6@D@G %A% %< 5;B
%< =>
Petitioner avers that respon&ent faile& to prove that she is the owner of the propert*, an& points out that the &ocu0entar* evi&ence shows that the ne'otiator over the propert* is Vi&a Dana uerrer an& not Vi&a Dana uerrer-/aufff0an. %here is thus no factual 7a sis for the CA9s fin&in' that the Real
acceptance an& e:ecution of the 0ort'a'e contract B<@< the accusation of 7a& faith to her. @n truth, petitioner ha& 7een reasona7l* &ili'ent to 0eet the ?ustification of a 0ort'a'ee in 'oo& faith.2# 6or her part, respon&ent avers that, contrar* to petitioner9s clai0, the issues raise& in the instant petition are factual in nature. 3oreover, 7ase& on the evi&ence on recor&, 7oth the trial an& appellate courts are one in &eclarin' that she is the lawful re'istere& owner of the propert*, an& that such fin&in's are conclusive on this Court. Besi&es, the petitioner is proscri7e& fro0 assailin' the fin&in's of the trial an& appellate courts since un &er Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, onl* Euestions of law 0a* 7e raise& in this Court. 5he insists that petitioner faile& to esta7lish special an& i0portant reasons for the Court to e:ercise its &iscretion to review the appellate court9s &ecision. %he petition has no 0erit. @n&ee&, the trial an& appellate courts foun& that respon&ent, as plaintiff 7elow, a&&uce& clear an& convincin' evi&ence that she is the owner of the propert* an& that the si'nature on the 5pecial Power of Attorne* an& Real
cralawli7rar*
A Ies, 5ir. >e saw her in Pasa*, 7ut in Bian, she su&&enl* &isappeare& when we arrive&. >hat ti0e &i& *ou see 3ira in her house in Pasa*L
cralawli7rar*
A Between 11++ to 1++ P.3., 5ir. But *ou sai& *ou arrive& there at !++ p.0.L
cralawli7rar*
A Ies, 5ir. Iou 0ean *ou waite&L
cralawli7rar*
A >e waite& for her. Dana sai&, 3a7uti pan' ila7as nin*o an& 0other ni *o. A%%I. CABAR= %he witness is narratin', Iour onor.
A%%I. 3A5AG/AI 5o, finall*, *ou were a7le to tal to 3ira in that houseL
cralawli7rar*
A Ies, 5ir. ow a7out enniferL
cralawli7rar*
A o, 5ir. Alri'ht, what &i& *ou as 3iraL
cralawli7rar*
A 3* sister ase& 3ira who &estro*e& 0* vaultL
cralawli7rar*
>hat was the answer of 3iraL
cralawli7rar*
A 3ira answere&, >h* &i& *ou not infor0 that *ou will 7e co0in'L A%%I. 3A5AG/AI An& thenL
cralawli7rar*
A Dana sai&, what @ a0 asin', *ou 7etter answer. >hat was the answerL
cralawli7rar*
A Accor&in' to her, it was ennifer. @t was ennifer who, whatL
cralawli7rar*
A 5he ?ust sai& ennifer. >hat a7out the titleL
cralawli7rar*
A 3* sister was asin' who &estro*e& the vault, then 3ira answere&, it was ennifer. >e &i& not as an*0ore 7ecause she continue& on talin' an& she sai& ennifer was short of fun&s. 5he sai&, a'ipit asi an' 7ata, naawa ao a*a 7ini'a* o an' titulo. An&, who is enniferL @s this ennifer the sa0e ennifer Ra0ire4 who is one of the &efen& ants hereL cralawli7rar*
A Ies, 5ir. >ho is sheL
cralawli7rar*
A Accor&in' to 0* sister, she is the &au'hter of <&uar&o Victor. >hat else &i& she sa*L
cralawli7rar*
>@%<55 A >hen she sai& that ennifer too it, Dana looe& for ?ewelries. %hen the &au'hter of Beth sai&, %ita Dana, sa7i ni %ita
cralawli7rar*
A >hen Dana learne& a7out that, she sai&, we will file a case a'ainst the0. An& soL
cralawli7rar*
A 3ira nelt &own an& 7e'an to cr* an& was 7e''in'. >hat &i& she sa*L
cralawli7rar*
A 5he sai&, Paran' awa 0o na sa ain, Dana. uluho& ao sa harapan ni *o, patawarin 0o lan' a0i. 5he was cr*in' an& sa*in', Gipit na 'ipit lan' tala'a a0i. Bi'*an 0o a0i n' ontin' panahon at i7a7ali na0in' i*on. 81 %he trial court9s fin&in's of fact as affir0e& 7* the CA are conclusive on this Court a7sent evi&ence that the trial court i'nore&, 0isapplie& or 0isconstrue& facts an& circu0stances of su7stance which, if consi&ere&, woul& alter the outco0e of the case. @n&ee&, un&er Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, onl* Euestions of law 0a* 7e raise&. %his is so 7ecause this Court is not a trier of facts an& is not to re-e:a0ine an& re-evaluate the testi0onial an& &ocu0entar* evi&ence on recor&. >hile the fin&in's an& conclusion of the trial court an& the appellate court 0a* 7e reverse& in e:ceptional circu0stances, the Court cannot &o so in the a7sence of an* such ?ustification or e:ceptional circu0stance, such as in this case. %he rulin' of the CA, that the Real
innocent hol&er of the &ecree of re'istration on the ori'inal petition or applicationF an* su7seEuent re'istration procure& 7* the presentation of a for'e& &uplicate certificate of title, or a for'e& &ee& or other instru0ent, shall 7e null an& voi& ( emphasis supplied ). =ne of the essential reEuisites of a 0ort'a'e contract is that th e 0ort'a'or 0ust 7e the a7solute owner of the thin' 0ort'a'e&.8 A 0ort'a'e is, thus, invali& if the 0ort'a'or is not the propert* owner .82 @n this case, the trial court an& the CA are one in fin&in' that 7ase& on the evi&ence on recor& the owner of the propert* is respon&ent who was not the one who 0ort'a'e& the sa0e to the petitioner. %he evi&ence shows that 3ira Bernal an& ennifer Ra0ire4 were a7le to open respon&ent9s vault an& steal the owner9s &uplicate of %C% o. %-8#1 an& the ta: &eclarations coverin' the propert*F with the connivance of a wo0an who preten&e& to 7e the respon&ent, the* were a7le consu00ate the e:ecution of the Real
the person whose na0e appears therein8" (an& %C% o. %-8#1 shows, on its face, that the owner is the respon&ent), when the instru0ent presente& for re'istration is for'e&, even if acco0panie& 7* the owner9s &uplicate certificate of title, the re'istere& owner &oes not there7* lose his title, an& neither &oes the assi'nee or the 0ort'a'ee, for that 0atter, acEuire an* ri'ht or title to the propert*.8# @n such a case, the transferee or the 0ort'a'ee, 7ase& on a for'e& instru0ent, is not even a purchaser or a 0ort'a'ee for value protecte& 7* law. %hus, in oaEuin v. 3a&ri&,8$ the Court ha& the occasion to state @n the first assi'n0ent of error, it is ar'ue& that since par. of 5ec. of the an& Re'istration Act e:pressl* provi&es that in all cases of re'istration of frau&, the owner 0a* pursue all his le'al an& eEuita7le re0e&ies a'ainst the parties to the frau&, without pre?u&ice to the ri'hts of an* innocent hol&er for value of a certificate of title, the secon& proviso in the sa0e section that a re'istration procure& 7* the presentation of a for'e& &ee& shall 7e null an& voi& shoul& 7e overlooe&. %here is no 0erit in this ar'u0ent, which woul& have the effect of &eletin' the last proviso. %his last proviso is a li0itation of the first part of par. in the sense that in or&er that the hol&er of a certificate for value issue& 7* virtue of the re'istration of a voluntar* instru0ent 0a* 7e consi&ere& a hol&er in 'oo& faith for value, the instru0ent re'istere& shoul& not 7e for'e&. >hen the instru0ent presente& is for'e&, even if acco 0panie& 7* the owner9s &uplicate certificate of title, the re'istere& owner &oes not there7* lose his title, an& neither &oes the assi'nee in the for'e& &ee& acEuire an* ri'ht or title to the propert*. @n the secon& assi'n0ent of error, it is further ar'ue& that as the petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value, he shoul& 7e protecte& as a'ainst the re'istere& owner 7ecause the latter can secure reparation fro0 the assurance fun&. %he fact is, howeve r, that petitioner herein is not the innocent purchaser for value protecte& 7* law. %he innocent purchaser for value protecte& 7* law is one who purchases a title& lan& 7* virtue of a &ee& e:ecute& 7* the re'istere& owner hi0self, not 7* a for'e& &ee&, as the law e:pressl* states. 5uch is not the situation of the petitioner, who has 7een the victi0 of i0postors preten&in' to 7e the re'istere& owners 7ut who are not sai& owners.+ %he Court cite& this rulin' in the oaEuin case in 5olivel v. 6rancisco,1 to wit
%his rulin' was later reiterate& in @nsurance 5ervices J Co00ercial %ra&ers, @nc. v. Court of Appeals,2 where the Court stresse& that in or&er that the hol&er of a certificate of value issue& 7* virtue of the re'istration of a voluntar* instru0ent 0a* 7e consi&ere& a hol&er in 'oo& faith an& for value, the instru0ent re'istere& shoul& not 7e for'e&. @n Cavite Develop0ent Ban v. i0,8 the Court e:plaine& the &octrine of 0ort'a'ee in 'oo& faith, thus %here is, however, a situation where, &espite the fact that the 0ort'a'or is not the owner of the 0ort'a'e& propert*, his title 7ein' frau&ulent, the 0ort'a'e contract an& an* foreclosure sale arisin' therefro0 are 'iven effect 7* reason of pu7lic polic*. %his is the &octrine of 0ort'a'ee in 'oo& faith 7ase& on the rule that all persons &ealin' with the propert* covere& 7* a %orrens Certificate of %itle, as 7u*ers or 0ort'a'ees, are not reEuire& to 'o 7e*on& what appears on the face of the title. %he pu7lic interest in uphol&in' the in&efeasi7ilit* of a certificate of title, as evi&ence of lawful ownership of the lan& or of an* encu07rance thereon, protects a 7u*er or 0ort'a'ee who, in 'oo& faith, relie& upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title. @n&ee&, a 0ort'a'ee has a ri'ht to rel* in 'oo& faith on the certificate of title of the 0ort'a'or of the propert* 'iven as securit* an& in the a7sence of an* si'n that 0i'ht arouse suspicion, has no o7li'ation to un&ertae further investi'ation. ence, even if the 0ort'a'or is not the ri'htful owner of, or &oes not have a vali& title to, the 0ort'a'e& propert*, the 0ort'a'ee in 'oo& faith is nonetheless entitle& to protection.! %his &octrine presupposes, however, that the 0ort'a'or, who is not the ri'htful owner of the propert*, has alrea&* succee&e& in o7tainin' a %orrens title over the propert* in his na0e an& that, after o7tainin' the sai& title, he succee&s in 0ort'a'in' the propert* to another who relies on what appears on the sai& title. %he innocent purchaser (0ort'a'ee in this case) for value protecte& 7* law is one who purchases a title& lan& 7* virtue of a &ee& e:ecute& 7* the re'istere& owner hi0self, not 7* a for'e& &ee&, as the law e:pressl* states. 5uch is not the situation of petitioner, who has 7een the victi0 of i0postors preten&in' to 7e the re'istere& owners 7ut who are not sai& owners." %he &octrine of 0ort'a'ee in 'oo& faith &oes not appl* to a situation where the title is still in the na0e of the ri'htful owner an & the 0ort'a'or is a &ifferent person preten&in' to 7e the owner. @n such a case, the 0ort'a'ee is not an innocent 0ort'a'ee for value an& the re'istere& owner will 'enerall* not lose his title. >e thus a'ree with the followin' &iscussion of the CA %he trial court wron'l* applie& in this case the &octrine of 0ort'a'ee in 'oo& faith which has 7een allowe& in 0an* instances 7ut in a 0ilieu &issi0ilar fro0 this case. %his &octrine is 7ase& on the rule that persons &ealin' with properties covere& 7* a %orrens certificate of title are not reEuire& to 'o 7e*on& what appears on the face of the title. But this is onl* in a situation where the 0ort'a'or has a frau&ulent or otherwise &efective title, 7u t not when the 0ort'a'or is an i0postor an& a for'er. @n a for'e& 0ort'a'e, as in this case, the &octrine of 0ort'a'ee in 'oo& faith cannot 7e applie& an& will not 7enefit a 0ort'a'ee no 0atter how lar'e is his or her reservoir of 'oo& faith an& &ili'ence. 5uch 0ort'a'e is voi& an& cannot pre?u&ice the re'istere& owner whose si'nature to the &ee& is falsifie&. >hen the instru0ent presente& is for'e&, even if acco0panie& 7* the owner9s &uplicate certificate of title, the re'istere& owner &oes not lose his title, an& neither &oes
the assi'nee in the for'e& &ee& acEuire an* ri'ht or title to the propert*. An innocent purchaser for value is one who purchases a title& lan& 7* virtue of a &ee& e:ecute& 7* the re'istere& owner hi0self not a for'e& &ee&.# As aforesai&, respon&ent9s si'nature on the Real
1
Penne& 7* Associate ustice Ro7erto A. Barrios, with Associate ustices 3ariano C. &el Castillo an& 3a'&an'al 3. &e eon, concurrin'F rollo, pp. $-2!.
Penne& 7* u&'e 3anuel B. 6ernan&e4, r.F i&. at !2-!!.
2
<:hi7its B an& C.
8
%5, 5epte07er ", 1$$#, pp. 1!-1$.
%5, 5epte07er 2+, 1$$#, pp. 2!-2".
!
%5, 5epte07er ", 1$$#, p. +.
"
%5, 5epte07er 2+, 1$$#, p. 2#.
#
%5, 5epte07er ", 1$$#, pp. -2.
$
<:hi7it <-2.
1+
<:hi7it <-.
11
%5, 5epte07er 2+, 1$$#, pp. 8"-8#.
1
Recor&s, pp. 1-!.
12
Recor&s, pp. -8.
18
@&. at -!.
1
@&. at 2!.
1!
@.5. o. P-$"-"1.
1"
Recor&s, pp. 11#-11.
1#
%5, 5epte07er ", 1$$$, pp. 1$-+.
1$
%5, 5epte07er ", 1$$$, pp. -".
+
%5, 5epte07er ", 1$$$, pp. -!.
1
<:hi7its 1+ an& 1+-A.
%5, ove07er 1, 1$$#, pp. 2-2#.
2
%5, ove07er 1, 1$$#, p. 81.
8
@&. at 8.
@&. at 2".
!
<:hi7its < an& .
"
<:hi7it CC.
#
22 Phil. !82 (1$$").
$
G.R. o. !81$, 5epte07er 1+, 1$#, 12# 5CRA 8#$.
2+
Recor&s, p. ".
21
G.R. o. 18+, 6e7ruar* 1+, 1$#$, 1"+ 5CRA 1#.
2
CA rollo, pp. #"-##.
22
Art. +#. %he followin' reEuisites are essential to the contracts of ple&'e an& 0ort'a'e
:::: () %hat the ple&'or or 0ort'a'or 7e the a7solute owner of the thin' ple&'e& or 0ort'a'e&F 28
Art. 18+$. %he followin' contracts are ine:istent an& voi& fro0 the 7e'innin'
:::: () %hose which are a7solutel* si0ulate& or fictitiousF :::: 2
2$ Phil. "$1 (+++).
2!
Rollo, pp. 22-28.
2"
@&. at 12.
2#
@&. at -2.
2$
<:hi7it ;.
8+
<:hi7it A.
81
%5, 5epte07er 2+, 1$$#, pp. 8-8#. ( Underscoring supplied )
cralawli7rar*
8
Article +# () of the Civil Co&e of the Philippines.
82
A&riano v. Pan'ilinan, 88 Phil. "#, #" (++).
88
Rollo, p. 2.
8
@&. at 21-2.
8!
Repu7lic v. =rfina&a, 5r., G.R. o. 18118, ove07er 1, ++8, 88 5CRA 28, 2$.
8"
A&riano v. Pan'ilinan, supra note 82, at ##.
8#
oaEuin v. 3a&ri&, 1+! Phil. 1+!+ (1$!+).
8$
5upra.
+
@&. at 1+!2-1+!8.
1
5upra note 21.
@&. at .
2
5upra note 2, at #+1.
8
2#1 Phil. 2 (+++).
@&. at 2!#.
!
Ca7uhat v. Court of Appeals, 81# Phil. 81, 8!+ (++1).
"
oaEuin v. 3a&ri&, supra note 8#, at 1+!2-1+!8, reiterate& in 5olivel v. 6rancisco, supra note 21.
#
Rollo, pp. 22-28.