Case Digest By: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS.
JOCSON
G.R. No. L-42805
August 31, 1987
Topic: Recoverability/demandability from the Assurance Fund (under Sec. 101 of Act No. 496)
Facts of the Case: In 1965, a certain Lawaan Lopez (man) offered to sell a parcel of land to the Sps, Jocson (herein
respondents) located in Quezon City, claiming the same as his property. They have agreed to a price of ₱75.00 per
square meter. However, the sale was deferred with Lopez claiming that his certificate of title was burned in his
house in Divisoria, and that he would be filing a petition for a duplicated certificate of title before the CFI of
Quezon City. Without any opposition, the duplicate certificate of title was issued to Lawaan Lopez. Subsequently,
the parcel of land was sold to the respondents for ₱98,700.00 and the corresponding certificate of title was issued to
them and the certificate of title of Lopez was canceled. Shortly after, another Lawaan Lopez (woman) claimed to be
the owner of the parcel of land. She then filed a petition before the CFI of Quezon City to declare the sale to
respondents as null and void alleging that it has been made by an impostor. After trial, the deed of sale between the
respondents and the impostor was canceled, and the parcel of land was transferred in favor of the true Lawaan
Lopez. The case was further appealed by Lopez for damages
Aggrieved, Sps. Jocson filed a complaint for damages against the impostor Lawaan Lopez and the Treasurer of the
Philippines as custodian of the Assurance Fund. The lower court(s) held that the Assurance Fund is subsidiarily
liable (for ₱138,264.00) in case the judgment could not be enforced against the other defendant who could not be
located. Hence, this petition of the Treasurer.
Issue: W/N the Assurance Fund could be held subsidiarily liable
Held + Ratio: No. The Assurance Fund cannot be held subsidiarily liable and that the Sps. Jocson are not
entitled to recover from the same. The Court ruled (citing Noblejas, Land Titles and Deeds) that under Sec. 101
of Act No. 496, “[R]ecovery from the Assurance Fund could be demanded by:
1) Any person who sustains loss or damage under the following conditions:
a) that there was no negligence on his part; and
b) that the loss or damage was sustained through any omission, mistake, or misfeasance of the clerk of court,
or the register of deeds, his deputy or clerk, in the performance of their respective duties under the provisions
of the land Registration Act; or
2) Any person who has been deprived of any land or any interest therein under the following conditions:
a) that there was no negligence on his part;
b) that he was deprived as a consequence of the bringing of his land or interest therein under the provisions
of the Property Registration Decree; or by the registration by any other persons as owner of such land; or by
mistake, omission or misdescription in any certificate or owner's duplicate, or in any entry or memorandum in
the register or other official book, or by any cancellation; and
Case Digest by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

c) that he is barred or in any way precluded from bringing an action for the recovery of such land or interest
therein, or claim upon the same.”
In the case at bar, the Sps. Jocson do not belong to any of the two classes mentioned above. In the first instance,
there was no omission, mistake, or malfeasance of the clerk of court or the register of deeds in the performance of
their duties. In the second, because of the invalid sale by the impostor Lopez, respondents acquired no land or any
interest therein. With the trial court declaring the sale null and void ab inition, it had no legal effect whatsoever at
any point in time.
Respondents’ argument that they were the owners of the land from the time of transfer of title up to its cancellation
is misplaced. Here, the true Lawaan Lopez had her title all the time and was valid and subsisting despite the
issuance of another title in the name of respondents. Further, respondents failed to exercise due diligence in
verifying the credentials of the impostor, most especially when the latter claimed that his title was lost due to the
fire (together with other suspicious circumstances). It is a condition, in order to bring an action for damages before
the Assurance Fund, that the person is either the registered owner and holder of certificates of title or innocent
purchaser in good faith and for value. However, in this case, respondents were neither. Therefore, they are not
entitled to recover from the Fund.
Note: The applicable law was Act No. 496, before the revision of P.D. 1529;
Note: The Court ruled that the recourse of respondents was to file for civil action for recovery and damages, and/or
prosecute the impostor under the Revised Penal Code assuming the latter can be located and arrested.
Case Digest by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

Case Digest By: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest By: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest By: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPS.

G.R. No. L-42805

August 31, 1987

Issue: W/N the Assurance Fund could be held subsidiarily liable

a) that there was no negligence on his part; and

a) that there was no negligence on his part;

Case Digest by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

Case Digest by: Antonio Dominic G. Salvador

You might also like