KINGS PROPERTIES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. CANUTO A. GALIDO, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 170023, November 27, 2009,

CARPIO, J.

Facts:
Respondent Galido claimed that they bought the land from the heirs of Eniceo
on On 10
September 1973 covered by a deed of sale and the title was also delivered to
the respondent. Respondent waited for 22 long years before he had the sale
approved by the DENR Secretary because the land was originally as free
patent. After the sale the Eniceos remained as the possessor of the lot and
claimed that the title was lost so they obtained a duplicate copy. Thereafter
they sold the land to petitioner King Corporation. Respondents registered
an adverse claim over the property with the register of deeds. Thereafter a
new TCT was issued to the Petitioner. In this case Respondent Galido sued
King Corporation for the cancellation of the TCT issued to King
Corporation and prayed the same to be issued to them. The Eniceos
claimed that the deed of sale with Galido is a forgery. Petitioners also
claimed that the belated approval of the secretary of the DENR nullifies the
sale.

Issue: Whether the sale with Galido is valid.

Ruling:
The contract between the Eniceo heirs and respondent executed on 10
September 1973 was a perfected contract of sale. A contract is perfected
once there is consent of the contracting parties on the object certain and on
the cause of the obligation. In the present case, the object of the sale is the
Antipolo property and the price certain is P250,000. The execution of the
notarized deed of sale and the delivery of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT
No. 535 to respondent is tantamount to a constructive delivery of the object
of the sale.

The failure to secure the approval of the Secretary does not ipso facto make
a sale void. The approval may be secured later, producing the effect of
ratifying and adopting the transaction as if the sale had been previously
authorized. The registration of the adverse claim constituted, by operation
of law, notice to the whole world. From that date onwards, subsequent
buyers were deemed to have constructive notice of respondent's adverse
claim. Therefore, petitioner cannot be deemed as a purchaser in good faith
when they bought and registered the Antipolo property.
ADORACION ROSALES RUFLOE, ALFREDO RUFLOE and RODRIGO
RUFLOE vs. LEONARDA BURGOS, ANITA BURGOS, ANGELITO
BURGOS, AMY BURGOS, ELVIRA DELOS REYES and JULIAN C. TUBIG
G.R. No. 143573 January 30, 2009 LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Facts:
Sometime in 1978, respondent Elvira Delos Reyes forged the signatures of
Adoracion and Angel in a Deed of Sale to make it appear that the disputed
property was sold to her by the spouses Rufloe. Delos Reyes succeeded in
obtaining a title in her name. Thus, the Rufloes filed a complaint for
damages against Delos Reyes with the RTC of Pasay City alleging that the
Deed of Sale was falsified. They also filed a notice of adverse claim on
November 5, 1979.

During the pendency of Civil Case, Delos Reyes sold the subject property to
respondent siblings (Burgos siblings). A new title, was then issued in their
names. On December 12, 1985, the Burgos siblings, in turn, sold the same
property to their aunt, Leonarda Burgos. However, the sale in favor of
Leonarda was not registered.

Thereafter, RTC of Pasay City, declared that the Deed of Sale in favor of
Delos Reyes was falsified. The trial court ruled that Delos Reyes did not
acquire ownership over the subject property. Such was the state of things
when, the Rufloes filed this case for Declaration of Nullity of Contract and
Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Titles against respondents Leonarda
and the Burgos siblings, and Delos Reyes. The RTC nullified the sale, the
CA reversed the RTC ruling that the Burgoses are buyers in good faith.

Issue: Whether the sale from the Delos Reyes (forger) to the respondent is
valid.

Ruling: NO.
It is undisputed that the forged deed of sale was null and void and conveyed
no title. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what one does not
have. Due to the forged deed of sale, Delos Reyes acquired no right over the
subject property which she could convey to the Burgos siblings. It has been
consistently ruled that a forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title
when an innocent purchaser for value intervenes.
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. 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 therefor and will in no way oblige him to go
beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property.

In this case, facts show that the Rufloes caused a notice of adverse claim to
be annotated on the title of Delos Reyes as early as November 5, 1979. The
annotation of an adverse claim is a measure designed to protect the interest
of a person over a piece of real property, and serves as a notice and warning
to third parties dealing with said property that someone is claiming an
interest on the same or may have a better right than the registered owner
thereof. Despite the notice of adverse claim, the Burgos siblings still
purchased the property in question.

SPS. COL. PEDRO L. LUMBRES and REBECCA ROARING vs.

SPS. PEDRO B. TABLADA, JR. and ZENAIDA N. TABLADA
G.R. No. 165831 February 23, 2007 GARCIA, J

Facts: Petitioners, Spouses Pedro L. Lumbres and Rebecca T. Roaring,

(Spouses Lumbres) entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Spring
Homes Subdivision Co., Inc., through its chairman, the late Mr. Rolando B.
Pasic, for the development of several parcels of land. The Spouses Lumbres
transferred the titles to the parcels of land in the name of Spring Homes.

Spring Homes entered into a Contract to Sell with respondents, Spouses

Pedro Tablada, Jr. and Zenaida Tablada, (Spouses Tablada) for the sale of a
parcel of land. The Spouses Lumbres filed with the RTC of Calamba City a
complaint for Collection of Sum of Money, Specific Performance and
Damages with prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment
against Spring Homes for its alleged failure to comply with the terms of the
Joint Venture Agreement. Spring Homes executed a Deed of Absolute Sale
in favor of the Spouses Tablada. The title over the subject property,
however, remained with Spring Homes for its failure to cause the
cancellation of the TCT and the issuance of a new one in favor of the
Spouses Tablada.
The Spouses Lumbres and Spring Homes entered into a Compromise
Agreement wherein Spring Homes conveyed the subject property, as well as
several others, to the Spouses Lumbres. The Spouses Lumbres started
collecting deficiency payments from the subdivision lot buyers. When no
payment was received, the Spouses Lumbres caused the cancellation of the
Contract to Sell previously executed by Spring Homes in favor of the
Spouses Tablada. the Spouses Lumbres and Spring Homes executed a Deed
of Absolute Sale over the subject property, and as a result, a new title was
issued in the name of the Spouses Lumbres.

The Spouses Lumbres filed an ejectment suit of their own before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Calamba City demanding that
the Spouses Tablada vacate the subject property and pay rentals due
thereon. The MTCC, however, dismissed the suit, ruling that the Spouses
Lumbres registered their title over the subject property in bad faith. Such
ruling was reversed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which found that
there was no valid deed of absolute sale between the Spouses Tablada and
Spring Homes. Nevertheless, the CA, on appeal, agreed with the MTCC and
reinstated the decision thereof.

Issue: Whether or not Spouses Lumbres acquired ownership over the

property.

Ruling: No. The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time,
stronger in right) gains greater significance in case of a double sale of
immovable property. Thus, the Court has consistently ruled that ownership
of an immovable property which is the subject of a double sale shall be
transferred: (1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it
in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the person who in good
faith was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the person who
presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. The requirement of
the law then is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good
faith. Good faith must concur with the registration – that is, the registrant
must have no knowledge of the defect or lack of title of his vendor or must
not have been aware of facts which should have put him upon such inquiry
and investigation as might be necessary to acquaint him with the defects in
the title of his vendor. If it is shown that a buyer was in bad faith, the
alleged registration they have made amounted to no registration at all.
Here, the first buyers of the subject property, the Spouses Tablada, were
able to take said property into possession but failed to register the same
because of Spring Homes’ unjustified failure to deliver the owner’s copy of
the title whereas the second buyers, the Spouses Lumbres, were able to
register the property in their names. But while said the Spouses Lumbres
successfully caused the transfer of the title in their names, the same was
done in bad faith. As correctly observed by the Court in Spouses Lumbres v.
Spouses Tablada, 56 the Spouses Lumbres cannot claim good faith since at
the time of the execution of their Compromise Agreement with Spring
Homes, they were indisputably and reasonably informed that the subject
lot was previously sold to the Spouses Tablada. They were also already
aware that the Spouses Tablada had constmcted a house thereon and were
in physical possession thereof. They cannot, therefore, be permitted to
freely claim good faith on their part for the simple reason that the First
Deed of Absolute Sale between Spring Homes and the Spouses Tablada was
not annotated at the back of the subject property’s title. It is beyond the
Court’s imagination how spouses Lumbres can feign ignorance to the first
sale when the records clearly reveal that they even made numerous
demands on the Spouses Tablada to pay, albeit erroneously, an alleged
balance of the purchase price.