3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

G.R. No. 183448. June 30, 2014.*

SPOUSES DOMINADOR PERALTA and OFELIA
PERALTA, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF BERNARDINA
ABALON, represented by MANSUETO ABALON,
respondents.

G.R. No. 183464. June 30, 2014.*

HEIRS OF BERNARDINA ABALON, represented by
MANSUETO ABALON, petitioners, vs. MARISSA ANDAL,
LEONIL ANDAL, ARNEL ANDAL, SPOUSES
DOMINADOR and OFELIA PERALTA, and HEIRS of
RESTITUTO RELLAMA, represented by his children
ALEX, IMMANUEL, JULIUS and SYLVIA, all surnamed
RELLAMA, respondents.

Civil Law; Land Titles; Certificate of Title; It is well-settled

that a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein.—It is well-settled that “a certificate of title
serves as

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

478

evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the

property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. The
real purpose of the Torrens system of land registration is to quiet
title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to the
legality of the title.”
Same; Same; Torrens System; The Torrens system was
intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the
certificate of registration, but the system cannot be used for the
perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the registered land.
—The Torrens system was intended to guarantee the integrity
and conclusiveness of the certificate of registration, but the
system cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the
real owner of the registered land. The system merely confirms

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

ownership and does not create it. It cannot be used to divest

lawful owners of their title for the purpose of transferring it to
another one who has not acquired it by any of the modes allowed
or recognized by law. Thus, the Torrens system cannot be used to
protect a usurper from the true owner or to shield the commission
of fraud or to enrich oneself at the expense of another.
Same; Same; It is well-established in our laws and
jurisprudence that a person who is dealing with a registered parcel
of land need not go beyond the face of the title; Exceptions.—It is
well-established in our laws and jurisprudence that a person who
is dealing with a registered parcel of land need not go beyond the
face of the title. A person is only charged with notice of the
burdens and claims that are annotated on the title. This rule,
however, admits of exceptions, which we explained in Clemente v.
Razo, 452 SCRA 769 (2005): Any buyer or mortgagee of realty
covered by a Torrens certificate of title, in the absence of any
suspicion, is not obligated to look beyond the certificate to
investigate the titles of the seller appearing on the face of the
certificate. And, he is charged with notice only of such burdens
and claims as are annotated on the title. We do acknowledge that
the rule thus enunciated is not cast in stone. For, indeed, there
are exceptions thereto. Thus, in Sandoval vs. Court of Appeals,
260 SCRA 283 (1996), we made clear the following: The aforesaid
principle admits of an unchallenged exception: that a person
dealing with registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens
certificate of title and to 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

479

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.
Same; Sales; Innocent Purchaser for Value; Words and
Phrases; Jurisprudence has defined an innocent purchaser for
value as one who buys the property of another without notice that
some other person has a right to or interest therein and who then
pays a full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase or before
receiving a notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

the property.—Jurisprudence has defined an innocent purchaser

for value as one who buys the property of another without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest therein and who
then pays a full and fair price for it at the time of the purchase or
before receiving a notice of the claim or interest of some other
persons in the property. Buyers in good faith buy a property with
the belief that the person from whom they receive the thing is the
owner who can convey title to the property. Such buyers do not
close their eyes to facts that should put a reasonable person on
guard and still claim that they are acting in good faith.
Same; Same; Same; Land Registration; The established rule is
that a forged deed is generally null and cannot convey title, the
exception thereto, pursuant to Section 55 of the Land Registration
Act (LRA), denotes the registration of titles from the forger to the
innocent purchaser for value.—The established rule is that a
forged deed is generally null and cannot convey title, the
exception thereto, pursuant to Section 55 of the Land Registration
Act, denotes the registration of titles from the forger to the
innocent purchaser for value. Thus, the qualifying point here is
that there must be a complete chain of registered titles. This
means that all the transfers starting from the original rightful
owner to the innocent holder for value — and that includes the
transfer to the forger — must be duly registered, and the title
must be properly issued to the transferee.

480

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review

on Certiorari; Under Rule 45, Section 1, of the Rules of Court
“petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law
which must be distinctly set forth.”—We have no reason to disturb
this factual finding of the CA because it is supported by the
evidence on record. Spouses Peralta filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law to be
raised. It is a settled rule that questions of fact are not reviewable
in this kind of appeal. Under Rule 45, Section 1, “petitions for
review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law which must
be distinctly set forth.” A question of fact arises when there is “as
to the truth or falsehood of facts or when there is a need to
calibrate the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of
the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding
circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the
whole, and the probability of the situation.” It is further pointed
out that “the determination of whether one is a buyer in good
faith is a factual issue, which generally is outside the province of
this Court to determine in a petition for review.”

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

Civil Law; Donations; Donation Mortis Causa; A donation

mortis causa is invalid in the absence of a will.—Under Article
975 of the Civil Code, siblings Mansueto and Amelia Abalon are
the legal heirs of Bernardina, the latter having had no issue
during her marriage. As such, they succeeded to her estate when
she passed away. While we agree with the CA that the donation
mortis causa was invalid in the absence of a will, it erred in
concluding that the heirs acquired the subject property through
ordinary acquisitive prescription. The subject parcel of land is a
titled property; thus, acquisitive prescription is not applicable.
Upon the death of Bernardina, Mansueto and Amelia, being her
legal heirs, acquired the subject property by virtue of succession,
and not by ordinary acquisitive prescription. 

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals Seventeenth Division.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Aquende, Ralla & Associates Law Offices for the heirs
of B. Abalon.
  Duran, Narvaez & Associates for Sps. Peralta.
481

  Zamora Law & Associates for M. Andal, L. Andal and

A. Andal.
  Otilio S. Bongon for the heirs of R. Rellama. 

SERENO, CJ.:
Before us are the consolidated Petitions for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
30 May 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
Seventeenth Division in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 85542. The CA
had reversed the 14 April 2005 Decision2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Fifth Judicial Region of Legaspi City,
Branch 5, in Civil Case No. 9243.
The civil case before the RTC of Legaspi City involved a
parcel of land registered under the name of Bernardina
Abalon and fraudulently transferred to Restituto Rellama
and who, in turn, subdivided the subject property and sold
it separately to the other parties to this case — Spouses
Dominador and Ofelia Peralta; and Marissa, Leonil and
Arnel, all surnamed Andal. 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

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

subject parcel of land, averred that they were buyers in

good faith and sought the protection accorded to them
under the law.

_______________
1  Decision in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 85542 dated 30 May 2007 penned by
Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino and concurred in by Associate
Justices Lucentino N. Tagle and Sixto C. Marella, Jr., Rollo (G.R. No.
183448), pp. 70-84.
2 RTC Decision dated 14 April 2005 in Civil Case No. 9243 penned by
Judge Pedro R. Soriao, Rollo (G.R. No. 183448), pp. 65-68.

482

The Facts
The RTC and the CA have the same findings of fact, but
differ in their legal conclusions. There being no factual
issues raised in the Petitions, we adopt the findings of fact
of the CA in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 85542, as follows:

The subject parcel of land, described as Lot 1679 of the

Cadastral Survey of Legaspi, consisting of 8,571 square meters,
was originally covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
(O) 16 and registered in the name of Bernardina Abalon (Abalon).
It appears that a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed over the
subject property in favor of Restituto M. Rellama (Rellama) on
June 10, 1975. By virtue of such conveyance OCT No. (O) 16 was
cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
No. 42108 was issued in the name of Rellama. The subject
property was then subdivided into three (3) portions: Lot 1679-A,
Lot 1679-B, Lot 1679-C. Lot 1679-A was sold to Spouses
Dominador P. Peralta, Jr. and Ofelia M. Peralta (Spouses Peralta)
for which reason TCT No. 42254 was issued in their names. Lot
1679-B, on the other hand, was first sold to Eduardo Lotivio
(Lotivio) who thereafter transferred his ownership thereto to
Marissa Andal, Arnel Andal, and Leonil Andal (the Andals)
through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 9, 1995. On even
date, TCT No. 42482 was issued in the name of the Andals. The
Andals likewise acquired Lot 1679-C as evidenced by the issuance
of TCT No. 42821 in their favor on December 27, 1995.
Claiming that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Abalon in
favor of Rellama was a forged document, and claiming further
that they acquired the subject property by succession, they being
the nephew and niece of Abalon who died without issue, plaintiff-
appellees Mansueta Abalon and Amelia Abalon filed the case
below against Rellama, Spouses Peralta, and the Andals, the
herein defendants-appellants and the Bank of the Philippines
[sic] Islands which was later dropped as a party defendant.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

483

It was alleged in their Complaint and subsequent Amended

Complaint, under five separate causes of action, that Rellama was
able to cause the cancellation of OCT No. (O) 16, and in lieu
thereof the issuance of TCT No. 42108 in his own name from
which the defendants-appellants derived their own titles, upon
presentation of a xerox copy of the alleged forged deed of absolute
sale and the order granting the issuance of a second owner’s
duplicate copy of OCT No. (O) 16 in his favor in Miscellaneous
Cadastral Case No. 10648, which he had filed on the pretext that
Lot 1679 covered by OCT No. (O) 16 was sold to him and that the
owner’s duplicate copy of the said title got lost in 1976 after the
same was delivered to him. They averred that the owner’s
duplicate copy of Oct No. (O) 16 had always been with Abalon and
that upon her death, it was delivered to them. Likewise, they
alleged that Abalon had always been in possession of the subject
property through her tenant Pedro Bellen who was thereafter
succeeded by his wife, Ruperta Bellen, and then his son,
Godofredo Bellen. On the other hand, they said that Rellama had
never set foot on the land he was claiming. They further alleged
that after the ownership over the subject property was
transferred to them upon the death of Abalon, they took
possession thereof and retained Godofredo as their own tenant.
However, they averred that in 1995 the defendants-appellants
were able to wrest possession of the subject property from
Godofredo Bellen. They alleged that the defendants-appellants
are not buyers in good faith as they were aware that the subject
land was in the possession of the plaintiffs-appellees at the time
they made the purchase. They thus claim that the titles issued to
the defendants-appellants are null and void.
In his answer, Rellama alleged that the deed of absolute sale
executed by Abalon is genuine and that the duplicate copy of OCT
No. (O) 16 had been delivered to him upon the execution of the
said deed of transfer.
As for Spouses Peralta and the Andals, who filed their separate
answers to the complaint, they mainly alleged that they are
buyers in good faith and for value.

484

During the trial, Rellama passed away. He was substituted by

his heirs.
After the plaintiffs-appellees rested their case, instead of
presenting their own evidence, the defendants-appellants and the
Heirs of Restituto Rellama, on different occasions, filed a
demurrer to evidence.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

On April 14, 2005, the court a quo rendered judgment in favor

of the plaintiffs-appellees and ordered the restoration of OCT No.
(O) 16 in the name of Abalon and the cancellation of the titles
issued to the defendants-appellants. The fact that only a xerox
copy of the purported deed of sale between Rellama and Abalon
was presented before the Register of Deeds for registration and
the absence of such xerox copy on the official files of the said
Office made the court a quo conclude that the said document was
a mere forgery. On the other hand, the court a quo noted that the
duplicate copy of OCT No. (O) 16 in the hands of the plaintiffs-
appellees bears [sic] the perforated serial number B 221377,
which it held is a convincing proof of its authenticity and
genuineness. It thus stated that “Miscellaneous Cadastral Case
No. 10648 is a (mere) strategem [sic] fraudulently concocted ... for
the issuance of a fabricated (second) owner’s duplicate certificate
of Oct No. (O) 16” since the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. (O)
16 has not been lost at all. It said that any subsequent
registration procured by the presentation of such forged
instrument is null and void. The dispositive portion of the court a
quo’s decision reads:
WHEREFORE, [p]remises [c]onsidered, judgment is rendered
as follows, to wit:
1. Ordering the restoration of Original Certificate of Title No. (O)
16 embracing Lot 1679 in the name of Bernardina Abalon into
the official files of the Registry of Deeds of Legaspi City — a
copy of the owner’s duplicate certificate embodying the
technical description of Lot 1679 forming official part of the
record as Exhibit “D” — as well as ordering the

485

cancellation of any and all transfer certificates of title

succeeding Original Certificate of title No. (O) 16 — including
Transfer Certificates (sic) of Title Nos. 42108, 42254, 42255,
42256, 42821 [,] and 42482;
2.  Ordering the defendants Marissa Andal, Leonil Andal, Arnel
Andal[,] and the spouses Dominador and Ofelia Peralta to
vacate Lot 1679 and to peacefully surrender such lot to the
plaintiffs;
3.  Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amount of
P50,000.00 as litigation expenses; and
4. Ordering the defendants to pay the costs of suit.
The counterclaims by [sic] the defendants are all dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Spouses Peralta and the Andals filed their separate Notices of
Appeal and thereafter, upon approval, filed their respective
Defendants-Appellants’ Briefs. The Heirs of Rellama, on the other
hand, opted not to challenge the ruling of the lower court.3

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

The Andals and Spouses Peralta — appellants in C.A.-

G.R. CV No. 85542 — raised several issues, which the CA
summarized as follows:
1.    Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Abalon
in favor of Rellama was spurious.
2.   Whether the Andals and Spouses Peralta were buyers
in good faith and for value.
3.  Who among the parties were entitled to their claims for
damages.4

_______________
3 Rollo (G.R. No. 183448), pp. 70-74.
4 Id., at p. 76.

486

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 30 May 2007, the Seventeenth Division of the Court
of Appeals promulgated its assailed judgment setting aside
the RTC Decision. The CA ruled that the circumstances
surrounding the sale of the subject property showed badges
of fraud or forgery against Rellama. It found that Abalon
had not parted with her ownership over the subject
property despite the claim of Rellama that they both
executed a Deed of Absolute Sale. As proof, the CA pointed
out the existence of a notarized contract of leasehold
executed by Abalon with Ruperta Bellen on 11 June 1976.
The genuineness and due execution of the said leasehold
agreement was uncontroverted by the parties. On this
basis, the appellate court concluded that Abalon could not
have leased the subject parcel of land to Bellen if the
former had parted with her ownership thereof.5
The CA also found no evidence to show that Rellama
exercised dominion over the subject property, because he
had not introduced improvements on the property, despite
claiming to have acquired it in 1975.6 Further, the CA
noted that he did not cause the annotation of the Deed of
Sale, which he had executed with Abalon, on OCT No. (O)
16. It observed that when the original copy of OCT No. (O)
16 was allegedly lost in 1976, while Rellama was on his
way to Legaspi City to register the title to his name, it took
him almost 20 years to take steps to judicially reconstitute
a copy thereof. To the appellate court, these circumstances
cast doubt on the veracity of Rellama’s claim of ownership
over such a significant property, which was almost a
hectare.7
The CA also ruled that the heirs of Bernardina Abalon
had the legal standing to question the sale transaction
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

between Rellama and their predecessor-in-interest. It

concluded that

_______________
5 Id., at p. 78.
6 Id.
7 Id., at p. 79.

487

the heirs of Abalon had acquired the subject property by

ordinary acquisitive prescription and thus had every right
to attack every document that intended to divest them of
ownership thereof,8 which in this case was the Deed of Sale
that Bernardina executed in favor of Rellama. Lastly, the
appellate court considered the Spouses Peralta as buyers in
bad faith for relying on a mere photocopy of TCT No. 42108
when they bought the property from Rellama.9 On the
other hand, it accorded the Andals the presumption of good
faith, finding no evidence that would rebut this
presumption.10
The dispositive portion of the assailed CA Decision in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 85542 is as follows:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision is SET ASIDE and a new

judgment is rendered as follows:
1. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42482 and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 42821, both in the names of Andals, are
held legal and valid.
2. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42254 registered in the
names of Spouses Peralta is cancelled for being null and void.
Hence, they are ordered to vacate the land covered thereby and to
surrender possession thereof in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees.
SO ORDERED.11

The heirs of Abalon filed a Motion for Reconsideration of

the 30 May 2007 Decision, insofar as the CA declared the
Andals to be buyers in good faith of the subject property
and, thus, that the land title issued in their favor was
valid. Spouses Peralta, for their part, filed a Motion for
Partial Reconsideration of the said CA Decision pertaining
to the por-

_______________
8  Id.
9  Id., at p. 82.
10 Id., at p. 83.
11Id., at pp. 83-84.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

488

tion that declared them as buyers in bad faith which

accordingly nullified the title issued to them.
On 10 June 2008, the CA denied the Motions for Partial
Reconsideration of the movants for lack of merit.12
On 11 August 2008, Spouses Peralta filed with this
Court a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the 30 May 2007 Decision in C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 85542.13 On the same day, the heirs of Bernardina
Abalon, represented by Mansueto Abalon, filed a similar
Petition questioning the portion of the mentioned CA
Decision declaring the validity of the title issued to the
Andals, who were adjudged by the appellate court as
buyers in good faith.14
The Issues
The Petition filed by Spouses Peralta, docketed as G.R.
No. 183448, lists the following issues:
a) The case for annulment should have been dismissed
because the purported Deed of Sale executed by Abalon and
Rellama was not introduced in evidence and thus, forgery
was not proven.
b) The heirs of Abalon are not forced heirs of
Bernardina Abalon; hence, they do not have the legal
personality to file the action to annul the subject Deed of
Sale.
c) The heirs of Abalon failed to prove that they had
inherited the subject property.
d) Spouses Peralta are buyers in good faith and, thus
title to their portion of the subject property must be
upheld.15

_______________
12 Id., at pp. 61-63.
13 Id., at pp. 10-37.
14 Rollo (G.R. No. 183464), pp. 17-45.
15 Rollo (G.R. No. 183448), p. 14.

489

As for the heirs of Abalon, their Petition, docketed as

G.R. No. 183464, raises the following issues:
a) The Andals cannot be considered as buyers in good
faith by simply applying the ordinary presumption in the
absence of evidence showing the contrary.
b) The CA erred in applying in favor of the Andals, the
doctrine that a forged instrument may become the root of a

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

valid title in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value,

because Abalon never parted with her possession of the
valid and uncancelled title over the subject property.
c) The CA erred in declaring the validity of the title
issued in the names of the Andals, because Rellama was
bereft of any transmissible right over the portion of the
property he had sold to them.16
The Court’s Ruling
We deny the Petitions and affirm the ruling of the CA.
The main issue to be resolved in this case is 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 possession of the genuine
title, which is valid and has not been cancelled.
It is well-settled that “a certificate of title serves as
evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the
property in favor of the person whose name appears
therein. The real purpose of the Torrens system of land
registration is to quiet title to land and put a stop forever
to any question as to the legality of the title.”17

_______________
16 Rollo (G.R. No. 183464), pp. 28-29.
17  Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Heirs of Vicente
Coronado, G.R. No. 180357, 04 August 2009, 595 SCRA 263, 272.

490

In Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals,18 we explained the

purpose of the Torrens system and its legal implications to
third persons dealing with registered land, as follows:

The main purpose of the Torrens system is to avoid possible

conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate transactions
relative thereto by giving the public the right to rely upon the face
of a Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of
inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that should impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such further inquiry. Where
innocent third persons, relying on the correctness of the certificate
of title thus issued, acquire rights over the property, the court
cannot disregard such rights and order the total cancellation of
the certificate. The effect of such an outright cancellation would
be to impair public confidence in the certificate of title, for
everyone dealing with property registered under the Torrens
system would have to inquire in every instance as to whether the
title has been regularly or irregularly issued by the court. Every
person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law

will in no way oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine
the condition of the property.
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was
believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the
integrity of land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the
claim of ownership is established and recognized. If a person
purchases a piece of land on the assurance that the seller’s title
thereto is valid, he should not run the risk of being told later that
his acquisition was ineffectual after all. This would not only be
unfair to him. What is worse is that if this were permitted, public
confidence in the system would be eroded and land transactions
would have to be attended by complicated and not necessarily
conclusive investigations and proof of ownership. The further
consequence

_______________
18 G.R. No. 107967, 01 March 1994, 230 SCRA 550.

491

would be that land conflicts could be even more numerous and

complex than they are now and possibly also more abrasive, if not
even violent. The Government, recognizing the worthy purposes of
the Torrens system, should be the first to accept the validity of
titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid down by the law
are satisfied.

The Torrens system was intended to guarantee the

integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of
registration, but the system cannot be used for the
perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the
registered land. The system merely confirms ownership
and does not create it. It cannot be used to divest lawful
owners of their title for the purpose of transferring it to
another one who has not acquired it by any of the modes
allowed or recognized by law. Thus, the Torrens system
cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or
to shield the commission of fraud or to enrich oneself at the
expense of another.19
It is well-established in our laws and jurisprudence that
a person who is dealing with a registered parcel of land
need not go beyond the face of the title. A person is only
charged with notice of the burdens and claims that are
annotated on the title.20 This rule, however, admits of
exceptions, which we explained in Clemente v. Razo:21

Any buyer or mortgagee of realty covered by a Torrens

certificate of title, in the absence of any suspicion, is not obligated

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

to look beyond the certificate to investigate the titles of the seller

appearing on the face of the certificate. And, he is charged with
notice only of such burdens and claims as are annotated on the
title.

_______________
19 Heirs of Marcelino Doronio v. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio, G.R. No.
169454, 27 December 2007, 541 SCRA 479, 506.
20 Tiongco v. Dela Merced, 157 Phil. 92; 58 SCRA 89 (1974).
21 493 Phil. 119; 452 SCRA 769 (2005).

492

We do acknowledge that the rule thus enunciated is not cast in

stone. For, indeed, there are exceptions thereto. Thus, in
Sandoval vs. CA, we made clear the following:
The aforesaid principle admits of an unchallenged
exception: that a person dealing with registered land has a
right to rely on the Torrens certificate of title and to
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. 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.22

Thus, the determination whether one is a buyer in good

faith or can be considered an innocent purchaser for value
becomes imperative. Section 55 of the Land Registration
Act provides protection to an innocent purchaser for value23
by

_______________
22 Id., at p. 128; p. 777.
23 Land Registration Act, Section 55:
The production of the owner’s duplicate certificate whenever any
voluntary instrument is presented for registration shall be conclusive
authority from the registered owner to the register of deeds to enter a new
certificate or to make a memorandum of registration in accordance with

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

such instrument, and the new certificate or memorandum shall be binding

upon the registered owner and upon

493

allowing him to retain the parcel of land bought and his

title is considered valid. Otherwise, the title would be
cancelled and the original owner of the parcel of land is
allowed to repossess it.
Jurisprudence has defined an innocent purchaser for
value as one who buys the property of another without
notice that some other person has a right to or interest
therein and who then pays a full and fair price for it at the
time of the purchase or before receiving a notice of the
claim or interest of some other persons in the property.
Buyers in good faith buy a property with the belief that the
person from whom they receive the thing is the owner who
can convey title to the property. Such buyers do not close
their eyes to facts that should put a reasonable person on
guard and still claim that they are acting in good faith.24
The assailed Decision of the CA held that the Andals
were buyers in good faith, while Spouses Peralta were not.
Despite its determination that fraud marred the sale
between Bernardina Abalon and Rellama, a fraudulent or
forged document of sale may still give rise to a valid title.
The appellate court reasoned that if the certificate of title
had already been transferred from the name of the true
owner to that which

_______________
  all persons claiming under him, in favor of every purchaser for value and
in good faith: Provided, however, That in all cases of registration procured
by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies
against the parties to such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the rights
of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title: And provided,
further, That after the transcription of the decree of registration on the
original application, any subsequent registration under this Act procured
by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate, or of a forged deed or
other instrument, shall be null and void. In case of the loss or theft of an
owner’s duplicate certificate, notice shall be sent by the owner or by
someone in his behalf to the register of deeds of the province in which the
land lies as soon as the loss or theft is discovered.
24 Yared v. Tiongco, G.R. No. 161360, 19 October 2011, 659 SCRA 545,
555.

494

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

was indicated by the forger and remained as such, the land

is considered to have been subsequently sold to an innocent
purchaser, whose title is thus considered valid.25 The CA
concluded that this was the case for the Andals.
The appellate court cited Fule v. De Legare26 as basis for
its ruling. In the said case, the Court made an exception to
the general rule that a forged or fraudulent deed is a
nullity and conveys no title. A fraudulent document may
then become the root of a valid title, as it held in Fule:

Although the deed of sale in favor of John W. Legare was

fraudulent, the fact remains that he was able to secure a
registered title to the house and lot. It was this title which he
subsequently conveyed to the herein petitioners. We have indeed
ruled that a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no
title (Director of Lands vs. Addison, 49 Phil. 19 [1926]). However,
we have also laid down the doctrine that there are instances when
such a fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title.
One such instance is where the certificate of title was already
transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and
while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an
innocent purchaser. For then, the vendee had the right to rely
upon what appeared in the certificate (Inquimboy vs. Cruz, No. L-
13953, July 28, 1960).
We have been constrained to adopt the conclusion here set
forth because under the Torrens system, “registration is the
operative act that gives validity to the transfer or creates a lien
upon the land (Secs. 50 and 51, Land Registration Act).
Consequently, where there was nothing in the certificate of title
to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or
any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to
explore farther than what the Torrens title upon its face indicates
in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that

_______________
25 Rollo (G.R. No.183448), p. 80.
26 117 Phil. 367; 7 SCRA 351 (1963).

495

may subsequently defeat his right thereto. If the rule were

otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title
which the Torrens system seeks to insure would entirely be futile
and nugatory. (Reynes vs. Barrera, 68 Phil. 656; De Lara and De
Guzman vs. Ayroso, 50 O.G. No 10, 4838). The public shall then be
denied of its foremost motivation for respecting and observing the
Land Registration Act. In the end, the business community stands
to be inconvenienced and prejudiced immeasurably.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

Furthermore, when the Register of Deeds issued a certificate of

title in the name of John W. Legare, and thereafter registered the
same, John W. Legare, insofar as third parties were concerned,
acquired valid title to the house and lot here disputed. When,
therefore, he transferred this title to the herein petitioners, third
persons, the entire transaction fell within the purview of Article
1434 of the Civil Code. The registration in John W. Legare’s name
effectively operated to convey the properties to him.

After executing the Deed of Sale with Bernardina

Abalon under fraudulent circumstances, Rellama
succeeded in obtaining a title in his name and selling a
portion of the property to the Andals, who had no
knowledge of the fraudulent circumstances involving the
transfer from Abalon to Rellama. In fact, the Decisions of
the RTC and the CA show no factual findings or proof that
would rebut the presumption in favor of the Andals as
buyers in good faith. Thus, the CA correctly considered
them as buyers in good faith and upheld their title.
The Abalons counter this ruling and allege that the CA
erred in relying on Fule to justify its assailed Decision.
They argue that Torres v. Court of Appeals27 is the
applicable ruling, because the facts therein are on all fours
with the instant case.28

_______________
27 264 Phil. 1062; 186 SCRA 672 (1990).
28 Rollo (G.R. No. 183464), p. 36.

496

In Torres, the subject property was covered by TCT No.

53628 registered in the name of Mariano Torres. His
brother-in-law Francisco Fernandez, misrepresenting that
the copy of the title had been lost, succeeded in obtaining a
court Order for the issuance of another copy of TCT No.
53628. He then forged a simulated deed of sale purportedly
showing that Torres had sold the property to him and
caused the cancellation of TCT No. 53628, as well as the
issuance of TCT No. 86018 in his name. Soon, Fernandez
mortgaged the property to Mota. Upon learning of the
fraud committed by Fernandez, Torres caused the
annotation of an adverse claim on the former’s copy and
succeeded in having Fernandez’s title declared null and
void. Meanwhile, Mota was able to foreclose on Fernandez’s
real estate mortgage, as well as to cause the cancellation of
TCT No. 86018 and the issuance of a new one — TCT No.
105953 — in her name.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

The issue to be resolved in Torres was whether Mota can

be considered an innocent mortgagee for value, and
whether her title can be deemed valid. Ruling in the
negative, the Court explained:

There is nothing on the records which shows that Torres

performed any act or omission which could have jeopardized his
peaceful dominion over his realties. The decision under review,
however, in considering Mota an innocent mortgagee protected
under Section 65 of the Land Registration Law, held that Torres
was bound by the mortgage. Inevitably, it pronounced that the
foreclosure sale, where Mota was the highest bidder, also bound
Torres and concluded that the certificate of title issued in the
name of Mota prevails over that of Torres’. As correctly pointed
out by Torres, however, his properties were sold on
execution, and not on foreclosure sale, and hence, the
purchaser thereof was bound by his notice of adverse
claim and lis pendens annotated at the back of Fernandez’
TCT. Moreover, even if We grant Mota the status of an
innocent mortgagee, the doctrine relied upon by the appel-

497

late court that a forged instrument may become the root of

a valid title, cannot be applied where the owner still holds
a valid and existing certificate of title covering the same
interest in a realty. The doctrine would apply rather when, as
in the cases for example of De la Cruz v. Fabie, 35 Phil. 144
[1916], Fule v. De Legare, No. L-17951, February 28, 1963, 7
SCRA 351, and Republic v. Umali, G.R. No. 80687, April 10, 1989,
the forger thru insidious means obtains the owner’s duplicate
certificate of title, converts it in his name, and subsequently sells
or otherwise encumbers it to an innocent holder for value, for in
such a case the new certificate is binding upon the owner (Sec. 55,
Act 496; Sec. 53, P.D. No. 1529). But if the owner holds a valid
and existing certificate of title, his would be indefeasible as
against the whole world, and not that of the innocent holder’s.
“Prior tempore potior jure” as We have said in Register of Deeds v.
Philippine National Bank, No. L-17641, January 30, 1965, 13
SCRA 46, citing Legarda v. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, Roman Catholic
Bishop v. Philippine Railway, 49 Phil. 546, Reyes v. Borbon, 50
Phil. 791.29 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

We do not agree with the contention of the Abalons that

the ruling in Torres is controlling in this case. They quoted
a portion in the said case that is clearly an obiter. In
Torres, it was shown that Mariano had annotated an
adverse claim on the title procured by Fernandez prior to
the execution sale, in which Mota was the highest bidder.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

This Court declared her as a mortgagee in bad faith

because, at the back of Fernandez’s title, Torres made an
annotation of the adverse claim and the notice of lis
pendens. The annotation of the adverse claim was made
while the forged document was still in the name of the
forger, who in this case is Fernandez. That situation does
not obtain in the instant case.
 The records of the RTC and the CA have a finding that
when Rellama sold the properties to the Andals, it was still
in

_______________
29 Id., at p. 1067.

498

his name; and there was no annotation that would blight

his clean title. To the Andals, there was no doubt that
Rellama was the owner of the property being sold to them,
and that he had transmissible rights of ownership over the
said property. Thus, they had every right to rely on the face
of his title alone.
The established rule is that a forged deed is generally
null and cannot convey title, the exception thereto,
pursuant to Section 55 of the Land Registration Act,
denotes the registration of titles from the forger to the
innocent purchaser for value. Thus, the qualifying point
here is that there must be a complete chain of registered
titles.30 This means that all the transfers starting from the
original rightful owner to the innocent holder for value —
and that includes the transfer to the forger — must be duly
registered, and the title must be properly issued to the
transferee.
Contrary to what the Abalons would like to impress on
us, Fule and Torres do not present clashing views. In Fule,
the original owner relinquished physical possession of her
title and thus enabled the perpetrator to commit the fraud,
which resulted in the cancellation of her title and the
issuance of a new one. The forged instrument eventually
became the root of a valid title in the hands of an innocent
purchaser for value. The new title under the name of the
forger was registered and relied upon by the innocent
purchaser for value. Hence, it was clear that there was a
complete chain of registered titles.
On the other hand in Torres, the original owner retained
possession of the title, but through fraud, his brother-in-
law secured a court order for the issuance of a copy thereof.
While the title was in the name of the forger, the original
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

owner annotated the adverse claim on the forged

instrument. Thus, before the new title in the name of the
forger could be transferred to a third person, a lien had
already been annotated on

_______________
30  Noblejas and Noblejas, REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES AND DEEDS, p.
416 (2007 rev. ed.)

499

its back. The chain of registered titles was broken and

sullied by the original owner’s annotation of the adverse
claim. By this act, the mortgagee was shown to be in bad
faith.
In the instant case, there is no evidence that the chain of
registered titles was broken in the case of the Andals.
Neither were they proven to have knowledge of anything
that would make them suspicious of the nature of
Rellama’s ownership over the subject parcel of land. Hence,
we sustain the CA’s ruling that the Andals were buyers in
good faith. Consequently, the validity of their title to the
parcel of the land bought from Rellama must be upheld.
As for Spouses Peralta, we sustain the ruling of the CA
that they are indeed buyers in bad faith. The appellate
court made a factual finding that in purchasing the subject
property, they merely relied on the photocopy of the title
provided by Rellama. The CA concluded that a mere
photocopy of the title should have made Spouses Peralta
suspicious that there was some flaw in the title of Rellama,
because he was not in possession of the original copy. This
factual finding was supported by evidence.
The CA pointed out Spouses Peralta’s Answer to the
Complaint of the Abalons in Case No. 9243 in the RTC of
Legaspi City, Branch 5. In their Answer, they specifically
alleged as follows:

2– These defendants [Spouses Peralta] acquired lot No. 1679-

A by purchase in good faith and for value from Restituto Rellama
under Doc. No. 11212, page No. 26, Book No. 60, Series of 1996 of
Notary Public Atty. Otilio Bongon, Legaspi City on March 2, 1995
copy of which is attached as and made part of this answer as
Exhibit “1”;
3– That these defendants were handed over by Rellama xerox
[sic] copy of the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 42103 issued by
the Register of Deed of Legaspi City on the 2nd day of August
1995 copy attached and

500

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

made integral part as Exhibit “1-A” and also Original Certificate

of Title No. (O) 16 as Exhibit “1-B.”31

We have no reason to disturb this factual finding of the

CA because it is supported by the evidence on record.
Spouses Peralta filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45, which allows only questions of law to be
raised. It is a settled rule that questions of fact are not
reviewable in this kind of appeal. Under Rule 45, Section 1,
“petitions for review on certiorari shall raise only questions
of law which must be distinctly set forth.”32 A question of
fact arises when there is “as to the truth or falsehood of
facts or when there is a need to calibrate the whole
evidence considering mainly the credibility of the
witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific
surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to
each other and to the whole, and the probability of the
situation.”33 It is further pointed out that “the
determination of whether one is a buyer in good faith is a
factual issue, which generally is outside the province of this
Court to determine in a petition for review.”34
Whether or not Spouses Peralta are buyers in good faith,
is without a doubt, a factual issue. Although this rule
admits of exceptions,35 none of these applies to their case.
There is no

_______________
31 RTC Records, p. 33.
32  Abalos v. Heirs of Vicente Torio, G.R. No. 175444, 14 December
2011, 662 SCRA 450, 456.
33 Guy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165849, 10 December 2007, 539
SCRA 584, 606-667.
34 Orquiola v. Court of Appeals, 435 Phil. 323, 331; 386 SCRA 301, 309
(2002).
35 Among the recognized exceptions to the rule are the following:
(a)        When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises, or conjectures;
(b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible;
(c)When there is grave abuse of discretion;

501

conflict between the factual findings and legal conclusions

of the RTC and those of the CA, both of which found them
to be buyers in bad faith. The fact that they did not
participate in the proceedings before the lower court does
not help their case either.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

On the issue of the legal standing of the Abalons to file

this case, we find that the CA correctly upheld their
standing as heirs of the deceased Bernardina Abalon. The
appellate court ruled that during her lifetime, Bernardina
Abalon had promised her heirs — siblings Mansueto and
Amelia — that she would give them the subject property. A
duplicate copy of OCT No. (O) 16 was delivered to them
upon her death. Thus, the CA concluded that the two
siblings acquired the subject property by ordinary
prescription. Further, it deduced that the mode of
transmission of the property from Bernardina to her
nephew and niece was a form of donation mortis causa,

_______________
(d)When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
(e)When the findings of facts are conflicting;
(f)When in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the
case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant
and the appellee;
(g)When the CA’s findings are contrary to those by the trial court;
(h)When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based;
(i)When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(j)When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or
(k)        When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion. Spouses Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R.
No. 156448, 23 February 2011 (644 SCRA 1, 10), as cited in Abalos v.
Heirs of Vicente Torio, supra note 32.

502

though without the benefit of a will.36 Despite this

omission, it still held that Mansueto and Amelia acquired
the subject property through ordinary acquisitive
prescription because, since the death of their aunt
Bernardina, they had been in possession of the property for
more than 10 years that ripened into full ownership.37
Under Article 97538 of the Civil Code, siblings Mansueto
and Amelia Abalon are the legal heirs of Bernardina, the
latter having had no issue during her marriage. As such,
they succeeded to her estate when she passed away. While
we agree with the CA that the donation mortis causa was
invalid in the absence of a will, it erred in concluding that
the heirs acquired the subject property through ordinary
acquisitive prescription. The subject parcel of land is a
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

titled property; thus, acquisitive prescription is not

applicable.39 Upon the death of Bernardina, Mansueto and
Amelia, being her legal heirs, acquired the subject property
by virtue of succession, and not by ordinary acquisitive
prescription.
WHEREFORE, the petitions in G.R. Nos. 183448 and
183464 are DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 85542 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and

Reyes, JJ., concur.

Petitions denied, judgment affirmed. 

_______________
36 Rollo (G.R. No. 183448), p. 79.
37 Id., at p. 80.
38 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 975. When children of one or
more brothers or sisters of the deceased survive, they shall inherit from
the latter by representation, if they survive with their uncles or aunts.
But if they alone survive, they shall inherit in equal portions.
39 Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 171; 258 SCRA 651 (1996).

503

Notes.—The rule on probate is not inflexible and

absolute — in the instant case, the trial court cannot be
faulted for passing upon, in a petition for probate of what
was initially supposed to be a donation mortis causa, the
validity of the document as a donation inter vivos and the
nullity of one of the donor’s subsequent assignment of his
rights and interests in the property. (Del Rosario vs. Ferrer,
630 SCRA 683 [2010])
It is a 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 certificates of
title — he is charged with notice only of such burdens and
claims as are annotated on the certificates. (Heirs of
Romana Saves vs. Heirs of Escolastico Saves, 632 SCRA
236 [2010])

——o0o——

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/23
3/2/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 727

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161e728c624dc7663d5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23