Alfredo Ching v.
CA, Pedro Asedillo Ruling: Yes, reconveyance and cancellation of title
Facts:
A Decree of Registration was issued to Sps.
Nofuente and Lumandan for a parcel of land ituated
Sitio of Kay-Biga Barrio of San Dionisio, Municipality
of Paranaque, Province of Rizal. A portion of said
property was reconveyed by said spouses to
Francisco, Regina, Perfects, Constancio and Matilde
all surnamed Nofuente and TCT No. 78633 was thus
issued. By virtue of a sale to Ching Leng, TCT No.
78633 was cancelled then the issuance of TCT No.
91137.
When Ching Leng died, Alfredo Ching her
legitimate son was appointed as administrator of her
estate. 13 years after the death of Ching Leng, a suit
was commenced by private respondent Pedro
Asedillo against Ching Leng for the reconveyance of
the property covered by TCT No. 91137 based on
possession. An amended complaint was made by
Asedillo alleging “that on account of the fact that the
defendant has been residing abroad up to the
present, and it is not known whether the defendant is
still alive or dead, he or his estate may be served by
summons and other processes only by publication.”
Summons by publication was made through
“Economic Monitor”, newspaper of general circulation
in Province of Rizal, Pasay City. Subsequently,
judgment by default was rendered and TCT No.
91137 was cancelled. The title was transferred to
Asedillo who sold the same to Villa Esperanza
Development, Inc.
Petitioner Ching learned of the decision, and
so he filed a verified petition to set it aside as null and
void for lack of jurisdiction. The verified petition was
granted; however, on motion by Asedillo, the same
was set aside. Ching filed for reconsideration but was
denied.
An original petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals was filed by Ching but was dismissed.
During the pendency of the case, Asedillo died.
Ching’s motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied by the CA. Thus, the petition for review on
Certiorari.
Issue: W/N reconveyance and cancellation of title is
in personam which cannot give jurisdiction to the
court by service of summons by publication.
are acts in personam.
Actions in personam and actions in rem differ
in that the former are directed against specific
persons and seek personal judgments, while the latter
are directed against the thing or property or status of
a person and seek judgments with respect thereto as
against the whole world.
An action to redeem, or to recover title to or
possession of, real property is not an action in rem or
an action against the whole world, like a land
registration proceeding or the probate of a will; but it
is an action in personam, for it binds a particular
individual only although it concerns the right to a
tangible thing.
Asedillo’s action for reconveyance and
cancellation of title being in personam, the judgment
in question is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over
the person of the deceased Ching. Verily, the action
was commenced thirteen (13) years after the latter’s
death. According to Dumlao v. Quality plastic
products, the decision of the lower court insofar as the
deceased is concerned is void for lack of jurisdiction
over his person. He was not, and he could not have
been validly served with summons. He had no more
civil personality, that its fitness to be subject of legal
relations was lost through death.
Ching was an innocent purchaser for value as
shown by the evidence adduced in his behalf by
petitioner Alfredo Ching, tracking back the roots of his
title since 1960, from the time the decree of
registration was issued.
The sole remedy of the landowner whose
property has been wrongfully or erroneously
registered in another’s name after one year from the
date of the decree is not to set aside the decree but
respecting it and to bring an ordinary action in the
ordinary court of justice for damages if the property
has transferred to an innocent purchaser for value.
The Petition is hereby granted in favor of
Ching. SC ordered to reinsate the title in
controversy.
JM Tuason Co and Inc.
Facts:
- Petitioner JM Tuason & Co., Inc. executed a
contract to sell in favor of Ricardo De Leon
- At the execution of the contract, Ricardo paid
the DP (4,190.86) and agreed to pay the
balance in the monthly installment (498.63)
including 10% annual interest.
- Meanwhile, in another civil case, Petitioner
signed a Compromise agreement with the
Deudors.
- Ricardo De Leon transferred all his rights to
the lot in favor of his parents, Alfonso and
Rosario De Leon (Private respondents).
- Private Respondents paid the outstanding
balance of the purchase price.
- Petitioner executed the deed of sale over the
lot in favor of the private respondents.
- At the time of the execution of the contract to
sell, contracting parties knew that a portion of
the lot in question was actually occupied by
Ramon Rivera. However, it was their
understanding that the Petitioner will be the
one who will remove Ramon Rivera.
- Petitioner filed a complaint on ejectment
against Ramon Rivera before the CFI of
Rizal.
- Lower Court: Ejectment complaint was
dismissed.
- CA: Affirmed the decision of the lower court.
- Decision of the CA became final and
executory in September 1971, when rhe De
Leons were evicted from the premises in
question. Hence, this case
Issue:
Whether or not the Petitioner is the owner of the land
Held:
Yes. We are inclined to adhere to the aforementioned
view, taking into consideration the fundamental
principle in law applicable to the circumstances of this
case that mere possession of whatever length cannot
defeat the imprescriptible title to the holder of
registered Torrens Title to real property, and that
registered real property under the Torrens system
cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription. 6 The
petitioner who is theregistered owner of the disputed
land has a right to possess and recover the same, as
against private respondent Reñosa who merely
claims a right to possess from his predecessor-in-
interest Capt. Cruz who likewise never acquired any
right to possess the disputed property. Both Capt.
Cruz and respondent Reñosa cannot be considered
exactly as possessors in good faith because both of
them knew at the time they entered into possession
that petitioner was the registered owner of the
disputed land.
Aside from the compromise agreement as the only
basis of Capt. Cruz' alleged right to the property in
question, he and respondent Reñosa were never able
to prove transfer to ownership of the same from
petitioner to Capt. Cruz, thus strengthening the
obvious fact that the suspensive conditions imposed
in the compromise agreement were never fulfilled and
hence petitioner never transferred title to the reserved
properties in favor of the beneficiaries therein.
G.R. No. L-68291 March 6, 1991
ARCADIO, MELQUIADES, ABDULA, EUGENIO,
APOLONIO, all surnamed YBAÑEZ, petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE
COURT and VALENTIN O. OUANO, respondents,
Dominador F. Carillo for petitioners.
Pableo B. Baldoza for private respondent.
FERNAN, C.J.:
Facts:
Records show that private respondent Valentin
Ouano, a claimant-occupant of Lot No. 986, Pls-599-
D situated at sitio Bagsac, barrio of Manikling,
Governor Generoso (now San Isidro), Davao del
Norte, containing an area of three (3) hectares, 48
ares and 78 centares which was surveyed on March
13, 1958 as evidenced by the "Survey Notification
Card" issued in his name, a homestead
application 1 with the Bureau of Lands. The said
application was approved in an order dated March 3,
1959 issued by the District Land Officer and by
authority of the Director of Lands.
Three (3) years thereafter, a "Notice of Intention to
Make Final Proof was made by Valentin Ouano to
establish his claim to the lot applied for and to prove
his residence and cultivation before Land Inspector.
On April 15, 1963, an "Original Certificate of Title No.
P-15353" was issued to private respondent Valentin
Ouano over Homestead Patent No. 181261 which
was transcribed in the "Registration Book" for the
province of Davao on October 28, 1963. 3
After 19 years of possession, cultivation and income
derived from coconuts planted on Lot No. 986, private
respondent Valentin Ouano was interrupted in his
peaceful occupation thereof when a certain Arcadio
Ybanez and his sons, Melquiades, Abdula, Eugenia
Numeriano, Apolonio and Victoriano, forcibly and
unlawfully entered the land armed with spears, canes
and bolos.
Because of the unwarranted refusal of Arcadio
Ybanez, et al. to vacate the premises since the time
he was dispossessed in 1975, private respondent
Valentin Ouano filed a complaint for recovery of
possession, damages and attorney's fees before the
then Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Davao
Oriental. Seeking to enjoin the Ybanezes from further
the coconuts therefrom and restore to him the
peaceful possession and occupation of the premises.
In his complaint, Valentin Ouano, then plaintiff
therein, alleged that he has been in lawful and
peaceful possession since 1956 to which an Original
Certificate of Title No. P-(l5353)-P-3932 was issued
in his name; that petitioners, then defendants therein,
unlawfully entered his land on January 4, 1975 and
started cultivating and gathering the coconuts,
bananas and other fruits therein, thereby illegally
depriving him of the possession and enjoyment of the
fruits of the premises.
Petitioners, on the other hand, alleged that plaintiff
Valentin Ouano, now private respondent, has never
been in possession of any portion of Lot No. 986 as
the same has been continously occupied and
possessed by petitioners since 1930 in the concept of
owner and have introduced valuable improvements
thereon such as coconuts and houses; that Lot No.
986 was the subject matter of administrative
proceedings before the Bureau of Lands in Mati,
Davao Oriental which was consequently decided in
their favor by the Director of Lands on the finding that
Valentin Ouano has never resided in the land; that it
was declared by the Director of Lands that the
homestead patent issued to private respondent
Valentin Ouano was improperly and erroneously
issued, since on the basis of their investigation and
relocation survey, the actual occupation and
cultivation was made by petitioner Arcadio Ybañez
and his children, consisting of 9.6 hectares which
cover the whole of Lot No. 986 and portions of Lot
Nos. 987, 988 and 989; that based on the ocular
inspection conducted, it was established that Valentin
Ouano did not have a house on the land and cannot
locate the boundaries of his titled land for he never
resided therein.
The trial court, after hearing, rendered its decision 6 in
favor of private respondent.
Petitioners appealed to the Intermediate Appellate
Court.
The Intermediate Appellate Court, First Civil Cases
Division promulgated a decision, 8 affirming the
decision of the trial court, with modification.
Hence the instant recourse by petitioners.
Issue:
WON Valentine Ouano is the rightful owner of the
questioned parcel of land.
Held:
Affirmative;
The public land certificate of title issued to private
respondent attained the status of indefeasibility one
(1) year after the issuance of patent on April 15, 1963,
hence, it is no longer open to review on the ground of
actual fraud. Consequently, the filing of the protest
before the Bureau of Lands against the Homestead
Application of private respondent on January 3, 1975,
or 12 years after, can no longer re-open or revise the
public land certificate of title on the ground of actual
fraud. No reasonable and plausible excuse has been
shown for such an unusual delay. The law serves
those who are vigilant and diligent and not those who
sleep when the law requires them to act.
The trial court merely applied the rule and
jurisprudence that a person whose property has been
wrongly or erroneously registered in another's name
is not to set aside the decree, but, respecting the
decree as incontrovertible and no longer open to
review, to bring an ordinary action in the ordinary
court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property
has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value, for damages. 18
The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of
fraudulently registered real property is ten (10) years
reckoned from the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title. 19
private respondent Ouano has a better right of
possession over Lot No. 986 than petitioners who
claimed to own and possess a total of 12 hectares of
land including that of Lot No. 986. Records indicate
that petitioners have not taken any positive step to
legitimize before the Bureau of Lands their self-
serving claim of possession and cultivation of a total
of 12 hectares of public agricultural land by either
applying for homestead settlement, sale patent,
lease, or confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title
by judicial legalization under Section 48(b) of the
Public Land Law, as amended by R.A. No. 1942 and
P.D. 1073, or by administrative legalization (free
patent) under Section 11 of Public Land Law, as
amended.1âwphi1 What was clearly shown during
the trial of the case was that petitioners wrested
control and possession of Lot No. 986 on January 4,
1975, or one (1) day after they filed their belated
protest on January 3, 1975 before the Bureau of
Lands against the homestead application of private
respondent, thus casting serious doubt on their claim
of prior possession and productive cultivation.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of
merit.
The certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible title to the property in favor of the person
whose name appears therein. After the expiration of
the one (1) year period from the issuance of the
decree of registration upon which it is based, it
becomes incontrovertible. 12 The settled rule is that a
decree of registration and the certificate of title issued
pursuant thereto may be attacked on the ground of
actual fraud within one (1) year from the date of its
entry and such an attack must be direct and not by a
collateral proceeding. 13 The validity of the certificate
of title in this regard can be threshed out only in an
action expressly filed for the purpose. 14
There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law
(C.A. No. 141, as amended) or the Land Registration
Act (Act 496), now P.D. 1529, fixing the one (1) year
period within which the public land patent is open to
review on the ground of actual fraud as in Section 38
of the Land Registration Act, now Section 32 of P.D.
1529, and clothing a public land patent certificate of
title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, the pertinent
pronouncements in the aforecited cases clearly
reveal that Section 38 of the Land Registration Act,
now Section 32 of P.D. 1529 was applied by
implication by this Court to the patent issued by the
Director of Lands duly approved by the Secretary of
Natural Resources, under the signature of the
President of the Philippines in accordance with law.
The date of issuance of the patent, therefore,
corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree
in ordinary registration cases because the decree
finally awards the land applied for registration to the
party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the
Director of Lands equally and finally grants, awards,
and conveys the land applied for to the applicant.
If the title to the land grant in favor of the homesteader
would be subjected to inquiry, contest and decision
after it has been given by the Government thru the
process of proceedings in accordance with the Public
Land Law, there would arise uncertainty, confusion
and suspicion on the government's system of
distributing public agricultural lands pursuant to the
"Land for the Landless" policy of the State.
(6) RUFLOE, ET AL V. BURGOS, ET AL
FACTS: During the marriage of Adoracion and Angel,
they acquired a 371- square meter parcel of land at
Muntinlupa subject of the present controversy.
Respondent Delos Reyes forged the signatures of
Adoracion and Angel in a Deed of Sale to make it
appear that the subject property was sold to her by
the petitioner spouses. Because of this, she
succeeded in obtaining a certificate of title in her
name.
The Rufloes then filed a complaint for damages
against Delos Reyes contending that the Deed of Sale
was falsified as the signatures were forged because
Angel Rufloe died in 1974, four (4) years before the
alleged sale in favor of De los Reyes. Along with this,
they filed a notice of adverse claim.
During the pendency of the case, De los Reyes sold
the property to respondent Burgos siblings thus a
new title was issued in their names. The Burgos
siblings sold the same property to their aunt,
Leonarda Burgos. Since the sale in favor of the aunt
was not registered, no title was issued in her name.
The said parcel of land remained in the name of
Burgos siblings who continued paying real estate
taxes.
The RTC ruled in favor of Rufloe saying that the Deed
of Sale was falsified because of the forged signatures.
Rufloes then filed a complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Contract and Cancellation of Transfer
Certificate of Titles against the respondents. Alleging
that since Deed of Sale was falsified, then no valid
title was ever given to the Burgos siblings. The RTC
ruled in favor of Rufloes averring that the
respondents were not innocent purchasers for value
and did not have a better right to the property in
question than the true and legal owners, the Rufloes.
In addition, the sale bet Burgos siblings and their
aunt was simulated to make it appear that the aunt
was a buyer in good faith. On the other hand, the CA
reversed the decision of the RTC. ISSUES: (1) W/N the
sale of the parcel of land by Delos Reyes to the
respondents were valid and binding (2) W/N the
respondents are buyers in good faith and for value
despite the forged deed of sale of their transferor
Delos Reyes. RULING: NO to both Since the Deed of
Sale executed by De los Reyes in favor of the Burgos
siblings and the subsequent sale to their aunt was
simulated based on forged signatures, no certificate
of title was ever issued in their name. Thus, it is a
well-settled principle that no one can give what one
does not have. One can sell only what one owns or is
authorized to sell, and the buyer can acquire no more
right than what the seller can transfer legally. The
respondents could not be considered buyers in good
faith. 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.
The Rufloes, by filing an adverse claim, were more
protected of their interest over their property and
served as a notice and warning to third parties
dealing with said property that someone is claiming
an interest on the same and may have a better right
than the registered owner. Clearly, the respondent
siblings and their aunt were not innocent purchasers
for value and in good faith. DOCTRINE: As a general
rule, every person dealing with registered land, as in
this case, may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefore and will in no way
oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine
the condition of the property. However, this rule
admits of an unchallenged exception: when the party
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that
would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such
inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a
defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient
facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire
into the status of the title of the property in litigation.
The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look
beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the
vendor appearing on the face of said certificate. One
who falls within the exception can neither be
denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith and, hence, does not merit
the protection of the law.
Peralta v Abalon
Facts:
The instant case before the RTC Legazpi City involved
a parcel of land described as Lot 1679 consisting of
8,571 square meters covered by OCT No. (O) 16 and
registered under the name of Bernardina Abalon. It
was fraudulently transferred to Restituto Rellama by
executing a Deed of Sale and who, in turn, subdivided
the subject property and sold it separately to the
other parties - Spouses Dominador and Ofelia Peralta
(TCT No. 42252); and Marissa, Leonil and Arnel, all
surnamed Andal (TCT No. 42482 and TCT No. 42821).
Thereafter, Spouses Peralta and the Andals
individually registered the respective portions of the
land they had bought under their names. The heirs
of Bernardina were claiming back the land, alleging
that since it was sold under fraudulent
circumstances, no valid title passed to the buyers.
On the other hand, the buyers, who were now title
holders of the subject parcel of land, averred that Consequently, the validity of their title to the parcel
they were buyers in good faith and sought the of the land bought from Rellama must be upheld.
protection accorded to them under the law.

Issue:
REPUBLIC V CA
Whether a forged instrument may become the root
of a valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser
for value, even if the true owner thereof has been in Sandoval v CA
possession of the genuine title, which is valid and has
not been cancelled. FACTS: This is another dispute over land ownership.
The subject property is a parcel of land on which a
Held: five-door apartment building stands, located at No.
88 Halcon Street, Quezon City, for which a TCT was
Yes. The established rule is that a forged deed is
issued in the name of private respondent Lorenzo
generally null and cannot convey title, the exception
Tan, Jr. In October 1984, Tan was asked to present
thereto, pursuant to Section 55 of the Land
his owner’s copy of the TCT to the RD of QC in
Registration Act, denotes the registration of titles
connection with an adverse claim. He explained
from the forger to the innocent purchaser for value.
however that he was still looking for his copy of the
Thus, the qualifying point here is that there must be
TCT. A month after, he discovered that the adverse
a complete chain of registered titles. This means that
claim of one Godofredo Valmeo had been annotated
all the transfers starting from the original rightful
on his title. Apparently, a Lorenzo Tan, Jr., obviously
owner to the innocent holder for value – and that
an impostor, had mortgaged the property to Valmeo
includes the transfer to the forger – must be duly
to secure a loan. Thereafter, the real Tan sued for the
registered, and the title must be properly issued to
cancellation of the annotation of mortgage and
the transferee. Contrary to what the Abalons would
damages against Almeda and Valmeo. In 1985, Tan
like to impress on us, Fule and Torres do not present
met with petitioner Juan Sandoval who claimed to be
clashing views. In Fule, the original owner
the new owner of the site of the property. It was
relinquished physical possession of her title and thus
discovered that as early as September 1984,
enabled the perpetrator to commit the fraud, which
someone purporting to be Tan sod the property to
resulted in the cancellation of her title and the
Almeda in a Deed of Sale of Registered Land with
issuance of a new one. The forged instrument
Pacto de Retro. Said person also apparently executed
eventually became the root of a valid title in the
a waiver in favor of Almeda, which caused the
hands of an innocent purchaser for value. The new
cancellation of the TCT in Tan’s name and its issuance
title under the name of the forger was registered and
in Almeda’s. Later on, Almeda sold the property to
relied upon by the innocent purchaser for value.
petitioner for Php230, 000; a TCT was issued in
Hence, it was clear that there was a complete chain
Sandoval’s name
of registered titles.
Tan alleged that petitioner had prior knowledge of
In the instant case, there is no evidence that the
the legal flaws, which tainted Almeda’s title.
chain of registered titles was broken in the case of
Petitioner countered that he was a purchaser in good
the Andals. Neither were they proven to have
faith and for valuable consideration. He bought the
knowledge of anything that would make them
land through real estate brokers whom he contacted
suspicious of the nature of Rellama’s ownership over
after seeing the property advertised in an issue of the
the subject parcel of land. Hence, we sustain the
Manila Bulletin. Upon guarantees of the brokers and
CA’s ruling that the Andals were buyers in good faith.
his lawyer’s go-signal, he proceeded to purchase the
land, and paid in two installments. ISSUE: W/N alerted Sandoval of the questionability of Almeda’s
petitioner Sandoval is a purchaser in good faith, title. Thus, he is deemed to have actual notice of the
hence, shouldn’t be held accountable for the fraud defects in Almeda’s title, which is contrary to his
committed against respondent Tan. RULING: NO, he claim of good faith. Lastly, the certification on the
wasn’t. True, a forged deed can be the basis of a valid deed that the property was not tenanted was untrue.
title, but only if the certificate of title has already As parties interested in the transaction, they should
been transferred from the true owner’s name not have permitted such falsehood to taint the
indicated by the forger and while it remained as instrument. Sandoval, however, must be paid back
such, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent by Almeda the sum of Php230, 000.
purchaser. Unquestionably, the vendee had the right
to rely upon the certificate of title. It is well-settled
doctrine that one who deals with property registered
under the Torrens system need not go beyond the
same, but only has to rely on the title; he is charged
with notice only of such burdens as are annotated on
the title. This admits of an exception though: a
person dealing with registered land has a right to rely
on the Torrens certificate and dispense with the
need of inquiring further except when the party has
actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that
would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such
inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a
defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient
facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire
into the status of the title of the property in litigation.
This case falls under the exception. Firstly, since
Sandoval’s lawyer apparently verified with the RD, it
was inevitable for him to come across the TWO
copies of the TCT. Sandoval was thus aware in fact of
the irregularity attending the original TCT and its
derivative certificates. Secondly, Sandoval’s
testimony that he actually met with Almeda at the
latter’s residence in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
prior to the execution of the deed of sale is found to
be unconvincing and improbable on the ground of
that the deed contained the erroneous address of
Almeda. It wasn’t likely that Sandoval could have
been mistaken about the residence of his vendor
when the transaction was an important one,
involving as it does substantial consideration.
Thirdly, the lack of consistency in his enumeration
and recollection of his alleged meetings with Almeda
warrants disbelief and inspires doubt. Fourthly, the
several but varying addresses of Almeda should have