JURISPRUDENCE

Heirs Of The Late Felix M. Bucton, Namely: Nicanora G. Bucton, Erlinda

Bucton-Eblamo, Agnes Bucton-Lugod, Wilma Bucton-Yray And Don G.
Bucton
vs.
Spouses Gonzalo And Trinidad Go
G.R. No. 188395
November 20, 2013

FACTS:

Felix Bucton was the original owner of the subject land covered by
TCT No. T-9830. In 1981, he received a phone call from Gonzalo Go
informing him that he has bought the land thru Benjamin Belisario who
represented himself as the attorney-in-fact of the former. Felix then learned
that the owner’s duplicate certificate of title was lost while in the
possession of her daughter. The lost certificate fell into the hands of
Belisario and two other persons, who allegedly conspired unlawfully to
deprive Felizx of his ownership. There is an annotation at the back of the
title that the Spouses Bucton authorized Belisario to sell the property to
third persons as evidenced by an SPA. The Registry of Deeds then
cancelled TCT No. T-34210 and issued a new one under TCT No. T-34210
in the names of the spouses Go. The heirs of Bucton then filed a complaint
for Annulment of the SPA, Deed of Absolute, Recovery of Ownership,
Possession and Damagaes. They mainly alleged that since the SPA was
spurious, no valid title was conveyed. In insisting that their title is valid and
binding, the Spouses Go argued that under the Torrens system, a person
dealing with the registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title without the need of further inquiry.

ISSUE:

Whether or not spouses Bucton are the lawful owners of the property
through acquisitive prescription

RULING:

An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of

another without notice that some other person has a right to or interest in
it, and who pays a full and fair price at the time of the purchase or before
receiving any notice of another person’s claim. The burden of proving the
status of a purchaser in good faith and for value lies upon one who asserts
that status. This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation
of the ordinary presumption of good faith.

As held in Titong v. Court of Appeals, ownership and real rights over

real property are acquired by ordinary pre scription through possession of
ten years, provided that the occupant is in good faith and with just title, viz.:

x x x A prescriptive title to real estate is not acquired by mere

possession thereof under claim of ownership for a period of ten
years unless such possession was acquired con justo tilulo y Buena
fe (with color of title and good faith). The good faith of the possessor
consists in the reasonable belief that the person from whom he
received the thing was the owner thereof, and could transmit his
ownership. For purposes of prescription, there is just title when the
adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one
 of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or
other real rights but the grantor was not the owner or could not
transmit any right.

The Spouses Go miserably failed to meet the requirements of good

faith and just title, thus, the ten-year prescriptive period is a defense
unavailable to them. It must be stressed that possession by virtue of a
spurious title cannot be considered constructive possession for the
purpose of reckoning the ten-year prescriptive period.
JURISPRUDENCE

SPOUSES ELISEO R. BAUTISTA AND EMPERATRIZ C. BAUTISTA

vs.
SPOUSES MILA JALANDONI AND ANTONIO JALANDONI AND
MANILA CREDIT CORPORATION
G.R. No. 171464. November 27, 2013

MANILA CREDIT CORPORATION

vs.
SPOUSES MILA AND ANTONIO JALANDONI, and SPOUSES ELISEO
AND EMPERATRIZ C. BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 199341. November 27, 2013

FACTS:

Spouses Mila and Antonio Jalandoni were the registered owners of

the two parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. 201048 and 201049. The
spouses then applied for a loan and offered the two subjects land as
security for the same, but after routine investigation, it was found out that
their titles had been cancelled and new TCT Nos. 206091 and 205624
were issued in favor of Spouses Eliseo and Emperatriz Bautista. Spouses
Jalandoni then filed a complaint for cancellation of the title and alleged that
their signatures on the deeds of sale were forged. On the contrary,
Spouses Bautista claimed that Teresita Nasino offered the lands to Eliseo
on a bargain price because the owners were in dire need of money. Since
Nasino was a wife of their friend, Spouses Bautista trusted her and gave
her the authority negotiate with Spouses Jalandoni on their behalf. The
lands were mortgaged to Manila Credit Corporation because Spouses
Bautista needed money to fund their new project and to pay the interests
thereof. MCC averred that they found no indication of any defect in the
titles of Spouses Bautista; that it exercised due diligence and prudence in
the conduct of its business and conducted the proper investigation and
inspection of the mortgaged properties.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the Spouses Bautista were buyers in good faith and
for value
a. in case they were not, whether or not Spouses Jalandoni
have a better right than MCC

RULING:

1. A buyer in good faith is one who buys the property of another without
notice that some other person has a right to or interest in such property.
He is a buyer for value if he pays a full and fair price at the time of the
purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other
person in the property. To prove good faith, the following conditions must
be present: (a) the seller is the registered owner of the land; (b) the owner
is in possession thereof; and (3) at the time of the sale, the buyer was not
aware of any claim or interest of some other person in the property, or of
any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey
title to the property.
Spouses Bautista’s claim of good faith is negated by their failure to
verify the extent and nature of Nasino’s authority. Since Spouses Bautista
did not deal with the registered owners but with Nasino, who merely
represented herself to be their agent, they should have scrutinized all
factual circumstances necessary to determine her authority to insure that
there are no flaws in her title or her capacity to transfer the land. They
should not have merely relied on her verbal representation that she was
selling the subject lots on behalf of Spouses Jalandoni. Moreover, Eliseo’s
claim that he did not require Nasino to give him a copy of the special
power of attorney because he trusted her is unacceptable. Well settled is
the rule that persons dealing with an assumed agency are bound at their
peril, if they would hold the principal liable, to ascertain not only the fact of
agency but also the nature and extent of authority, and in case either is
controverted, the burden of proof is upon them to establish it.

2. Generally, the law does not require a person dealing with registered
land to go beyond the certificate of title to determine the liabilities attaching
to the property. In the absence of suspicion, a purchaser or mortgagee has
a right to rely in good faith on the certificates of title of the mortgagor and is
not obligated to undertake further investigation. Thus, whatever rights
MCC may have acquired over the subject lots cannot prevail over, but
must yield to the superior rights of Spouses Jalandoni as no one can
acquire a better right that the transferor has.