by pertinent records, the private respondents
obtained their rights and title from TCT No. T-85866, which was
registered on August 9, 1976 under the name of Heirs of Onofre

4
Page

torrens title defeats the primordial objective of the torrens system,

PURISIMA, J p:
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Revised Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals 2 dated November 18, 1993 in CA-G.R. CV No.
37902, reversing the Decision 3 dated March 30, 1992 in Civil Case
Nos. TM-175, 180 and 206 of Branch 23, 4 Regional Trial Court of
Trece Martires City, Province of Cavite.

Batallones and Patronillo Quimio. On the part of petitioners, their

supposed title originated from a spurious title of Pedro Banayo and
Pablo Pugay illegally registered on February 28, 1980. So also,
where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on different

The antecedent facts which gave rise to private respondents'

complaints are summarized in the Decision of the lower court, as
follows: cdll

dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of land, even if
both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it does not
necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier tile should prevail.
On the assumption that there was regularity in the registration
leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer certificates of
title, the better approach is to trace theoriginal certificates from
which the certificates of title in dispute were derived. Should there
be only one common original certificate of title, as in this case
under consideration, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier
date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or irregularity
tainting the process of registration. TEacSA

"Civil Case No. TM-175 entitled "Spouses Teodulfo

T. Atangan and Silvia [sic] L. Atangan vs. Spouses
Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr., and the
Register of Deeds of Cavite," involves (2) (sic)
parcels of land situated in Tanza, Cavite, covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-195350
covering Lot No. 2186-A, issued by the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Cavite in the name of Spouses
Teodulfo T. Atangan and Silvia (sic) L. Atangan, and
TCT No. T-195351, covering Lot No. 2186-C, issued
in the name of Silvia [sic] L. Atangan and Teodulfo
T. Atangan, on July 24, 1985.

DECISION

PLAINTIFFS allege that:

of land situated in Tanza, Cavite having purchased

the

same

from

Spouses

Tomas

Lucido

5
Page

1) They are the registered owners of two (2) parcels

8) defendants have enclosed a portion of said

property with a fence and occupied 23,900 square

and

meters without the consent and will of plaintiffs; 9)

Eustaquia Villanueva as evidenced by a Deed of

plaintiffs have learned that defendants as vendees

Sale; 2) they were issued TCT Nos. T-195350 and T-

have also issued title covering the same land in the

195351; 3) the vendors, spouses Tomas Lucido and

name of the plaintiffs under TCT No. T-113047; 10)

Eustaquia Villanaueva were also issued TCT Nos. T-

the titles issued to defendants was (sic) the product

192527 and T-192529 by the Register of Deeds of

of forgery because it was based on an alleged TCT

Cavite, which were cancelled in favor of the

No. T-3444 in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo

plaintiffs; 4) vendors' titles which were transferred

Pugay of Trece Martires City who have no right

to plaintiffs were obtained by virtue of the decision

whatsoever on the real estate in question; 11) upon

in Civil Case No. NC-709 entitled Tomas Lucido vs.

investigation, it was certified by the Bureau of

Juana Onate Batallones and Petronilla C. Quimio,

Lands that the said titles were falsified and forged

Director of Lands, and Registers (sic) of Deeds of

because alleged Deed No. V-12918 was issued to

Cavite; 5) the heirs of Onofre Batallones and

one Jack C. Callado for Lot 18, Block 56, Tala Estate

Norberto Quimio are the vendees of the said lands

situated in Caloocan City and there was no record

from the Bureau of Lands as evidenced by a

in the Bureau of Lands that Deed No. V-12918 was

Certification issued by Adelwisa P. Onga, (sic)

issued for Lot 2886, S.C. Malabon Estate, Cavite in

Record Officer of the District Land Office of Trece

favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay from whom

Martires City; 6) the sale of the said parcels of land

defendants have allegedly acquired title over the

from the Bureau of Lands in favor of the heirs of

said property; 12) considering that the title of the

Batallones and Quimio was also evidenced by a

defendants have no basis in law and fact and that

Deed of Conveyance duly issued by Bureau of

the same was illegally, unlawfully and maliciously

Lands; 7) from the time they obtained titles of the

issued by the Register of Deeds on the basis of

two parcels of land [they] have taken possession

forged

and paid the corresponding realty property taxes;

documents as basis for the issuance thereof, the

and

falsified

and

none

[sic]

existing

right to take possession of the real properties

6
Page

same may be cancelled and defendants have no

Involved in Civil Case No. TM-180 entitled Sps.

Agustina Poblete and Amor Poblete vs. Sps. Sonya

thereon including the portion pertaining to the

Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr., and the Register of

herein

square

Deeds of Cavite for Annulment of Titles and

meters, more or less; 13) in view of bad faith,

Recovery of Possession, is a parcel of land situated

illegal and unlawful actuations of the defendants in

in Tanza, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of

obtaining titles over the property in question thru

Title Nos. T-192532 registered in the name of Juana

forged and falsified documents, plaintiffs suffered

Batallones

sleepless nights, anxiety, mental anguish for which

allegedly sold to the herein plaintiff, as per "Deed

they are entitled to claim for moral damages in the

of Conditional Sale" dated December 28, 1987.

sum

plaintiffs

of

consisting

P100,000.00;

14)

of

23,800

despite

repeated

and

Gaudencio

Quimio

which

was

PLAINTIFFS allege that:

demands from the plaintiffs for the defendnats (sic)

to desist from enclosing the titled property with a

1) Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a parcel of

fence, the latter without any lawful right insisted

land situated in Tanza, Cavite having purchased the

and actually closed their property with a fence,

same from Juana Batallones and Gaudencio Quimio

causing irreparable damage and prejudice to the

for themselves and on behalf of their co-heirs as

plaintiffs; 15) in view of the illegal, unlawful,

evidenced by Deed of Sale;

malicious and bad faith of the defendants and in

2) Plaintiffs-predecessors-in-interest

disregard of the rights of the plaintiffs, the latter

issued Certificate of Title No. T-192532;

are constrained to hire the services of counsel for

which they agreed to pay the sum of P50,000.00 in
addition to the appearance fee of P500.00 every
hearing of this case.
xxx xxx xxx

3) said

vendees

whose

titles

were

aforesaid

duly

was

transferred in favor of the plaintiffs have obtained

the title by virtue of the decision by then Court of
First Instance of Naic, Cavite in Civil Case No. NC709 entitled Tomas Lucido versus Juana Onate

Lands, the Register of Deeds of Cavite;

7
Page

Batallones and Petronilla Q. Quimio, Director of

of

Trece

Martires

City

who

have

no

right

whatsoever on the real estate in question;

4) the heirs of Onofre Batallones and Modesta

10) upon investigation it was certified by the

Quimio are the vendees of the land from the

Bureau of Lands that the said title was falsified and

Bureau of Lands as evidenced by a Certification

forged because alleged Deed No. V-12918 was

issued by Adelwisa P. Ong, Record Officer of the

issued to one Juana C. Collado for Lot 18, Block 56,

District Land Office of Trece Martires City;

Tala Estate situated in Caloocan City and that there

5) the sale of the said parcel of land from the

Bureau of Lands in favor of the heirs of Batallones
and Quimio was also evidenced by a Deed of

was (sic) no records in the Bureau of Lands that

Deed No. 12918 was issued Lot 2886, S.C. Malabon
Estate, Cavite in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo
Pugay to whom defendants have allegedly acquired

Conveyance duly issued by the Bureau of Lands;

title over the said property;

6) plaintiffs have taken possession thereof;
11) considering that the title of the defendants
7) defendants have enclosed a portion of said

have (sic) no basis in law and in fact and that the

property with a fence and occupied 114,987 square

same was illegally, unlawfully and maliciously

meters thereof without the consent and against the

issued by the Register of Deeds on the basis of

will of plaintiffs;

forged

and

falsified

and

none

[sic]

existing

as

documents as basis for issuance thereof, the same

vendees have been also issued Transfer Certificate

may be cancelled and defendants have no right to

of Title covering the same land titled in the name of

take possession of the real property thereon

the plaintiffs under TCT No. T-112047;

including the portion pertaining to the herein

8) plaintiffs

have

learned

that

defendants

9) the title issued to defendants was the product of

forgery because it was based on an alleged TCT No.
T-111070 in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay

plaintiffs consisting of 114,987 square meters more

or less, said title creates cloud on the title of
plaintiffs and by their predecessors-in-interest and
as such plaintiffs could not deal on said property

transactions

thereto,

thereby

irreparable damage (sic);

12) as a result of the illegal, unlawful, unjust and
malicious actuations of the defendants, plaintiffs

complete

Page

and

the services of counsel for which they agreed to

pay

the

sum

failed to introduce the necessary improvements

thereon and for which they suffered damages in the
amount of not less than P50,000.00;
13) in view of the bad faith, illegal and unlawful
actuations of the defendants in obtaining title over

P50,000.00

in

addition

to

appearance of P500.00 every hearing of this

case; 5

were deprived of the use of the said parcel of land

unlawfully and illegally occupied by them and they

of

xxx xxx xxx

In Civil Case No. TM-206 entitled Spouses Eduardo
and Felicisima Tirona, et al., vs. Spouses Sonia (sic)
Mathay, et al., for "Quieting of Title, Annulment of
Title and Recovery of Possession with Damage,"
etc.
PLAINTIFFS, allege that:

the property [, plaintiffs] suffered from sleepless

nights, anxiety, mental anguish for while (sic) they

3) on December 31, 1985, Spouses Bonifacio Motas

are also entitled to claim for moral damages in the

and Juliana Motas bought a parcel of land situated

sum of P100,000.00;

at (sic) Tanza, Cavite known as Lot 2186-B of Psu04-01892, containing an area of 18,943 square

14) despite repeated demands from the plaintiffs

for the defendants to desist from enclosing the
titled property with a fence, the latter without any
lawful right insisted and actually enclosed their

meters covered by Transfer of (sic) Certificate of

Title No. T-192530 of the Registry of Deeds of
Cavite from David Quimio as evidenced by a Deed
of Absolute Sale;

property with a fence, causing irreparable damage

and prejudice to the plaintiffs;

4) Spouses Bonifacio Motas and Juliana Motas

issued TCT No. T-203730 by the Register of Deeds

15) in view of the illegal, unlawful, malicious and

bad faith of defendants and disregard of the right
of the plaintiffs, the latter are constrained to hire

of Cavite;

previous registered owners of said parcel of land as

9
Page

5) Vendors David Quimio, Sr., et al., are the

Ignacio San Jose &

Lucila San Jose 2186-D-8 206078 1,591 sq. m.

evidenced by TCT No. T-192530;

3. Anania Cervania 2186-D-3 203725 2,500 sq. m.
4. Ricardo Malabanan 2186-D-4 203726 2,500 sq. m.
6) Vendors David Quimio, Sr., whose title was
transferred to Motas have obtained rights and

5. Plocerfina Tanyag 2186-D-2 203724 700 sq. m.

interest thereon from their predecessors who were

6. Ruperta Bartolome 2186-D-5B 220606 550 sq. m.

vendees from the Bureau of Lands which was

confirmed in the Decision of then Court of First

2186-D-5C 220607 700 sq. m.

Instance of Cavite in Civil Case No. 809 entitled

2186-D-5D 220608 700 sq. m.

Tomas Lucido versus Juana Batallones and Petronila

2186-D-A 220605 550 sq. m.

Quimio, et al., issued on January 30, 1981;

9) plaintiffs

are

the

one

(sic)

paying

the

7) said parcel of land was subdivided under Psu-04-

corresponding real property taxes thereon and

01763 into eight lots as evidenced by Sub-division

were issued corresponding tax declaration by the

Plan; (sic)

Office of the Provincial Assessor of Cavite;

8) plaintiffs bought the subdivided lots from Motas

10) plaintiffs have come to know that defendants

in good faith, and issued Transfer Certificate of

Spouses Sonia (sic) Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr.

Titles by the Office of the Register of Deeds of

have enclosed among others said real properties of

Cavite, as follows:

the plaintiffs with a fence and took physical

NAME LOT TCT NO. AREA

possession thereof without the knowledge and

1. Sps. Eduardo & 2186-D-6 203728 3,000 sq. m.

Felicisima Tirona 2186-D-1 203723 741 sq. m.
2. Soledad Motas & Sps. 2186-D-8 206078 3,409 sq. m.

consent of the plaintiffs;

11) plaintiffs have learned also that defendants
have

also

issued

Transfer

Certificate

of

Title

covering among others the same land titled in the

12) the title issued to defendants was the product

10

Title No. T-113047; cdasia

Page

name of the plaintiffs under Transfer Certificate of

Deeds of Cavite on the basis of forged and falsified

and none [sic] existing documents;
15) said Transfer Certificate of Titles were illegally

of forgery because it was based on an alleged

and unlawfully issued without basis in favor of

Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 3444 in favor of

defendants

Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay of Trece Martires

interest, creating a cloud on the titles of the

City who have no right whatsoever on the real

plaintiffs and as such may be declared null and

estate in question and who have been in prior

void;

physical possession thereof, as such said title is

void-ab-initio;

Mathay

and

their

predecessors-in-

16) plaintiffs have the right to exclude defendants

Mathays from their enjoyment of their property and

13) upon investigation, it was certified by the

considering that said defendants have been duly

Bureau of Lands that the said titles were based on

informed of the defect and nullity of their title yet

falsified and forged documents because alleged

they

Deed No. V-12918 which was the basis for the

enjoyment of the right from a void title;

issuance thereof, was issued to one Jack C. Gallado

for Lot 18, Block 56, Tala Estate situated in
Caloocan City and that there was no records in the
Bureau of Lands that Deed No. V-12918 was issued
for Lot 2886, S.C. Malabon Estate, Cavite in favor of
Pedro

Banayo

and

Pablo

Pugay

to

whom

defendants have allegedly acquired title over the

said property;
14) the title of the defendants have no basis in law
and in fact and that the same was illegally,
unlawfully and maliciously issued by the Register of

insisted

and

continue

to

insist

in

the

17) as a result of the illegal, unlawful, unjust and

malicious actuations of the defendants, plaintiffs
were deprived of the use of the said parcel of lands
unlawfully and illegally occupied by defendants
Mathay as they failed to introduce the necessary
improvements thereon and for which they suffered
damages in the amount of not less than P50,000.00
and the amount of P500.00 a month for each lot as
reasonable compensation for the use of their lands;

the property in question thru forged and falsified

documents,

plaintiffs

suffered

from

sleepless

nights, anxiety, mental anguish for which they are

also entitled to claim for moral damages in the sum
of P150,000.00;

11

actuations of the defendants in obtaining titles over

Page

18) in view of the bad faith, illegal and unlawful

Norberto Quimio and Transfer Certificate of Title No.

85866 in the name of Onofre Batallones and
Norberto Quimio, as null and void;
b) declaring Transfer Certificates of Title No. T195350, T-195351, T-192527, T-192529, T-192528,
T-192532,

T-252996,

T-252997,

T-252998,

T-

252999, T-253000, T-253001, T-253002, T-253003,

19) in view of the illegal, unlawful, malicious and

T-253004,

bad faith of the defendants and in disregard of the

203724, T-220506, T-220607, T-220608, T-220605,

right of the plaintiffs, the latter are constrained to

T-203728, T-203726, T-203730, T-203723 and T-

hire the services of counsel for which they agreed

203725, as null and void, and directing the Register

to pay the sum of P50,000.00 in addition to an

of Deeds of Cavite Province to cancel them;

appearance fee of P1,000.00 every hearing. 6 "

xxx xxx xxx

T-253005,

T-253037,

T-206078,

T-

c) ordering Spouses Teodulfo Atangan & Sylvia

Atangan, Onofre Batallones, Norerto (sic) Quimio,

After trial on the merits, the lower court decided for defendant
spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr., and against the
plaintiffs in the three consolidated cases; disposing, thus:

Spouses

Tomas

Lucido

and

Juana

Batallones,

Agustin Poblete, Juancho Albert; Poblete, Spouses

Bonifacio Motas and Juliana Motas, Soledad Mateo,
Ricardo Malabanan, Flocerfina Bartolome, Spouses

"WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, (sic) judgment

Eugenio

is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants:

Spouses Eduardo Tirona and Felicisima Tirona and

a) declaring Contract of Sale 3397 in favor of Tomas

Anania Gervania (sic) to surrender to the Office of

Lucido, the Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 3397

the Register of Deeds of Cavite their owner's copy

issued

of their Transfer of Certificates of Title covering

by

Tomas

Lucido

in

favor

of

Onofre

Batallones and Norberto Quimio, the Deed of

Conveyance in favor of Onofre Batallones and

Bartolome

portions of Lot 2186;

and

Ruperto

Bartolome,

in question and to be the true and lawful owners of

the same;
e) ordering plaintiffs jointly and severally liable to
pay defendants attorney's fees of P50,000.00 and
to pay the costs;

12

defendants to have superior rights to the property

Page

d) declaring TCT No. T-11304 [sic] 7 valid and the

evidenced by Psd 04-010692 (Exh. A). 9The Heirs

of Batallones and Patronillo Quimio were issued TCT
No. 85866 on August 9, 1976 (Exh. C). 10 On July
13, 1976, the Director of Lands transmitted to the
Register

of

Deeds

of

Cavite

the

Deed

of

Conveyance and for issuance of corresponding TCT

to the Heirs of Onofre Batallones and Norberto
Quimio represented by Juana S. Batallones and

f) denying all other claims of the parties for lack of

Patronillo Quimio (Exh. K.) 11 The original vendee

basis in law and/or evidence.

of said lot from the Bureau of Land was Tomas

SO ORDERED."

Lucido who was issued contract of Sale 3397 dated

On appeal, the Court of Appeals culled from the records on hand

the following facts 8 , to wit:

March 16, 1936 (Exh. M). 12 Lucido assigned his

rights over said parcel of land to Onofre Batallones
and

Norberto

Quimio

on

October

17,

1944

"Plaintiff-appellants and defendants-appellees are

evidenced by assignment of Sale Certificate No.

all holders of Transfer Certificates of Title which all

3397 (Exh. N). 13 In an [O]rder dated June 18,

appear duly issued by the Register of Deeds of

1976, said assignment was approved by the

Cavite.

Director of Lands (Exh. O). 14 On July 1, 1976 the

Plaintiffs derived their titles as follows:

then Department of Natural Resources through Jose

A.

The land claimed by the parties is known as Lot

2186 of the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate originally
consisting of 174,914 sq. meters and previously
covered by a survey in the name of plaintiffs
predecessor-in-interest Heirs of Onofre Batallones
and Heirs of Patronillo Quimio and Tomas Lucido

Janalo,

Assistant

Secretary

issued

Sales

Certificate No. 3397, Deed No. T-11692 to Heirs of

Batallones and Quimio (Exh. Q). 15 On June 18,
1976, the Bureau of Lands forwarded to the
Department of Natural Resources for signature the
Deeds of Conveyance in favor of Heirs of Batallones
and Quimio (Exh. S). 16

Lucido filed Civil Case No. NC 709 before the then

13

issued TCT No. 85866 17 on August 9, 1976, Tomas

Page

After the Heirs of Batallones and Quimio were duly

while the rest of the lots assigned to Juana

Batallones

et

al.,

(Exh.

FF). 20 After

securing

clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform

Court of First Instance of Cavite, Branch 1, Naic,

(Exh. PP-1) 21 and payment of required fees and

Cavite (Exh. GG) 18 which ended in a Decision by

compliance with the requirements or registration

said court based on a Compromise Agreement duly

the Register of Deeds of Cavite, Trece Martirez (sic)

executed by Juana Onate Batallones representing

City issued the corresponding Transfer Certificates

the heirs of Onofre Batallones and Patronillo Onate

of Title to the Heirs of Batallones and Quimio and

Quimio, representing the heirs of Norberto Quimio

Tomas Lucido, as follows:

and pursuant thereto 35,000 sq. meters on the

southern portion was given to Tomas Lucido
married

to

Eustaquia

Villanueva

while

the

Lot 2186-A TCT No. 192527 Lucido, Tomas (sic)

V-2 22

Exh. E.

remaining portion of Lot 2186 pertained and

Lot 2186-B TCT No 192528 Exh. AAA 23

belonged to the defendants Heirs of Batallones and

Lot 2186-C TCT No. 192529 Tomas Lucido Exh. D. V-3 24

Heirs of Norberto Quimio (Exh. Y). 19 Pursuant to

Lot 2186-D TCT No. 192530

the Approved Compromise Agreement in the said

decision (Exh. Y), a deed of partition was executed

Lot 2186-E TCT No. 192531 Exh. AAA-1

Lot 2186-F TCT No. 192532 Exh. G 25

by Juana Batallones, et al., and Tomas Lucido

Tomas Lucido married to Eustaquia Villanueva who

whereby the land covered by TCT No. T-85866 of

was the registered owner of lot 2186-A, TCT No.

the Register of Deeds was subdivided into six (6)

192527 (Exh. E; V-2) 26 2186-A sold to plaintiffs

lots known as Lots 2186-A, 2186-B, 2186-C, 2186-

Teodulfo

D, 2186-E and 2186-F, pursuant to approved

Atangan 27 evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale

technical descriptions and subdivision plan Psd-04-

[e]xecuted on July 12, 1985 (Exh. U-1). 28 and

10692, and that lots 2186-A containing an area of

another

9,100 sq. meters and lot 2186 C containing an

U) 29 Plaintiffs Atangan were duly issued TCT Nos.

area of 24,700 were assigned to Tomas Lucido

T-195350 for lot 2186-A and TCT No. T-195351 for

P.

Deed

Atangan

of

Sale

married

for

Lot

to

2186-C

Sylvia

(Exh.

14

Lot 2186-C (Exhs. V-1 and V, respectively). 30 Said

Page

plaintiffs paid the corresponding taxes thereon

(Exh. U-6, U-7) 31 and they were duly issued tax

Lot 2186-F-11 TCT No. T-253007 - do - Exh. SS-10 45

David Quimio, owners of Lot 2186-D, TCT No.
19530 sold the same to plaintiff Juliana Motas

declaration No. 11677 and Tax Declaration No.

married

11679 (Exh. U-4, U-3, respectively). 32

notarized deed of absolute sale dated December

plaintiffs Tirona, et al., in Civil Case No. TM-206 and

parcel of land was subdivided under Sub. plan Psdthe

corresponding Transfer Certificates of Titles were

following

issued to the said plaintiffs as follows:

Certificate of Titles were issued to the following

NAME LOT TCT NO. AREA

plaintiffs:

1. Sps. Eduardo & 2186-D-6 203728 3,000 sq. m.

Lot 2186-F-1 TCT No. T-252996 Agustina Poblete

SS 35

Exh.

Felicisima Tirona 2186-D-1 203723 741 sq. m.

2. Soledad Mateo (sic) & 2186-D-8 206078 3,409 sq. m.

Lot 2186-F-2 TCT No. T-252997 - do - Exh. SS-1 36

Lot 2186-F-3 TCT No. T-252998 - do - Exh. SS-2 37

Sps. Ignacio San Jose

Lot 2186-F-4 TCT No. T-252999 - do - Exh. SS-3 38

Lucila San Jose 2186-D-8 206078 1,591 sq. m.

Lot
2186-F-5 TCT
No.
Poblete Exh. SS-4 39

T-253000 Juancho

Albert

3. Anania Cervania 2186-D-3 203725 2,500 sq. m.

4. Ricardo Malabanan 2186-D-4 203726 2,500 sq. m.

Lot 2186-F-6 TCT No. T-213001 - do - Exh. SS-5 40

Lot
2186-F-7 TCT
No.
Poblete Exh. SS-6 41

subdivided under Psd-017063 and sold the same to

sale executed on June 8, 1988 (Exh. XX). 34 Said

result

by

Cavite. Plaintiffs Motas caused said lot to be

Bonifacio Motas33 evidenced by a deed of absolute

evidenced

TCT No. T-201592 by the Register of Deed (sic) of

Albert A. Poblete, and Juliana Motas married to

as

Motas

of 18,943 sq. meters more or less. She was issued

Agustina Poblete, married to Amor Poblete, Juancho

and,

Bonifacio

31, 1985 (Exh. VV). 46 Said lot contained an area

Juana Batallones, et al., sold lot 2186-F to plaintiffs

04-0106-92,

to

T-253002 Juancho

Lot 2186-F-8 TCT No. T-253003 Juliana Motas

7 42

5. Plocerfina Tanyag 2186-D-2 203724 700 sq. m.

Albert

Exh SS-

Lot 2186-F-9 TCT No. T-253004 - do - Exh. SS-8 43

Lot 2186-F-10 TCT No. T-253005 - do - Exh. SS-9 44

6 Ruperta Bartolome 2186-D-5B 220606 550 sq. m.

2186-D-5C 220607 700 sq. m.
2186-D-5D 220608 700 sq. m.
2186-D-A 220605 550 sq. m.
1. Sps. Eduardo R. Tirona Exh. SS-11 47

15

Exh. SS-12

Page

2. Soledad Motas & Sps. Ignacio Exh. NN-1 48

San Jose & Lucila San Jose Exh. SS-13
3. Anania Servnia (sic) Exh. SS-20 49

Defendants-appellees Spouses Sonya Mathay and

Ismael Mathay, Jr. claimed that the land described
as Lot 2186 of the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate,
situated in Tanza, Cavite, containing an area of

Exh. SS-19

174,917 square meters covered by TCT No. T-

4. Ricardo Malabanan Exh. NN-4 50

111070 (Exh. 8), 58 registered in the name of

5. Plocerfina Tanyag Exh. NN-3 51

Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay on February 28,

6. Ruperta Malabanan Exh. NN-6 52

Exh. NN-7

1980 was purchased by the defendants from Pedro

Exh. NN-8

Pugay on May 31, 1980 (Exhs. 3, 3-A), 59 and TCT

Exh. NN-9

No. T-113047 (Exh. 2) 60 was issued in their favor

on June 3, 1980 by the Office of the Register of

7. Plaintiff Juliana Motas & Lot No. 2186-D

Deeds of Cavite Province, declared for taxation

Bonifacio Motas TCT No. 203730

purposed (sic) (Exh. 4, 5) 61 and corresponding

Exh. VV-1 53
Said plaintiffs were duly issued corresponding Tax
Declaration

and

the

realty

It appears that Director of Lands Ramon N.

in

actual

Casanova, under the Deed No. V-12918 and Sales

possession of the contested parcels of land until

Certificate No. 2454 in consideration of P8,958.00

the same were fenced by defendants Mathay's men

sold to Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay Lot 2186 of

over their objection and upon inquiries, they

the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate, friar Lands Estate,

discovered that the defendants Mathay were issued

situated in the Municipality of Tanza, Province of

TCT No. T-113047 covering same parcel of land

Cavite, containing an area of 17 hectares, 49 ares

(Exh. 2) 55 based on a Deed of Absolute [S]ale

and 17 centares of the subdivision plan A-21

executed allegedly on 21 May 1980 by Pedro

approved by the Court of Land Registration on the

Banayo and Pablo Pugay (Exh. 3) 56and notarized

4th day of February, 1911 (Exh. 15) 63 with the

by Manalad Santera (Exh. 3-A). 57

technical description of the land (Exh. 15-A) 64 and

taxes 54 thereon

have
and

they

paid

taxes paid (Exh. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22). 62

were

Banayo and Pablo Pugay (Exh. 16) 65 which was

16

Register of Deeds for issuance of title to Pedro

Page

on February 21, 1980, a letter addressed to the

cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 113047

covering Lot 2186 of Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate in
the name of Spouses Ismael and Sonya Mathay.

cancelled by TCT No. 113047 issued in the name of

Spouses Ismael and Sonya Mathay are ordered to

Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr.,

vacate Lot 2186, Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate,

(Exh. 2), 66 and that according to the old Sales

Cavite in favor of the plaintiffs-appellants. prcd

Register Book kept in the office, Lot 2186 of the

SO ORDERED."

Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate, Cavite, is registered in

the name of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay (Exh.

With the denial of their motion for reconsideration, the spouses

17-A). 67 It appears also that Pugay and Banayo

Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr. found their way to this Court

were assignees of the subject lot under Assignment

via the present Petition; theorizing, that:

of Sale Certificate No. 3397, 68 of the Bureau of

Lands, with Tomas Lucido as assignor."

I.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS

xxx xxx xxx

ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE GENUINE TRANSFER

On November 18, 1993, the Court of Appeals came out with a

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 113047 OF SPS. SONYA

judgment of reversal, the dispositive portion of which, reads:

& ISMAEL MATHAY JR., WHO ACQUIRED THE SAID

TORRENS TITLE AS BUYERS IN GOOD FAITH, SINCE

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is

rendered in favor of plaintiffs-appellants in the
above-entitled three cases against defendantsappellees.

The

consolidated

decision

of

the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martirez (sic)

City in Civil Case No. TM-175, Civil Case No. TM-180
and Civil Case No. TM-206 is reversed and set
aside. The defendants-appellees Register of Deeds
of Cavite, Trece Martirez (sic) City is ordered to

THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE TRANSFER,

EVEN PRIOR TO THE SALE, WERE ALL DULY FILED
AND CLEARED WITH THE RE REGISTER OF DEEDS,
ASSESSOR'S

OFFICE,

B.I.R.,

AND

OTHER

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. MOREOVER, THE LAW

STATED IN "DINO VS. COURT OF APPEALS," G.R. NO.
95921, SHOULD BE UPHELD, IN CASE OF BASELESS

ALLEGED

FORGERY

BY

THE

RESPONDENTS;
II.

17

OF

Page

ASSERTION

111070, the derivative title of their TCT No. T-113047, appeared to

be free from any encumbrance. They argue that a person dealing
on a registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
covering certificate of title and is not required to go beyond the

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS

certificate of title to determine the condition of the property.

ERRED IN NOT RECOGNIZING THE 1980 TITLE OF

SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL MATHAY JR., OVER AND
ABOVE THE LATER 1986-88 ALLEGED TITLES OF
RESPONDENTS-ATANGAN ET AL., WHICH IS CLEARLY
CONTRARY TO THE APPLICABLE LAW ON THE
MATTER, NAMELY: ART. 1544 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES;

A purchaser in good faith and for value is defined as "one who buys
property of another, without notice that some other person has a
right 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."69 As a rule, he who asserts the status of a purchaser in

good faith and for value, has the burden of proving such assertion.

III.

This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS

legal presumption of good faith, i.e., that everyone is presumed to

ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE DEED OF

act in good faith." 70

SALE EXECUTED BY VENDORS BANAYO & PUGAY

Here, petitioners cannot be categorized as purchasers in good faith.

IN FAVOR OF VENDEES SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL

Prior to the fencing of subject land, neither they (Mathays) nor their

MATHAY, JR. IS DULY NOTARIZED IN SO FAR AS THE

predecessors-in-interest (Banayo and Pugay) ever possessed the

VENDORS AND VENDEES ARE CONCERNED AND

same. In fact, at the time the said property was sold to petitioners,

THAT, FURTHERMORE, THE COURT OF APPEALS

the private respondents were not only in actual possession of the

ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF THE

same but also built their houses thereon, cultivated it and were in

PETITIONERS' DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE ALL DULY

full enjoyment of the produce and fruits gathered therefrom.

EXECUTED.

Although it is a recognized principle that a person dealing on a

The petitioners, spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr.,

registered land need not go beyond its certificate of title, it is also a

claim to be buyers in good faith, reasoning out that TCT No. T-

firmly settled rule that where there are circumstances which would

being

sold

to

him,

such

as

the

presence

of

occupants/tenants thereon, it is, of course, expected from the

purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into the status or
nature of possession of the occupants, i.e., whether or not the
occupants possess the land en concepto de dueo, in concept of

18

property

Page

put a party on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the

factual basis. The fundamental premise of preferential rights under

the law is good faith. 71
Viewed in proper perspective, we uphold the finding by the Court of
Appeals that the petitioners cannot invoke Art. 1544 of the Civil
Code in view of the questionable documents from which their title
emanated. As the Court of Appeals ratiocinated:

owner. As is the common practice in the real estate industry, an

ocular inspection of the premises involved is a safeguard a cautious

"We think the applicable rule as stated in Baltazar

and prudent purchaser usually takes. Should he find out that the

v. Court of Appeals, No. L-78728, December 8,

land he intends to buy is occupied by anybody else other than the

1988, 168 SCRA 334, is that as between two

seller who, as in this case, is not in actual possession, it would then

persons both of whom are in good faith and both

be incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the

innocent of any negligence, the law must protect

occupant's possessory rights. The failure of a prospective buyer to

and prefer the lawful holder of registered title over

take such precautionary steps would mean negligence on his part

the

and would thereby preclude him from claiming or invoking the

transmissible rights. Under the foregoing principle

rights of a "purchaser in good faith."

derived from the above case law, the Mathays have

transferee

of

vendor

bereft

of

any

no rights as against plaintiffs-appellants, their

recourse is against their vendors Banayo and
So also, before the fence around subject property was erected,
private respondents communicated their objection to the fencing of
the area by petitioners but they were ignored by the petitioners,
who continued enclosing the premises under controversy in the
presence of armed men employed by them (petitioners).
Consequently, not being "innocent purchasers for value," within
legal contemplation, petitioners' reliance on Article 1544 of the
New Civil Code is misplaced. Such stance of theirs lacks legal and

Pugay." 72
The aforesaid ruling of the Court of Appeals accords with the Latin
maxim: nemo potest plus juris ad alium transferre quam ipse
habet. "No one can transfer a greater right to another than he
himself has". Thus, in Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon
City, 73 this Court held:

the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher

19

title including petitioner's titles are void because of

Page

"Needless to state, all subsequent certificates of

land, even if both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it

does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title
should prevail. On the assumption that there was regularity in the

than its source. The law must protect and prefer

registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer

the lawful owner of registered title over the

certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the original

transferee of a vendor bereft of any transmissible

certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute were

rights."

derived. Should there be only one common original certificate of

In sum, "defective titles cannot be upheld against the unblemished

titles of the private respondents." 74

title, as in this case under consideration, the transfer certificate

issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any
anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.

Petitioners further submit that requiring them to inquire beyond the

face of the torrens title defeats the primordial objective of the
torrens system, which is that a person dealing on registered land
has the right to rely on the torrens title.

In light of the attendant facts and circumstances, there is therefore

a need to refer to the background or history of the land under
controversy. As conceded by petitioners, their TCT No. T-113047
was derived from TCT No. 111070 under the names of Pedro

But "a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown

Banayo and Pablo Pugay. Hence, the necessity of looking into and

that the same land had already been registered and an earlier

determining the legitimacy of the title of the two, Banayo and

certificate for the same is in existence." 75In the case at bar, as

Pugay.

borne out by pertinent records, the private respondents obtained

their rights and title from TCT No. T-85866, which was registered on
August 9, 1976 under the name of Heirs of Onofre Batallones and
Patronillo Quimio. On the part of petitioners, their supposed title
originated from a spurious title of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay
illegally registered on February 28, 1980.

In an effort to support their claim of ownership over subject Lot

2186, Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay presented two theories. First,
they theorize that on October 17, 1970, under Assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 3397, 76 Tomas Lucido assigned and transferred to
them all his interests in the contested land. Their second theory is
that subject real property was sold to them by then Director of

So also, where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on

Lands Ramon N. Casanova, under Deed No. V-12918 and Sales

different dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of

Certificate No. 2454. 77

Banayo and Pablo Pugay are without any factual and legal basis.

20

the conclusion, and so find, that the aforestated theories of Pedro

Page

After a careful examination of germane records, however, we are of

him (Freiras), having worked with him for the past thirty (30) years,
he is familiar with the signature of Director Casanova. 80
Then, too, in a letter 81 addressed to Atty. Franco Loyola, counsel

The assignment of Sales Certificate No. 3397 allegedly executed by

for private respondents, the same Mr. Freiras informed that, as

Tomas Lucido in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay was not

indicated by the entries in the Deed of Conveyance Book, 82 Deed

signed by the said Tomas Lucido. Neither does it bear the signature

V-12918 was issued on October 10, 1979, for Lot No. 18, Block 16,

of the latter. Worse, the same Tomas Lucido testified on the witness

Tala Estate, Caloocan City, in the name of one Zaida C. Calado, and

stand, 78 that he does not know Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay,

not for the subject land, identified as Lot 2186 of Sta. Cruz de

and he never received P50,000.00 from them. What is more, Tomas

Malabon Estate, Cavite City, originally registered under the names

Lucido reiterated that he really sold the land in question to the

of the Heirs of Onofre Batallones and Patronillo Quimio. In another

herein private respondents, spouses Teodulfo Atangan and Sylvia

letter 83 sent in answer to the query of Juana Motas, one of the

Atangan, the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. TM-175, as shown by the

plaintiffs in Civil Case No. TM-180, Alicia V. Dayrit, Office Caretaker

two Deeds of Sale 79 he executed in favor of the said spouses,

of Land Management Division of the Bureau of Lands, corroborated

Teodulfo Atangan and Sylvia Atangan.

what Mr. Freiras disclosed, as aforementioned. In her said letter,

To reinforce their aforesaid second theory, Banayo and Pugay

declared that, for and in consideration of Eight Thousand Nine
Hundred Fifty Eight (P8,958.00) Pesos, former Director of Lands
Ramon Casanova issued Deed No. V-12918 with Sales Certificate
No. 2454, which Deed was the basis of the issuance to them of TCT
No. T-111070 by the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite.

Alicia V. Dayrit revealed to Mrs. Motas that there is really no record

of any Deed No. V-12918 issued for Lot 2186 of Sta. Cruz de
Malabon Estate, Cavite City, in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo
Pugay, and that what appears in the Registry Book of Deeds of
Conveyance is Deed of Conveyance No. V-11692 issued on July 1,
1976 in favor of Onofre Batallones and Norberto Quimio by the then
Secretary of Natural Resources, which Deed pertains to Lot 2186 of

But Mr. Marcelino Freiras, Chief of Reservation and Special Land

Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate. The aforesaid revelations were

Grant Section of the Bureau of Lands, stressed that the signature of

corroborated in open court by witness Freiras. 84 Further, the Court

former Lands Director Ramon Casanova on the said Deed No. V-

detected discrepancies in the entries of the documents above

12918 with Sales Certificate No. 2454, was forged. According to

mentioned. Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay contended that by

Casanova

issued

Deed

V-12918,

on

February

18,

1980. 85 However, after a meticulous examination of the evidence

on record, the Court noticed that former Director Ramon Casanova
issued another Deed V-12918 but, bearing Sales Certificate No.
3397 and dated February 19, 1980. 86 It should be remembered
that Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay declared that the issuance of
TCT No. T-111070 in their favor was based on the said two
documents, both bearing the signature of Director Casanova.

21

Ramon

Page

virtue of Sales Certificate No. 2454, the then Director of Lands

which this Court cannot ignore, is fatal to the cause of Pedro

Banayo and Pablo Pugay.
Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the
Deed of Absolute Sale 88 by Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay in
favor of the spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr.
beclouded the issuance of TCT No. 113047. 89 Records disclose
that the said Deed of Absolute Sale did not comply with legal
formalities and was not duly notarized. Atty. Mapalad Santera, who
signed the document as Notary Public, had no commission as

The foregoing observations jibe with the revelation of Freiras that

Notary Public for the Province of Cavite, at the time subject

the alleged signatures of former Lands Director Ramon Casanova

document

appearing on the said documents in question were forged. Also

certificates of vendors Banayo and Pugay appeared to be of

strengthened thereby is the testimony of Mrs. Adelwisa O. Ong,

dubious source. 91

was

supposedly

notarized, 90 and

the

residence

former Record Officer and now Acting Administrative Officer of the

Bureau of Lands in Cavite, that subject land was patented under
Deed No. V-11692, registered under the name of the Heirs of

To bolster their submission that their title is genuine and authentic,

Onofre Batallones and Norberto Quimio, and the name of Tomas

private respondents introduced several documentary evidence.

Lucido was mentioned in the Old Sales Register Book as he was the

They also presented officials concerned and the caretakers of the

approved vendee of the same. 87

said documents, who all testified for the private respondents. LLjur

Besides, it is too evident to be overlooked that the number of the

On the other hand, the petitioners, spouses Sonya Mathay and

Sales Certificate of the second Deed V-12918 (bearing Sales

Ismael Mathay, Jr., who claim to be buyers in good faith, utterly

Certificate No. 3397) is the same number of the Sales Certificate

failed to discharge the burden of proving the sustainability of their

appearing in the Assignment of Sale allegedly executed by Tomas

posture. Worse for them, as above discussed, the title of Pedro

Lucido in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay. This fact alone,

Banayo and Pablo Pugay relied upon by petitioners has been shown
by preponderance of evidence to be the product of forgery.

appealed decision of the trial court.

22

that the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in reversing the

Page

All things studiedly considered, we are of the irresistible conclusion

13.Records, p. 208.
14.Records, p. 210; See also "Exh. P." p. 211.
15.Records, p. 212.
16.Records, p. 222.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the

17."Exh. C," Records, p. 194.

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CV No. 37902

18.Records, pp. 275-82.

AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs.

19.Records, pp. 247-49.

SO ORDERED.
Romero and Kapunan, JJ ., concur.
Narvasa, C .J ., took no part; close personal relation to a party.
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 34-80.
2.Fourth Division, composed of Associate Justices Corona IbaySomera (ponente), Nathanael O. De Pano, Jr., (Chairman)
and Asaali S. Isnani (member).
3."Annex A," CA Original Rollo.
4.Presided by Judge Ramon Anonuevo.
5.As Answer to the Complaint, defendant Spouses Mathay
interposed exactly the same affirmative defenses they put
up in Civil Case No. TM-175.
6.As Answer to the Complaint, defendant Spouses Mathay
interposed exactly the same affirmative defenses they put
up in Civil Cases No. TM-175 and TM-180.
7.should be TCT No. T-113047.
8.CA Decision, pp. 18-25; Rollo, pp. 52-59.
9.Records, p. 193.
10.Records, p. 194.
11.Records, p. 203.
12.Records, p. 206.

20.Records, pp. 270-74.

21.Records, pp. 321-23.
22.Records, p. 196.
23.Records, p. 197.
24.Records, p. 243.
25.Records, p. 198.
26.Records, p. 196.
27.Spouses Atangan are the plaintiffs in the first case: Civil Case
No. TM-175.
28.Records, pp. 230-31.
29.Records, pp. 228-29.
30.Records, pp. 239-40.
31.Records, pp. 337-38.
32.Records, pp. 234-35.
33.The Pobletes and the Motases are the plaintiffs in the second
case: Civil Case No. TM-180.
34.Records, pp. 381-82.
35.Records, p. 332.
36.Records, p. 333
37.Records, p. 334.
38.Records, p. 335.

41.Records, p. 338.
42.Records, p. 339.

23

40.Records, p. 337.

Page

39.Records, p. 336.

66.Records, p. 449.
67.Records, p. 467.
68.Records, p. 299.
69.Sandoval vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 283 [1996].

43.Records, p. 342.

70.Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 354 [1989].

44.Records, p. 340.

71.Taedo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80 [1996]; Paylago

vs. Jarabe, 131 Phil. 354.

45.Records, p. 341.
46.Records, p. 378.
47.Records, pp. 343-44.
48.Records, pp. 345, 305.
49.Records, pp. 358-59.

72.CA Decision, pp. 41-42; Rollo, pp. 75-76.

73.231 SCRA 88 [1994].
74.Lorenzana Food Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA
713 [1994].

50.Records, p. 357.

75.Heirs of Luis J . Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 327

[1996].

51.Records, p. 309.

76."Exh. 11, "Records, p. 299.

52.Records, pp. 311-14.

77."Exh. 15," Records, p. 465.

53.Records, p. 380.

78.TSN of August 28, 1990, pp. 3-11.

54."Exhs. NN-1." Records, p. 304; "NN-2-B," Records, p. 307; "NN2-C," Records, p. 308.

79."Exhs. T and U," Records, pp. 225-29.

55.Records, p. 456.

81."Exh. UU-1," Records, p. 375.

56.Records, p. 450.

82."Exhs. RR and RR-1," Records, pp. 330-31.

57.Records, p. 451.

83."Exh. I," Records, p. 201.

58.Records, p. 456.
59.Records, pp. 450-51.

84.Mr. Freiras testified on the following dates: January 30, 1989;

February 15, 1989; and April 21, 1989.

60.Records, p. 449.

85."Exh. 15," Records, p. 465.

61.Records, pp. 453-54.

86."Exh. 11-12, Records, p. 42; p. 301.

62.Records, pp. 468-72.

87.TSN, January 30, 1989, p. 34.

63.Records, p. 465.

88."Exh. A," Records, p. 450.

64.Records, p. 466.

89."Exh. 2," Records, p. 449.

65.Records, p. 466.

90."Exhs. CCC-1 to CCC-4," Records, pp. 496-99.

80.TSN, April 21, 1989, pp. 27-28.

24
Page

91."Exhs. EE and EE-1," Records, pp. 268-69."

||| (Spouses Mathay v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115788,

[September 17, 1998], 356 PHIL 870-898)