G.R. No.

190901               November 12, 2014 Unknown to the Revilla spouses, Amada

presented a fictitious document entitled
AMADA COTONER-ZACARIAS, Petitioner,
"Kasulatan ng Bilihanng Lupa" before the
vs.
Provincial Assessor of Cavite. This document
SPOUSES ALFREDO AND THE HEIRS REVILLA OF
was executed on March 19, 1979 with the
PAZ REVILLA, Respondents.
Revilla spouses as sellers and Amada as buyer of
DECISION the property.7 Consequently, Tax Declaration
No. 7971 in the name of the Revilla spouses was
LEONEN, J.: cancelled, and Tax Declaration No. 19773 in the
Well-settled is the rule that "conveyances by name of Amada was issued.
virtue of a forged signature ... are void ab initio On August 25, 1984, Amada sold the property
[as] [t]he absence of the essential [requisites] of to the spouses Adolfo and Elvira Casorla
consent and cause or consideration in these (Casorla spouses) by "Deed of Absolute
cases rendered the contract inexistent[.]"1 SaleUnregistered Land." Tax Declaration No.
Before us is a petition for review2 filed by 30411-A was later issued in the name of the
Amada Cotoner-Zacarias against respondent Casorla spouses.8
spouses Alfredo Revilla and Paz Castillo-Revilla, In turn, the Casorla spouses executed a deed of
praying that this court render a decision absolute sale dated December 16, 1991 in favor
"reversing the Decision of the Regional Trial of the spouses Rodolfo and Yolanda Sun (Sun
Court and Court of Appeals and declaring the spouses). Tax Declaration Nos. 30852-A and
transfer of title to the Petitioner and then to her 18584 were issued in favor of the Sun spouses.9
successors-in-interest as valid and binding as
against the respondents."3 In December 1994, Alfredo Revilla returned
from Saudi Arabia. He asked Amada why she
The Court of Appeals summarized the facts as had not returnedtheir tax declaration
follows. considering their full payment of the loan. He
Alfredo Revilla and Paz Castillo-Revilla (Revilla then discovered that the property’s tax
spouses) are the owners in fee simple of a declaration was already in the name of the Sun
15,000-square-meter unregistered parcel of spouses.10
land in Silang, Cavite, covered by Tax On February 15, 1995, the Revilla spouses were
Declaration No. 7971.4 served a copy of the answer11 in the land
In 1983, the Revilla spouses faced financial registration case filed by the Sun spouses for
difficulties in raising funds for Alfredo Revilla’s the property.12 The Revilla spouses then saw a
travel to Saudi Arabia, so Paz Castillo-Revilla copy of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" and
borrowed money from Amada Cotoner-Zacarias noticed that their signatures as sellers were
(Amada). By way of security, the parties verbally forged.13
agreed that Amada would take physical They then demanded the cancellation of the
possession of the property, cultivate it, then use "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" from Amada and
the earnings from the cultivation to pay the all subsequent transfers of the property, its
loan and realty taxes.5 Upon full payment of the reconveyance, and the restoration of its tax
loan, Amada would return the property to the declaration in their name.14 Amada failed to
Revilla spouses.6 take action.
On November 17, 1995, the Revillaspouses filed title/taxdeclaration as well as possession of the
a complaint before the Tagaytay Regional Trial subject property;
Court for the annulment of sales and transfers
2. Ordering defendant Zacariasto pay the
of title and reconveyance of the property with
following:
damages against Amada, the Casorla spouses,
the Sun spouses, and the Provincial Assessor of 2.1 To the Plaintiffs:
Cavite.15
a. ₱50,000.00 for moral damages;
In her answer, Amada denied that the property
was used as a security for the Revilla spouses’ b. ₱20,000.00 for exemplary damages; and
loan.16 Instead, she claimed that the Revilla c. ₱80,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
spouses voluntarily executed the "Kasulatan ng
Bilihan ng Lupa" in her favor on March 19, 1979. 2.2 To Defendant-Spouses Sun:
She added that the Revilla spouses’ cause of a. ₱467,350.00 for actual damages;
action already prescribed.17
b. ₱50,000.00 for moral damages;
For their part, the Sun spouses argued good
faith belief that Amada was the real owner of c. ₱20,000.00 for exemplary damages; and
the property asAmada showed them a tax
d. ₱100,000.00 for attorney’s fees.
declaration in her name and the "Kasulatan ng
Bilihan ng Lupa" allegedly executed by the SO ORDERED.23
Revilla spouses.18 When the Sun spouses
Amada appealed the trial court’s decision, while
discovered there was another sale with the
the Sun spouses partially appealed the decision
Casorla spouses, they were assured by Amada
as to interest and damages.
that she had already bought back the property
from the Casorla spouses.19 Subsequently, the On August 13, 2009, the Court of
Casorla spouses executed a deed ofabsolute Appeals24 dismissed the appeal of Amada, and
sale dated December 16, 1991 in favor of the partially granted the appeal of the Sun spouses.
Sun spouses.20 They also argued prescription The dispositive portion reads:
against the Revilla spouses, and prayed for
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises,
damages against Amada by way of crossclaim.21
judgment is hereby rendered by us DISMISSING
On August 3, 2006, the Regional Trial the appeal filed by defendant appellant Amada
Court22 found the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng C. Zacarias in this case, and PARTIALLY
Lupa" to be a fictitious document, and ruled in GRANTING the appeal filed by the Spouses
favor of the Revilla spouses: Rodolfo and Yolanda Sun. The Decision dated
August 3, 2006 rendered by Branch 18 of the
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is
Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial
hereby rendered as follows:
Region stationed in Tagaytay City, Cavite in Civil
1. Declaring the sales/transfers from Tax Case No. TG-1543 is MODIFIED in that
Declaration No. 7971, s. 1980 to Tax Declaration defendant-appellant Amada C. Zacarias is
No. 18584, s. 1994 as NULL and VOID, without ordered to pay interest at 6% per annum on the
valid transmission of title and interest from the principal obligation in the amount of
original owners, plaintiffs herein and ₱467,350.00 from February 3, 1995, the date of
consequently, entitling plaintiffs to the first judicial demand by the Spouses Sun,
reinstatement and reconveyance of their until said decision on the principal obligation
became final and executory, and interest at 12% On the prescription argument, the parties live in
per annum on the principal obligation, moral a very small barangay. While Alfredo Revilla
and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s worked in Saudi Arabia, he admitted returning
fees, from the time said decision became final to the Philippines twice a year, while his wife
and executory until full payment of said never left Silang, Cavite,32 and yet the Revilla
amounts. spouses never questioned the activities on the
property for more than 16 years.33
SO ORDERED.25
On the proper docket fees, petitioner contends
The Court of Appeals denied Amada’s motion
that the Revilla spouses paid docket fees based
for reconsideration; hence, she filed this
on their prayer for actual damages of
petition. Petitioner argues that the
₱50,000.00, moral damages of ₱50,000.00, and
antichresisclaim of the Revilla spouses was not
attorney’s fee of ₱80,000.00, when they should
reduced into writing, thus, it is void under
have based it on ₱12,000,000.00, the value of
Article 2134 of the Civil Code.26 She submits that
the property they alleged in their supplemental
the allegation of antichresis was only an excuse
pre-trial brief.34
by the Revilla spouses for their failure to
impugn possession of the property by Amada Lastly, petitioner argues that the property is
and her successors-in-interest for over 16 conjugal in nature, but the court never declared
years.27 that respondent Paz Castillo-Revilla’s signature
was falsified. Thus, the sale over her half of the
Petitioner contends that the sale inher favor
property cannot be declared void.35 She adds
was established by the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng
that the Sun spouses are buyers in good faith
Lupa," the delivery of the tax declaration, and
for value, making reinstatement of the property
the testimony of one Mrs. Rosita Castillo
impossible.36
(Rosita).28 Rosita was the second wife of
Felimon Castillo, the previous owner of the Respondents Revilla spouses counter that the
property. She testified that respondent Paz factual issue of whether the "Kasulatan ng
Castillo-Revilla admitted toher father, Felimon, Bilihan ng Lupa" isa falsified document was
that she and Alfredo Revilla sold the property to already conclusively resolved by the lower
Amada.29 courts and, generally, factual findings are
beyond this court’s power of review.37
On the alleged forgery, petitioner submits that
the court misapplied the principle that "he who On the prescription issue, respondents Revilla
alleges not he who denies must prove" when it spouses argue that an action or defense to
stated that she had the burden of proving the declare a document null is
due execution of the deed of absolute sale. imprescriptible.38 Laches also does not apply
Since the Revilla spouses alleged that the since they immediately questioned the
deedwas a forged document, they had the fraudulent transfers by filing a complaint in
burden of proving the forgery.30 She then cites November 1995 upon learning of the
the trial court in that "[a]ccordingly, the questionable documents in February 1995, after
National Bureauof Investigation was not able to Alfredo had returned from Saudi Arabia in
ascertain the genuineness of the signatureof December 1994.39
plaintiff Paz Revilla because of lack of sufficient
Respondents Revilla spouses contend that they
sample signatures. . . ."31
paid the proper docket fees. The
₱12,000,000.00 mentioned during pre-trial that
petitioner insists should have been the basis of On the first issue, petitioner argues that
the fees was neither stated in the complaint nor respondents Revilla spouses’ claim is barred by
awarded by the court.40 laches since theyallowed 16 years to lapse, with
petitioner having possession of the property,
Respondents Revilla spouses argue that the
before filing suit.46
court did not err in ordering reinstatement of
the property tothem. First, the defense that the Laches has been defined as "the failure or
Sun spouses were buyers in good faith is a neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained
personal defense that cannot be raised by length of time, to do that which — by the
petitioner who was not privy to the sale exercise of due diligence — could or should
between the Casorla spouses and the Sun have been done earlier."47
spouses.41 Second, an alternative prayer for
The elements that need to be present and
damages cannot be interpreted as an admission
proven before an action is considered barred by
that the relief for reinstatement is not
laches are the following:
viable.42 Third, the transaction happened prior
to the effectivity of the Family Code; thus, The four basic elements of laches are: (1)
Article 172 of the Civil Code applies such that conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one
"[t]he wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership under whom he claims, giving rise to the
without the husband’s consent, except in cases situation of which complaint is made and for
provided by law."43 Consequently, the result is which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay
the same even if respondent Paz Castillo-Revilla in asserting the complainant's rights, the
did not testify that the signature is not hers, as complainant having had knowledge or notice of
she cannot bind the entire property without her the defendant’s conduct and having been
husband’s consent.44 Lastly, no unjust afforded an opportunity to institute suit; (3) lack
enrichment exists since they were deprived of of knowledge or notice on the part of the
their property for so long.45 defendant that the complainant would assert
the right on which he bases his suit; and, (4)
The issues for this court’s resolution are as
injury or prejudice to the defendant in the
follows:
event relief is accorded to the complainant or
First, whether respondents Revilla spouses’ the suit is not held to be barred.48
cause of action is barred by prescription or
There was no delay by respondents Revilla
laches; Second, whether the trial court acquired
spouses in asserting their rights over the
jurisdiction when respondents Revilla spouses
property. The lower courts found that
paid filing fees based on the ₱50,000.00 claim
respondents Revilla spouses first learned of the
for damages in the complaint but stated in their
existence of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa"
supplemental pre-trial brief that the property is
in February 1995 when they were serveda copy
valued at ₱12,000,000.00; and
of the pleading in the land registration case
Third, whether the Court of Appeals erred in instituted by the Sun spouses.49 They filed their
upholding the reinstatement and reconveyance complaint within the same year, specifically, on
of the property in favor of respondents Revilla November 17, 1995. The lapse of only nine (9)
spouses. months from the time they learned of the
questionable transfers on the property cannot
I.
be considered as sleeping on their rights.
In any case, doctrines of equity such as laches that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the
apply only in the absence of statutory law. The subject matter or nature of the action."54
Civil Code clearly provides that "[t]he action or
In Manchester Development Corporation v.
defense for the declaration of the inexistence of
Court of Appeals,55 this court "condemned the
a contract does not prescribe."50 This court has
practice of counsel who in filing the original
discussed:
complaint omitted from the prayer any
Lachesis a doctrine in equity and our courts are specification of the amount of damages
basically courts of law and not courts of equity. although the amount of over 78 million is
Equity, which has been aptly described as alleged in the body of the complaint."56 The
"justice outside legality," should be applied only court gave the following warning against this
in the absence of, and never against, statutory unethical practice that serves no other purpose
law. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The than to avoid paying the correct filing fees:
positive mandate of Art. 1410 of the New Civil
The Court serves warning that itwill take drastic
Code conferring imprescriptibility to actions for
action upon a repetition of this unethical
declaration of the inexistence of a contract
practice. To put a stop to this irregularity,
should pre-empt and prevail over all abstract
henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers
arguments based only on equity. Certainly,
and other similar pleadings should specify the
laches cannot be set up to resist the
amount of damages being prayed for not only
enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right,
inthe body of the pleading but also in the
and petitioners can validly vindicate their
prayer, and said damages shall be considered in
inheritance despite the lapse of time.51
the assessment of the filing fees in any case.
II. Any pleading that fails to comply with this
requirement shall not be accepted nor
On the second issue, petitioner argues that
admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from
respondents Revilla spouses did not pay the
the record.
correct docket fees. She submits that docket
fees paid were based on the prayer for actual The Court acquires jurisdiction over any case
damages of ₱50,000.00, moral damages of only upon the payment of the prescribed docket
₱50,000.00, and attorney’s fee of ₱80,000.00, fee. An amendment of the complaint or similar
when the spouses Revilla should have based it pleading will not thereby vest jurisdiction in the
on ₱12,000,000.00, the value of the property Court, much less the payment of the docket fee
they alleged in their supplemental pre-trial based on the amounts sought in the amended
brief.52 Petitioner cites Supreme Court Circular pleading. The ruling in the Magaspi case in sofar
No. 7 and jurisprudence holding that the as it is inconsistent with this pronouncement is
payment of proper docket fees is crucial in overturned and reversed.57 (Emphasis supplied)
vesting courts with jurisdiction over the subject
This ruling was circularized through Supreme
matter.53
Court Circular No. 758 addressed to all lower
This court finds that respondents Revilla court judges and the Integrated Bar of the
spouses paid the proper docket fees, thus, the Philippines for dissemination to and guidance
trial court acquired jurisdiction. for all its members.

It is true that "[i]t is not simply the filing of the The facts of this case differ from Manchester
complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, and similar situations envisioned under the
but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, circular. The complaint filed by respondents
Revilla spouses included in its prayer the spouses provides that the land had a market
amount of ₱50,000.00 as actual damages, value of ₱13,500.00, while the mango trees had
without mention of any other amount in the a market value of ₱3,500.00.62 Petitioner
body of the complaint. No amended complaint alleged in her petition that respondents Revilla
was filed to increase this amount in the prayer. spouses offered to sell the property to her for
Thus, the Court of Appeals found as follows: ₱50,000.00,63 while the trial court found that
the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" reflected the
In the case at bench, the complaint filed by the
amount of ₱20,000.00.64 Subsequent tax
Spouses Revilla only asked for actual damages
declarations in the name of petitioner, the
in the amount of ₱50,000.00. While the Spouses
Casorla spouses, and the Sun spouses all
Revilla mentioned the amount of
provided for land market values lower than
₱12,000,000.00 as actual damages in the pre-
₱50,000.00.65 The deed of sale in favor of the
trial, said amount was not stated in the
Casorla spouses states that the assessed value
complaint and neither was it awarded by the
of the property was ₱1,400.00, and the
lower court in its judgment. Hence, said amount
consideration for the sale was ₱50,000.00.66 The
was not even considered by the court a quo
subsequent deed of sale in favor of the Sun
when it awarded damages in favor of the
spouses provides for the same amount as
Spouses Revilla. Considering that the complaint
consideration.67
was not formally amended by the spouses to
increase the amount of actual damages being None of these documents submitted by
sought, the trial court was not stripped of its petitioner indicate an amount in excess of the
jurisdiction to try the case since the Spouses ₱50,000.00 prayed for by respondents Revilla
Revilla correctly paid the docket fees based spouses as actual damages in their complaint.
merely on what was prayed for in the Thus, the basis for the ₱12,000,000.00 value
complaint.Indeed, the mere mentioning by the raised during pre-trial is unclear. Based on the
Spouses Revilla of the amount of complaint, respondents Revilla spouses paid the
₱12,000,000.00 during the pre-trial is correct docket fees computed from the
inconsequential, as the trial court properly amounts in their prayer.
acquired jurisdiction over the action when the
III.
Spouses Revilla filed the complaint and paid the
requisite filing fees based on the amount as The third issue involves the reinstatement of
prayed for in the complaint.59 (Emphasis respondents Revilla spouses in the property and
supplied) reconveyance of its tax declaration in their
favor.
In Padlan v. Dinglasan,60 this court reiterated
that "[w]hat determines the jurisdiction of the Petitioner argues that antichresis is a formal
court is the nature of the action pleaded as contract that must be in writing in order to be
appearing from the allegations in the complaint valid.68 Respondents Revilla spouses were not
[and] [t]he averments therein and the character able to prove the existence of the alleged
of the relief sought are the ones to be antichresis contract. On the other hand, the sale
consulted."61 of the property to petitioner was established by
the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" and the
Petitioner attached copies of the tax
testimony of Rosita Castillo, the second wife of
declarations and deeds of sale over the
the previous owner, Felimon Castillo.69
property to the petition. Tax Declaration No.
7971 in the name of respondents Revilla
We affirm the lower courts’ order of Php3,000.00 as rental for the first year, 1981,
reinstatement and reconveyance of the with no specific agreement as to the period
property in favor of respondents Revilla covered by such rental[.]73 (Emphasis supplied)
spouses.
Article 2132 of the Civil Code provides that "[b]y
Respondents Revilla spouses’ complaint sought the contract of antichresis the creditor acquires
"to annul the sales and transfers of title the right to receive the fruits of an immovable
emanating from Tax Declaration No. 7971 of his debtor, with the obligation to apply them
registered in their name involving a 15,000- to the payment of the interest, if owing, and
square[-]meter unregistered land . . . with thereafter to the principal of his credit."
prayer for reconveyance and claims for
Thus, antichresis involves an express agreement
damages."70 There was no prayer to declare the
between parties such that the creditor will have
purported contract of sale as antichresis.71 Thus,
possession of the debtor’s real property given
respondents Revilla spouses neither discussed
as security, and such creditor will apply the
nor used the term "antichresis" in their
fruits of the property to the interest owed by
comment and memorandum before this court.
the debtor, if any, then to the principal
They focused on the nature of their complaint
amount.74
as one for annulment of titles on the ground of
forgery.72 At most, the trial court’s summary of The term, antichresis, has a Greek origin with
respondents Revilla spouses’ evidence "‘anti’ (against) and ‘chresis’ (use) denoting the
described the parties’ agreements as follows: action of giving a credit ‘against’ the ‘use’ of a
property."75
Plaintiffs’ evidence and the testimony of
plaintiff Alfredo Revilla tend to indicate that Historically, 15th century B.C. tablets revealed
plaintiffs are the owners in fee simple of a that "antichresis contracts were commonly
15,000-square[-]meter unregistered land, employed in the Sumerian and Akkadian
located at Brgy. Adlas, Silang, Cavite. Their Mesopotamian cultures."76 Antichresis contracts
ownership being evidenced by Tax Declaration were incorporated in Babylonian law, modifying
No. 7971, s. 1980 (Exh. "A"). Sometime in 1981, and combining it with that of mortgage
plaintiffs needed money for the travel and pledge.77 Nearing the end of the classical period,
deployment of plaintiff Alfredo to Saudi Arabia. antichresis contracts entered Roman law that
Plaintiff Paz Revilla sought financial help from "adopted the convention that the tenant
defendant Cotoner-Zacarias from whom she usufruct had to be exactly compensated by the
was able to obtain a loan but secured with and interest on the lump sum payment."78 During
by way of mortgage of the subject property. The the middle ages, canon law banned antichresis
parties further agreed that defendant Cotoner contracts for being a form of usury.79 These
Zacarias would take possession of the subject contracts only reappeared in the 1804
property and cultivate it with the earnings Napoleonic Code that influenced the laws of
therefrom to be used to pay-off the loan and most countries today.80 It had been observed
the annual realty taxes on the land.It was their that "antichresis contracts coexist with periodic
agreement with defendant Cotoner Zacarias rent contracts in many property markets."81
that the latter will rent the subject property and
with that agreement, the lease started In the Civil Code, antichresis provisions may be
sometime in 1981 and plantiffs got from found under Title XVI, together with other
defendant Cotoner-Zacarias the amount of security contracts such as pledge and mortgage.
Antichresis requires delivery of the property to of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
the antichretic creditor, but the latter cannot saying that "there exist significant differences in
ordinarily acquire this immovable property in handwriting characteristics/habits between the
his or her possession by prescription.82 questioned and the standard/sample signatures
‘ALFREDO REVILLA’ such as in the manner of
Similar to the prohibition against pactum
execution of strokes, structural pattern of
commissorium83 since creditors cannot
letters/elements, and minute identifying
"appropriate the thingsgiven by way of pledge
details", as well as the trial court’s own visual
or mortgage, or dispose of them,"84 an
analysis of the document and the sample
antichretic creditor also cannot appropriate the
signatures of plaintiff-appellee Alfredo, clearly
real property in his or her favor upon the non-
showed that his signature on the said Kasulatan
payment of the debt.85
ng Bilihan ng Lupawas indeed forged.89
Antichresis also requires that the amount of the
Petitioner contends that the lower courts never
principal and the interest be in writing for the
declared as falsified the signature of Alfredo’s
contract to be valid.86
wife, Paz Castillo-Revilla. Since the property is
However, the issue before us does not concern conjugal in nature, the sale as to the one-half
the nature of the relationship between the share ofPaz Castillo-Revilla should not be
parties, but the validity of the documents that declared as void.90
caused the subsequent transfers of the
The transaction took place before the effectivity
property involved.
of the Family Code in 2004. Generally, civil laws
The reinstatement of the propertyin favor of have no retroactive effect.91 Article 256 of the
respondents Revilla spouses was anchored on Family Code provides that "[it] shall have
the lower courts’ finding that their signatures as retroactive effect insofar as it does not
sellers in the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
were forged. accordance with the Civil Code or other laws."

This court has held that the "question of forgery Article 165 of the Civil Code states that "[t]he
is one of fact."87 Well-settled is the rule that husband is the administrator of the conjugal
"[f]actual findings of the lower courts are partnership." Article 172 of the Civil Code
entitled great weight and respect on appeal, provides that "[t]he wife cannot bind the
and in fact accorded finality when supported by conjugal partnership without the husband’s
substantial evidence on the record."88 consent, except incases provided by law."92 In
any case, the Family Code also provides as
The Court of Appeals agreed with the finding of follows:
the trial court that the signature of Alfredo
Revilla in the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" was Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of
forged: the community property shall belong to both
spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the
It was convincingly found by the court a quo husband’s decision shall prevail, subject to
that the Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupaor Deed of recourse to the court by the wife for proper
Sale covering the subject property allegedly remedy, which must be availed of within five
executed by the Spouses Revilla in favorof years from the date of the contract
Zacarias was spurious, as the trial court, after implementing such decision.
relying on the report of the handwriting experts
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or of a Commission/Order appointing Atty.
otherwise unable to participate in the Diosdado de Mesa, the lawyer who notarized
administration of the common properties, the the subject document, as Notary Public for the
other spouse may assume sole powers of Province and City of Cavite (Exh. "Y" to "Y-2");
administration. These powers do not include Certification from the Records Management
disposition or encumbrance without authority and Archives Office, Manila that no copy is on
of the court or the written consent of the other file with the said office of the Deed of Sale
spouse. In the absence of such authority or allegedly executed by plaintiffs before Notary
consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall Public Diosdado de Mesa, for and within Imus,
be void. However, the transaction shall be Cavite, acknowledged as Doc. No. 432, Page No.
construed as a continuing offer on the part of 45, Book No. VIII, Series of 1979 (Exh. "Z" to "Z-
the consenting spouse and the third person, 1"); Certification issued by Clerk of Court, Atty.
and may be perfected as a binding contract Ana Liza M. Luna, Regional Trial Court, Tagaytay
upon the acceptance by the other spouse or City that there is no available record on file of a
authorization by the court before the offer Commission/Order appointing Atty. Diosdado
iswithdrawn by either or both offerors. de Mesa as Notary Public for the Province and
(Emphasis supplied) Cities of Tagaytay, Cavite and Trece Martires in
1979 (Exh. "AA" to"AA-2"); Certification issued
Thus, as correctly found by the Court of
by Clerk of Court, Atty. Jose O, Lagao, Jr.,
Appeals, "assuming arguendo that the signature
Regional Trial Court, Multiple Sala, Bacoor,
of plaintiff-appellee Paz on the Kasulatan ng
Cavite that there isno available record on file of
Bilihan ng Lupawas not forged, her signature
a Commission/Order appointing Atty. Diosdado
alone would still not bind the subject property,
de Mesa as Notary Public for the Province and
it being already established that the said
City of Cavite (Exh. "BB" to "BB-2"); and
transaction was made without the consent of
Certification issued by Clerk of Court, Atty.
her husband plaintiff-appellee Alfredo."93
Regalado E. Eusebio, Regional Trial Court,
Lastly, petitioner argues that she has no Multiple Sala, Imus, Cavite that there is no
obligation to prove the genuineness and due available record on file of a Commission/Order
execution of the "Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa" appointing Atty. Diosdado de Mesa as Notary
considering it is a public document.94 Public for the Province of Cavite (Exh. "CC" to
"CC-2").95 (Emphasis supplied).
The trial court found otherwise. Atty. Diosdado
de Mesa, who allegedly notarized the Petitioner contends that the Sun spouses were
"Kasulatanng Bilihan ng Lupa," was not a buyers in good faith for value, thus, the court
commissioned notary public. The trial court erred in ordering reinstatement of the property
discussed as follows: in favor of respondents Revilla spouses.96

Furthermore, it was discovered that the notary This court has held that "the rule in land
public who purportedly notarized the registration law that the issue of whether the
"Kasulatanng Bilihan ng Lupa" has not been buyer of realty is in good or bad faith is relevant
registered notary public in the province of only where the subject of the sale is
Cavite in 1979 nor at present. The record bears registeredland and the purchase was made
out various Certifications to prove there is no from the registered owner whose title to the
available record on file with the Office of the land is clean[.]"97 Our laws have adopted the
Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Cavite City Torrens system to strengthen public confidence
in land transactions: [T]he 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 insure 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 losing his acquisition. 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.98

Necessarily, those who rely in good faith on a

clean title issued under the Torrens system for
registered lands must be protected.1âwphi1 On
the other hand, those who purchase
unregistered lands do so at their own peril.99

This good faith argument cannot be considered

as this case involves unregistered land. In any
case, as explained by respondents Revilla
spouses in their memorandum, this is a defense
personal to the Sun spouses and cannot be
borrowed by petitioner.100 The Sun spouses no
longer raised this argument on appeal, but only
made a partial appeal regarding legal interest
on the award.101