The Supreme Court ruled that the Cue's could not claim against the assurance fund because there were circumstances that should have prompted them to investigate the property being mortgaged. Specifically, Fernandez fraudulently obtained a new title over Torres' property and used this to mortgage the property to various parties. While the Torrens system generally protects purchasers based on the title alone, the circumstances of fraud in this case prevented the Cue's from relying solely on the title. The Court also held that Pararigan's free patent and certificate of title were not valid and indefeasible because he obtained them through fraud and misrepresentation about occupying the land, when it was actually occupied by others since 1945. A title obtained through
The Supreme Court ruled that the Cue's could not claim against the assurance fund because there were circumstances that should have prompted them to investigate the property being mortgaged. Specifically, Fernandez fraudulently obtained a new title over Torres' property and used this to mortgage the property to various parties. While the Torrens system generally protects purchasers based on the title alone, the circumstances of fraud in this case prevented the Cue's from relying solely on the title. The Court also held that Pararigan's free patent and certificate of title were not valid and indefeasible because he obtained them through fraud and misrepresentation about occupying the land, when it was actually occupied by others since 1945. A title obtained through
The Supreme Court ruled that the Cue's could not claim against the assurance fund because there were circumstances that should have prompted them to investigate the property being mortgaged. Specifically, Fernandez fraudulently obtained a new title over Torres' property and used this to mortgage the property to various parties. While the Torrens system generally protects purchasers based on the title alone, the circumstances of fraud in this case prevented the Cue's from relying solely on the title. The Court also held that Pararigan's free patent and certificate of title were not valid and indefeasible because he obtained them through fraud and misrepresentation about occupying the land, when it was actually occupied by others since 1945. A title obtained through
The Supreme Court ruled that the Cue's could not claim against the assurance fund because there were circumstances that should have prompted them to investigate the property being mortgaged. Specifically, Fernandez fraudulently obtained a new title over Torres' property and used this to mortgage the property to various parties. While the Torrens system generally protects purchasers based on the title alone, the circumstances of fraud in this case prevented the Cue's from relying solely on the title. The Court also held that Pararigan's free patent and certificate of title were not valid and indefeasible because he obtained them through fraud and misrepresentation about occupying the land, when it was actually occupied by others since 1945. A title obtained through
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1
MARIANO TORRES V. CA (G.R NO.
L- 63046, JUNE principle that a person dealing with registered lands
21, 1990) need not go beyond the certificate of title but nevertheless pointed out that there are circumstances FACTS: Mariano Torres owned a parcel of land at the in this case which should have put the Cue’s on guard corner of Quezon Boulevard and Raon Street (now and prompted them to investigate the property being Gonzalo Street) and a building erected thereon known mortgaged to them. Also, the Cue’s failed to contest as "M. Torres Building” evidenced by a Transfer the ruling of the trial court negating the liability of the Certificate of Title No. 53628-Manila issued in his assurance fund. For these reason the SC held that the name. Torres was and still is in possession of the realties, holding safely to his owner's duplicate Cue’s remedy merely is to go against Fernandez’ certificate of title, and, at least until 1971, paying the estate. real estate taxes due thereon, and collecting rentals from his tenants occupying the building. In 1966, Francisco Fernandez, Torres' brother- BEVERLY ANNE YAP V. REPUBLIC (G.R NO. in-law, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance 199810, MARCH 15, 2017) of Manila, docketed as LRC GLRO Cad. Rec. No. 133, where he, misrepresenting to be the attorney-in-fact of FACTS: Consuelo dela Cruz applied for a free patent Torres and falsely alleging that the owners' duplicate over a parcel of land located in Daliao, Toril, Davao copy of TCT No. 53628 was lost, succeeded in City. As she could not wait for the approval of her obtaining a court order for the issuance of another application, she executed a deed of waiver in favor of copy of the certificate. And further forged a simulated Rollie Pararigan. sale in his favor whereupon TCT No. 53628 in the Pararigan filed his own Free Patent Application name of Torres was cancelled and TCT No. 86018 was and subsequently a free patent was issued to him. An issued in his name. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-11182 was On various dates from December, 1966 to thereby issued in his name on Nov. 25, 1982. November, 1967 Fernandez mortgaged the realties to On September 1989 mortgaged the lot to Banco Mota, Cue and Fermin who later on assigned it all to Davao-Davao City Development Bank (Bank). The Cue. The mortgages were annotated at the back of property wa later foreclosed for Pararigan’s failure to TCT No. 86018 and so was the deed of assignment. pay his loan and sold to the Bank at public auction. Upon knowledge of fraud Torres filed an However, the Land covered by OCT No. P- adverse claim and on March 30, 1968, Torres filed Civil 11182 was allegedly occupied by Valparaiso and Case No. 72494 against Fernandez to annul TCT No. Malalis in an adverse, exclusive and continuous 86018 as well as the proceedings in LRC GLRO Cad. occupation since 1945. On October 1990 the Rec. No. 133. On April 2, 1968, a notice of lis pendens Valparaiso and Malalis filed a protest with the Bureau was annotated at the back of Fernandez' TCT. of Lands, praying the recall of free patent issued to A case was filed by Fernandez against the Cue Pararigan. to which it resulted to an amicable settlement that he The administrative protest caused by would pay his obligation and the Cues would deliver Valparaiso and Malalis reached the Office of the the documents (title). However before Fernandez Secretary of the DENR. From the Investigation could have done his part the court declared that the Reports it was found out that actual fraud and bad faith proceedings held that TCT No. 86018, issued in the have been committed by Pararigan in his public land name of Fernandez, is without force and effect as TCT application which led to the issuance of title. That the No. 53628 in the name of Torres is the true and legal protestants’ have been in actual occupation of the land evidence of ownership of the subject immovable. It in dispute since 1945 and have introduced appears that this decision had become final and improvements thereon. That Pararigan never occupied executory. the same nor his predecessor-in-interest, Consuelo Meanwhile Fernandez was not able to comply dela Cruz, that he misrepresented in his application with the agreement thus the subject land were levied that he was the actual occupant and there were no upon and sold in a public auction where Mota was the others who occupied the lot in dispute. And that highest bidder. Pararigan did not post a copy of his notice for FPA on On August 31, 1971, the redemption period for both the bulletins of Daliao and Lizardo as required by the subject immovable having lapsed without law. Fernandez nor Torres redeeming the properties, Rosario Mota was issued the Sheriff's Deed of Sale. ISSUE: WON FREE PATENT AND CERTIFICATE Thereafter, TCT No. 86018 was cancelled and TCT ISSUED TO PARARIGAN WAS VALID AND No. 105953 was issued in Mota’s name. She then INDEFEASIBLE notified the occupants of the building to pay their rents from that day to her. RULING: No. True, once a patent is registered and the On December 17, 1971 Torres filed a corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land complaint, which later gave rise to this petition, with the covered by them ceases to be part of the public Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil domain and becomes private property. Further, the Case No. 85753, against Fernandez and his spouse Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes and the Cues to restrain the latter from collecting indefeasible a year after the issuance of the latter. rentals and for the declaration as void TCT No. However this indefeasibility of a title does not attached 105953. to tiles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. Well settled is the doctrine that the registration of a patent ISSUE: WON CUE’s CAN CLAIM AGAINST under the Torrens System does not by itself vest title, ASSURANCE FUND it merely confirms the registrants already existing one. Also, a fraudulently acquired free patent may RULING: No, the Cue’s cannot claim as against the only be assailed by the government in action for assurance fund. The trial court recognized the reversion.