Republic of the Philippines correctness of the certificate thus issued, acquire rights over the

SUPREME COURT property, the court cannot disregard such rights.”

Manila
Same; Same; Same; Evidence in the case at bar discloses that
SECOND DIVISION when petitioner purchased the subject property on June 10, 1970,
the title thereto was in the name of her vendor Rafaela Donato
G.R. No. 94114 June 19, 1991 alone.––In the case at bar, the evidence on record discloses that
when petitioner purchased the subject property on June 10, 1970,
FELICISIMA PINO, petitioner, the title thereto (TCT No. T-32683) was in the name of her vendor
vs. Rafaela Donato alone.
COURT OF APPEALS, DEMETRIA GAFFUD, ROMUALDO
GAFFUD, ADOLFO GAFFUD & RAYMUNDO Same; Same; Same; Rule that all persons dealing with property
GAFFUD, respondents. covered by torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond
what appears on the face of the title well settled.––“x x x Well
Ramon A. Barcelona for petitioner. settled is the rule that all persons dealing with property covered
Eligio A. Labog for private respondents. by torrens certificate of title are not required to go beyond what
appears on the face of the title. When there is nothing on the
Land Registration; Sale; Where the certificate of title is in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of
name of the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not
has the right to rely on what appears on the certificate of title.–– required to explore further than what the torrens title upon its face
The rule applicable to this controversy is well-settled. Where the indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may
certificate of title is in the name of the vendor when the land is subsequently defeat his right thereto.
sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears
on the certificate of title. In the absence of anything to excite or Same; Same; Same; Prescription; Remedy of the defrauded
arouse suspicion, said vendee is under no obligation to look party is to bring an action for damages against those who caused
beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor the fraud or were instrumental in depriving him of the property;
appearing on the face of said certificate. Action prescribes in ten years from issuance of the Torrens Title
over the property.––If an action for reconveyance based on
Same; Same; Same; Where innocent third persons relying on the constructive trust cannot reach an innocent purchaser for value,
correctness of the certificate thus issued, acquire rights over the the remedy of the defrauded party is to bring an action for
property, the court cannot disregard such rights.––“The main damages against those who caused the fraud or were
purpose of the Torrens’ System is to avoid possible conflicts of instrumental in depriving him of the property. And it is now well-
title to real estate and to facilitate transactions relative thereto by settled that such action prescribes in ten years from the issuance
giving the public the right to rely upon the face of a Torrens of the Torrens Title over the property.
Certificate of Title and to dispense with the need of inquiring
further, except when the party concerned had actual knowledge Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The action has already
of facts and circumstances that should impel a reasonably prescribed because it was filed fifteen (15) years after the
cautious man to make such further inquiry. (Pascua v. Capuyoc, issuance of TCT No. T-32683.––Transfer Certificate of Title No.
77 SCRA 78) Thus, where innocent third persons relying on the T-32683 was issued in the name of Rafaela Donato on March 2,
1967. The present action for reconveyance was filed only on same shall be done at the cost of the defendant by the
March 9, 1982. Clearly then, the action has already prescribed Clerk of Court and such act, when so done, shall have like
because it was filed fifteen (15) years after the issuance of TCT effect as if done by her;
No. T-32683. Even if the period were to be reckoned from the
registration of the deed of absolute sale in favor of petitioner on 4. Ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiffs P5,000.00
July 13, 1970, which is also the date of the issuance of Transfer by way of attorney's fees.
Certificate of Title No. T-49380 in the name of petitioner, the
action of private respondents had already prescribed because a No costs.
period of eleven (11) years, seven (7) months and twenty-six (26)
days has elapsed from July 13, 1970 to March 9, 1982. Pino vs. SO ORDERED. (pp. 20-21, Rollo)
Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 434, G.R. No. 94114 June 19, 1991
is now being assailed in the instant petition for certiorari upon the
ground —
PARAS, J.:
THAT RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A
The decision of respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, AMOUNTING TO LACK OF
21457 which affirmed in toto, the decision of the Regional Trial JURISDICTION PETITION —
Court of Echague, Isabela, Branch 24 in Civil Case No. 24-0190,
the dispositive portion of which latter decision reads: I

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby WHEN IT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
rendered: PETITIONER IS NOT AN INNOCENT PURCHASER OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY;
1. Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale made by Rafaela
Donato Vda. de Gaffud in favor of the defendant on June II
10, 1970 over Lot 6-B of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-
68395 being a portion of Lot 6 of the Echague Cadastre WHEN IT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
LRC Cad. Rec. No. 1063, containing an area of 11,095 PRESCRIPTION WOULD NOT LIE TO BAR PRIVATE
square meters, more or less, null and void insofar as the RESPONDENTS' ACTION; and
shares of Cicero Gaffud and Raymundo Gaffud are
concerned, which is one-half-thereof, or approximately III
5,547.5 square meters, more or less;
WHEN IT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING AS VALID THE
2. Ordering the cancellation of TCT No. 49380 in the name TRANSFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE
of the defendant; ORIGINAL REGISTERED OWNERS TO RAFAELA
DONATO;
3. Ordering the defendant to reconvey one-half of the
property subject of this proceeding to the plaintiffs within
ten (10) days from finality of this Decision, failing which the
The pertinent background facts as found by the trial court and less, which is the subject land. (RTC Decision dated November
adopted by the respondent Court of Appeals in its now assailed 15, 1988, p. 310 Record).
decision are the following:
On June 10, 1970 Rafaela Donato sold to petitioner Felicisima
The property subject of the controversy is a parcel of land situated Pino said Lot 6-B in consideration of P10,000.00 as evidenced by
in Echague, Isabela, identified as Lot 6-B of the Subdivision Plan the Deed of Absolute Sale she executed in favor of petitioner
(LRC) Psd-68395, being a portion of Lot 6 containing an area of Felicisima Pino which was notarized by her lawyer, Atty.
11,095 square meters, more or less. Concepcion Tagudin (Exh. 1).

Lot 6 has an area of 12,799 square meters, more or less. It was Rafaela Donato undertook to register the Deed of Absolute Sale
acquired in 1924 by the spouses Juan Gaffud and Rafaela with the Register of Deeds of Isabela and on July 13, 1970 the
Donato. Juan Gaffud died in 1936. On January 11, 1938, Lot 6 sale was inscribed therein under Entry No. 9286 and Transfer
was originally registered in the Registration Book of the Office of Certificate of Title No. T-49380 was issued in the name of
the Register of Deeds of Isabela, under Original Certificate of Title Felicisima Pino.
No. 4340 pursuant to Decree No. 650247 issued under L.R.C.
Cadastral Record No. 1063 in the names of Rafaela Donato, On September 30, 1980, Cicero Gaffud died survived by his wife
Raymundo Gaffud and Cicero Gaffud (Raymundo and Cicero are Demetria Gaffud and sons Romualdo Gaffud and Adolfo Gaffud
the sons of the spouses) as co-owners thereof in fee simple who are the private respondents herein.
subject to such of the incumbrances mentioned in Section 39 of
said act and to Section 4, Rule 74, Rules of Court. The said lot On March 9, 1982, private respondents filed a complaint for nullity
was sold to Rafaela Donato through a Deed of Transfer which of sale and reconveyance against petitioner — Felicisima Pino.
cancelled O.C.T. No. 4340 and in lieu thereof T.C.T. No. T-30407 Incidentally, the sale of the other portion (Lot A) of the same lot
was issued in the name of Rafaela Donato. to Fortunato Pascua is not assailed by private respondents.

On February 25, 1967, Rafaela Donato sold a portion of said Lot During the pendency of the case before the trial court, Rafaela
6, consisting of 1,704 sq. m., more or less in favor of Fortunato Donato (who was not a party to the case) died on November her
Pascua. The aforesaid sale caused the subdivision of the said Lot 26, 1982.
6 into Lot 6-A containing an area of 1,704 sq. m., more or less,
and Lot 6-B containing an area of 11,095 sq. m., more or less, On November 5, 1988, the trial court rendered its decision (the
under Subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd-68395. dispositive portion of which was earlier quoted in this decision)
which was affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appellant in its now
Upon registration of said sale in favor of Fortunato Pascua, assailed decision, the pertinent portion of which reads:
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-30407 was cancelled, and in
lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-32683 was issued The defense of an innocent purchaser for value would be
in the name of Rafaela Donato on March 2, 1967 covering the of no help to appellant in the absence of the document on
land designated as Lot 6-B of the subdivision Plan (LRC) Psd- extrajudicial partition indicating that the conjugal property
68395, being a portion of Lot 6 of the Echague Cadastre, LRC has been adjudicated to Rafaela Donato Vda. de Gaffud
Cad. Rec. No. 1063, containing an area of 11,095 sq.m., more or and which would be the source of her authority in
transferring the subject property to defendant. The
 sensible thing to do by any prudent person is to examine The rule applicable to this controversy is well-settled. Where the
not only the certificate of title of said property but also all certificate of title is in the name of the vendor when the land is
the factual circumstances necessary for him to determine sold, the vendee for value has the right to rely on what appears
if there are any flaw in vendor's capacity to transfer the on the certificate of title. In the absence of anything to excite or
land. arouse suspicion, said vendee is under no obligation to look
beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
Nor would prescription of action lie. An ordinary action for appearing on the face of said certificate. The rationale for the rule
reconveyance based on fraud prescribes in four (4) years is stated thus:
(Lanera v. Lopos, 106 Phil. 70). Appellant was a party to
the alleged fraudulent transfer of the subject property, The main purpose of the Torrens' System is to avoid
consequently, appellees have four (4) years to file an possible conflicts of title to real estate and to facilitate
action to annul the deed of sale from the discovery of the transactions relative thereto by giving the public the right
fraudulent act. In the case at bar, appellees learned about to rely upon the face of a Torrens Certificate of Title and to
the fraud on July 6, 1981 when they received a letter from dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when
the appellant (Exhibit D). The filing, therefore, of the the party concerned had actual knowledge of facts and
complaint on March 9, 1982 (p. 1. Rec.) was within the circumstances that should impel a reasonably cautious
prescriptive period. (pp. 62-63, Rollo) man to make such further inquiry. (Pascua v. Capuyoc, 77
SCRA 78) Thus, where innocent third persons relying on
In elevating the judgment of the respondent Court of Appeals to the correctness of the certificate thus issued, acquire tights
Us for review petitioner prays that the appealed decision be over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights.
reversed and another one entered declaring as valid (1) the sale (Director of Land v. Abache, et al., 73 Phil. 606)
of the subject property executed on June 10, 1970 in favor of
petitioner Felicisima Pino by Rafaela Donato Vda. de Gaffud and In the case at bar, the evidence on record discloses that when
(2) the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49380 issued in the petitioner purchased the subject property on June 10, 1970, the
name of petitioner by the Register of Deeds of Isabela on July 13, title thereto (TCT No. T-32683) was in the name of her
1970 upon the grounds — vendor Rafaela Donato alone. The said TCT No. T-32683 was
shown to petitioner which shows on its face the following:
(a) that private respondents has (sic) no cause of action
against petitioner because she is an innocent purchaser is registered in accordance with the provisions of the Land
for value of the subject property; Registration Act in the name of —

(b) that the action of private respondents was already RAFAELA DONATO, Filipino, of legal age, widow and with
barred by prescription when it was filed; and residence and postal address at Centro, Echague,
Isabela, Philippines as owner thereof in fee simple, subject
(c) that the transfer of the subject property from the original to such of the encumbrances mentioned in Section 39 of
registered owners to Rafaela Donato was valid. (pp. 61- said Act as may be subsisting, and to Section 4, Rule 74,
62, Rollo) of the Rules of Court. (Ex. A, p. 169, Record)
The lien imposed by Section 4, Rule 74, Rules of Court appears A Yes, sir, she showed me the title. And I saw that the title
as cancelled on April 8, 1969 under the following entry: was in her name.

Entry No. 2090 –– Petition for cancellation of Sec. Q When the offer was made to you and the title was shown
4 Rule 74 of the to you, do you remember if you have done anything?
D-340; P-75-1 Rules of Court executed by Rafaela
D.Vda. de A Yes, sir, before I bought the property, I showed the
B-4; S-1969 Gaffud. Hence, by virtue of which the documents she bought to me to our lawyer, Custodia
lien appea- Villalva and Concepcion Tagudin.
R.M. Angubong, ring on the face of this title is now
cancelled. Q Why did you show them the title Madam witness?

Notary Public A To be sure that the title does not have any encumbrance
and because I do not know anything about legal matters.
Date of Instrument — March 11, 1969
Q What did they advise you?
Date of Inscription — April 2, 1969
A Yes, Okey, I can proceed in buying the property, the title
Time: 12:30 p.m. was registered in her name, it was her personal property.
(pp. 15-16, Rollo)
(Sgd.) ANASTACIO J. PASCUA
ANASTACIO J. PASCUA In the case of Maguiling v. Umadhay, (33 SCRA 99, 103) this
Deputy Register of Deeds V Court held:

(Emphasis supplied) (p. 15, Rollo) However, while the Umadhay spouses cannot rely on the
title, the same not being in the name of their grantor,
Petitioner was advised by her lawyers that she could proceed to respondent Crisanta S. Gumban stands on a different
buy the property because the same was registered in the name footing altogether. At the time she purchased the land the
of the vendor. Thus, on pp. 13 & 14 of the Transcript of title thereto was already in the name of her vendors (T.C.T,
Stenographic Notes of the hearing of December 12, 1986, 15522). She had the right to rely on what appeared on the
petitioner testified as follows: face of said title. There is nothing in the record to indicate
that she knew of any unregistered claims to or equities in
Atty. Mallabo: the land pertaining to other persons, such as that of herein
petitioner, or of any other circumstances which should put
Q Before you brought this property madam witness, were her on guard and cause her to inquire behind the
you shown a copy of the title of Rafaela Donato vda. de certificate. According to the Court of Appeals she took all
Gaffud on the property? the necessary precautions to ascertain the true ownership
of the property, having engaged the services of a lawyer
for the specific purpose and, it was only after said counsel
 had assured her that everything was in order did she make Q Who was the registered owner?
the final arrangements to purchase the property. The
appellate court's conclusion that respondent Crisanta S. A Rafaela Donato, Raymundo Gaffud and Cicero Gaffud,
Gumban was a purchaser in good faith and for value is co-owner.
correct, and the title she has thereof acquired is good and
indefeasible. Q In other words, the title you read appears that the
owners were Raymundo, Cicero and Rafaela?
Petitioner paid the sum of P10,000,00 in consideration of the sale
which is fair and reasonable considering that in 1967 Fortunato A Yes, sir.
Pascua paid the sum of P390.00 for the portion of the land
consisting of 1,704 square meters. (Exhs. 1 and 5) Q Do you know what a title is ?

The court a quo, however, ruled and this was sustained by A Yes, it is thick.
respondent Court of Appeals that petitioner was not an innocent
purchaser. Q You said that the property was bought by Juan Gaffud
and Rafaela Gaffud, how come that there is no name Juan
The defense of an innocent purchaser for value could be Gaffud in the title?
of no help to appellant in the absence of the document on
extra-judicial partition indicating that the conjugal property A Because he was already dead when I got married.
has been adjudicated to Rafaela Donato Vda. de Gaffud
and which would be the source of her authority in Q Do you have a knowledge how the title come to have
transferring the subject property to defendant. The the name of Raymundo, Rafaela and Cicero?
sensible thing to do by any prudent person is to examine
not only the certificate of title of said property but also all A Yes, sir. (p. 66, Rollo)
the factual circumstances necessary for him to determine
if there are any flaws in vendor's capacity to transfer the The extra-judicial settlement, upon which was based the lien
land. (p. 10, Rollo) imposed by Section 4, Rule 74, Rules of Court, was
executed after the death of Juan Gaffud in 1936 but before the
We do not find any evidence in the record that would sustain such issuance of the original title on January 11, 1938 so that the title
a finding. The extra-judicial partition adverted to in said ruling was would be issued in the names of the heirs of Juan Gaffud, namely:
executed by the heirs of Juan Gaffud prior to, and as the basis Rafaela Donato, Raymundo Gaffud and Cicero Gaffud.
for, the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title No. 4340 in the
names of the heirs of Juan Gaffud, as testified to by witness This conclusion is supported (a) by the fact that the subject
Demetria Gaffud in this wise: property was registered only on January 11, 1938, which is
around two (2) years after the death of Juan Gaffud in 1936, and
Q Were you able to read the title that was kept by your therefore the title could not have been issued in the name of Juan
brother in law? Gaffud; (b) by the fact that the lien imposed by Section 4, Rule
74, Rules of Court was inscribed on the face of the title itself and
A Yes, sir.
was not entered on the Memorandum of Encumbrances as were shown that this settlement was not the basis of the transfer of the
done with the mortgages and their releases which were inscribed subject property to Rafaela Donato, petitioner's vendor.
under their Entry Numbers on the page for Memorandum of
Encumbrances and (c) by the fact that the Original Certificate of That petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value is within the
Title was issued in the names of the heirs of Juan Gaffud. scope of established jurisprudence.

The extra-judicial settlement, therefore, has no bearing on The decision of the lower court would set at naught the
whether or not there was fraud in the transfer of the subject settled doctrine that the holder of a certificate of title who
property to Rafaela Donato. acquired the property covered by the title in good faith and
for value can rest assured that his title is perfect and
On the other hand, it was a Deed of Transfer which transferred incontrovertible. (Benin v. Tuason, 57 SCRA 531, 581)
the subject property from the original owners to Rafaela Donato
as stated in Exhibit 3 which is the petition to cancel the conditions xxx xxx xxx
imposed by Section 4, Rule 74, Rules of Court, to wit:
Guided by previous decisions of this Court, good faith
That since the time of the execution of the Deed of transfer consists in the possessor's belief that the person from
from the original owners to herein petitioner in 1967, and whom he received the thing was the owner of the same
also since the time of the registration of the said transfer and could convey his title (Ariola v. Gomez dela Serna, 14
at Register of Deeds of Isabela — last March 2, 1967, — Phil. 627). Good faith, while it is always presumed in the
more than two (2) years have already elapsed; absence of proof to the contrary, requires a well-founded
belief that the person from whom title was received by
That from the time of the Deed of Transfer and within the himself the owner of the land, with the right to convey it
period of two years thereafter, NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER (Santiago v. Cruz, 19 Phil. 148). There is good faith where
has been filed against the herein petitioner with respect to there is an honest intention to abstain from taking any
the property thus sold to her . (p. 67, Rollo) unconscientious advantage from another (Fule v. Legare,
7 SCRA 351). Otherwise stated, good faith is the opposite
Even granting that the extra-judicial settlement was the document of fraud and it refers to the state of mind which is
which transferred the subject property from the original owners to manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. In the
Rafaela Donato the non-production thereof (private case at bar, private respondents (petitioner in this case),
respondents should have presented it, not petitioner) does not in good faith relied on the certificate of title in the name of
prove that there was fraud committed in its execution and neither Fe S. Duran (Rafaela Donato in this case) and . . . "even
does it prove that petitioner was a party thereto. There was no on the supposition that the sale was void, the general rules
allegation, and much less any evidence, that the transfer of the that the direct result of a previous illegal contract cannot
subject property from the original owners to Rafaela Donato was be valid (on the theory that the spring cannot rise higher
fraudulent. than its source) cannot apply here for We are confronted
with the functionings of the Torrens System of
What private respondents allege as fraudulent was the extra- Registration. The doctrine to follow is simple enough: a
judicial settlement of the estate of Juan Gaffud. But it has been fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the
ROOT of a valid title if the certificate of title has already
 been transferred from the name of the true owner to the Petitioner being an innocent purchaser for value, private
name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. respondents will have no cause of action against her. "The issue
(Duran v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 138 SCRA 489, alone that petitioner is a purchase in good faith and for value
494). sufficiently constitutes a bar to the complaint of private
respondents . . ."(Medina v. Chanco, 117 SCRA 201, 205).
xxx xxx xxx
If an action for reconveyance based on constructive trust cannot
Thus, where innocent third persons relying on the reach an innocent purchaser for value, the remedy of the
correctness of the certificate of title issued, acquire rights defrauded party is to bring an action for damages against those
over the property, the court cannot disregard such rights who caused the fraud or were instrumental in depriving him of the
and order the total cancellation of the certificate for that property. And it is now well-settled that such action prescribes in
would impair public confidence in the certificate of title; ten years from the issuance of the Torrens Title over the property.
otherwise everyone dealing with property registered under (Armerol v. Bagumbaran, 154 SCRA 396, 407; Caro v. Court of
the torrens system would have to inquire in every instance Appeals, 180 SCRA 401, 407; Walstron v. Mapa, Jr., 181 SCRA
as to whether the title had been regularly or irregularly 431, 442).
issued by the court. Indeed, this is contrary to the evident
purpose of the law. Every person dealing with registered Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-32683 was issued in the name
land may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of of Rafaela Donato on March 2, 1967. The present action for
title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him reconveyance was filed only on March 9, 1982. Clearly then, the
to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of action has already prescribed because it was filed fifteen (15)
the property. Stated differently, an innocent purchaser for years after the issuance of TCT No. T-32683. Even if the period
value relying on a torrens title issued is protected . . . were to be reckoned from the registration of the deed of absolute
(Duran v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 138 SCRA 489, sale in favor of petitioner on July 13, 1970, which is also the date
494-495). (pp. 68-70, Rollo) of the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49380 in the
name of petitioner, the action of private respondents had already
In the case of Centeno v. Court of Appeals (139 SCRA 545, 555) prescribed because a period of eleven (11) years, seven (7)
the same rule was observed by this Court when it ruled — months and twenty-six (26) days has elapsed from July 13, 1910
to March 9, 1982.
. . . Well settled is the rule that all persons dealing with
property covered by torrens certificate of title are not WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED; the assailed decision
required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and
When there is nothing on the certificate of title to indicate another one rendered dismissing Civil Case No. Br. V-756, of the
any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Echague, Isabela.
encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to
explore further than what the torrens title upon its face SO ORDERED.
indicates in quest or any hidden defect or inchoate right
that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. (William Melencio-Herrera, Padilla and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Anderson v. Garcia, 64 Phil. 506; Fule v. Legare, 7 SCRA Sarmiento, J., is on leave.
351). (p. 71, Rollo)