Republic of the Philippines The Court will observe at the outset that the joint affidavit is indeed a

forgery. Apart from the fact that two of the supposed affiants were
SUPREME COURT already dead at the time they were supposed to have signed the sworn
statement, even the most cursory examination of the document will
Manila show that the three signatures affixed thereto were written by one and
the same hand. 12 There is no doubt about it. It is indeed difficult to
FIRST DIVISION understand how such an obvious forgery could have deceived the
people in the Bureau of Lands who processed the papers of this case
G.R. No. 80687 April 10, 1989 and made possible the fraudulent transfer of the land.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DIRECTOR OF But given such deception, would the sale itself be considered null and
LANDS, petitioner, void from the start, as the petitioner insists, so as to make all titles
derived therefrom also ineffectual ab initio?
vs.
We agree with the contention that there is no allegation in the
HONORABLE MARIANO M. UMALI, in his capacity as Presiding complaint 13 filed by the petitioner that any one of the defendants was
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 23, Trece privy to the forged joint affidavit or that they had acquired the subject
Martires City, REMEDIOS MICLAT, JUAN C. PULIDO, ROSALINA land in bad faith. Their status as innocent transferees for value was
NAVAL, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CAVITE, respondents. never questioned in that pleading. Not having been disproved, that
status now accords to them the protection of the Torrens System and
CRUZ, J.: renders the titles obtained by them thereunder indefeasible and
conclusive. The rule will not change despite the flaw in TCT No. 55044.
The petitioner seeks reversion of a parcel of land on the ground that
the original sale thereof from the government was tainted with fraud Section 39 of the Land Registration Act clearly provided:
because based on a forgery and therefore void ab initio. The present
holders of the property claiming to be innocent purchasers for value Sec. 39. Every person receiving a certificate of title in pursuance of a
and not privy to the alleged forgery, contend that the action cannot lie decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of registered
against them. land who takes a certificate of title for value in good faith shall hold the
same free of all encumbrance except those noted on said certificate.
The land in question is situated in Tanza, Cavite, and consists of
78,865 square meters. 1 It was originally purchased on installment The rulings on this provision are indeed as numerous as they are
from the government on July 1, 1910 by Florentina Bobadilla, who consistent:
allegedly transferred her rights thereto in favor of Martina, Tomasa,
Gregorio and Julio, all surnamed Cenizal, in 1922.2 Tomasa and Julio Thus, under Section 44 of P.D. 1529 (then Sec. 39 of the Land Reg.
assigned their shares to Martina, Maria and Gregorio. 3 In 1971 these Act), every registered owner receiving a certificate of title in pursuance
three assignees purportedly signed a joint affidavit which was filed with of a decree of registration, and every subsequent purchaser of
the Bureau of Lands to support their claim that they were entitled to the registered land taking a certificate of title for value and in good faith,
issuance of a certificate of title over the said land on which they said shall hold the same free from all encumbrances except those noted on
they had already made full payment. 4 On the basis of this affidavit, the the certificate and any of the encumbrances which may be subsisting,
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources executed Deed No. V- and enumerated in the law. Under said provision, claims and liens of
10910 (Sale Certificate No. 1280) on September 10, 1971, in favor of whatever character, except those mentioned by law as existing against
the said affiants. 5 Subsequently, on October 13, 1971, TCT No. the land prior to the issuance of certificate of title, are cut off by such
55044 (replacing Bobadilla's OCT No. 180) was issued by the register certificate if not noted thereon, and the certificate so issued binds the
of deeds of Cavite in favor of Maria Cenizal, Gregorio Cenizal, and (in whole world, including the government. 14
lieu of Martina Cenizal) Rosalina Naval, Luz Naval, and Enrique Naval.
xxx xxx xxx
When the complaint for reversion was filed on October 10, 1985, the
registered owners of the land, following several transfers, were A holder in bad faith is not entitled to the protection of Sec. 39 of the
Remedios Miclat under TCT No. 80392, Juan C. Pulido under TCT No. Land Registration Act. 15
80393, and Rosalina, Luz and Enrique Naval under TCT No. 80394. 7
They were named as defendants and asked to return the property to xxx xxx xxx
the State on the aforestated grounds of forgery and fraud. The plaintiff
claimed that Gregorio Cenizal having died on February 25, 1943, and The real purpose of the Torrens System of land registration is to quiet
Maria Cenizal on January 8, 1959, they could not have signed the joint title to land; to put a stop forever to any question of the legality of the
affidavit dated August 9, 1971, on which Deed No. V-10910 (Sale title, except claims which were noted at the time of registration in the
Certificate No. 1280) was based. certificate, or which may arise subsequent thereto. That being the
purpose of the law, it would seem that once the title was registered, the
In their answer, Pulido and the Navals denied any participation in the owner might rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals
joint affidavit and said they had all acquired the property in good faith of the court, or sitting in the "mirador de su casa," to avoid the
and for value. By way of affirmative defenses, they invoked estoppel, possibility of losing his land. 16
laches, prescription and res judicata. 9 For her part, Miclat moved to
dismiss the complaint, contending that the government had no cause The decision in Piñero v. Director of Lands 17 is not applicable to the
of action against her because there was no allegation that she had present proceeding because the lands involved in that case had not
violated the plaintiff's right, that the government was not the real party- yet passed to the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. They were
in-interest because the subject land was already covered by the still held by the Pineros. The action for reversion was filed by the
Torrens system, and that in any event the action was barred by government against them as the original transferees of the properties
prescription or laches. 10 in question. They were the direct grantees of the free patents issued by
the government pursuant to which the corresponding certificates of title
The respondent court, in its order dated October 2, 1987, granted the were issued under the Torrens system. The fraud alleged by the
motion. 11 The petitioner, contesting this order, now insists that it has government as a ground for the reversion sought was imputable
a valid cause of action and that it is not barred by either prescription or directly to the Pineros, who could not plead the status of innocent
res judicata. purchasers for value.
The difference between them and the private respondents is that the from the fraud or deceit, but from the fact that the land is not under the
latter acquired the land in question not by direct grant but in fact after jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands. Inasmuch as the land involved in
several transfers following the original sale thereof to Bobadilla in the present case does not belong to such category, OCT No. 282-A
1910. The presumption is that they are innocent transferees for value would be merely voidable or reviewable (Vda. de Cuaycong vs. Vda.
in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The petitioner contends de Sengbengco, 110 Phil. 113): (1) upon proof of actual fraud; (2)
that it was Pedro Miclat who caused the falsification of the joint although valid and effective, until annulled or reviewed in a direct
affidavit, but that is a bare and hardly persuasive allegation, and proceeding therefor (Legarda vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590), not
indeed, even if true, would still not prove any collusion between him collaterally (Sorongon vs. Makalintal, 80 Phil. 259, 262; Director of
and the private respondents. The mere fact that Remedios Miclat was Lands vs. Gan Tan, 89 Phil. 184; Henderson vs. Garrido, 90 Phil.
the daughter and heiress of Miclat, without more, would not necessarily 624,630; Samonte vs. Sambilon, 107 Phil. 198,200); (3) within the
visit upon her the alleged sins of her father. statutory period therefor (Sec. 38, Act 496; Velasco vs. Gochuico 33
Phil. 363; Delos Reyes vs. Paterno, 34 Phil. 420; Snyder vs. Provincial
The Solicitor General also argues that Remedios is an extension of the Fiscal, 42 Phil. 761, 764; Reyes vs. Borbon, 50 Phil. 791; Clemente vs.
juridical personality of her father and so cannot claim to be an innocent Lukban, 53 Phil. 931; Sugayan vs. Solis, 56 Phil. 276, 279; Heirs of
purchaser for value because she is charged with knowledge of her Lichauco vs. Director of Lands, 70 Phil. 69); (4) after which, the title
father's deceit. Such conclusion has no basis in fact or law. Moreover, would be conclusive against the whole world, including the
there is evidence that Remedios did not merely inherit the land but Government (Legarda vs. Saleeby, 31 Phil. 590, 596; Central Capiz vs.
actually purchased it for valuable consideration and without knowledge Ramirez, 40 Phil. 883; J. M. Tuason vs. Santiago, 99 Phil. 615).
of its original defect. The agreement to subdivide, 18 which she
presented to show that she had acquired the land for valuable And as we declared in Municipality of Hagonoy vs. Secretary of
confederation, is more acceptable than the conjectures of the Agriculture and Natural Resources: 22
petitioner. It is also consonant with the presumption of good faith.
. . . Once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title
The land being now registered under the Torrens system in the names is issued, the land ceases to be part of public domain and becomes
of the private respondents, the government has no more control or private property over which the director of Lands has neither control
jurisdiction over it. It is no longer part of the public domain or, as the nor jurisdiction. A public land patent, when registered in the
Solicitor General contends — as if it made any difference — of the corresponding Register of Deeds, is a veritable Torrens Title, and
Friar Lands. The subject property ceased to be public land when OCT becomes as indefeasible as Torrens Title upon the expiration of one
No. 180 was issued to Florentina Bobadilla in 1910 or at the latest from (1) year from the date of issuance thereof. Said title is, like one issued
the date it was sold to the Cenizals in 1971 upon full payment of the pursuant to a judicial decree, subject to review within one (1) year from
purchase price. As private registered land, it is governed by the the date of the issuance of the patent. Beyond said period, the action
provisions of the Land Registration Act, now denominated the Property for the annulment of the certificate of title issued upon the land grant
Registration Decree, which applies even to the government. can no longer be entertained. (Emphasis supplied).

The pertinent provision of the Land Registration Act was Section 122, It is worth observing here that in two earlier cases, the private
which read as follows: respondents were challenged by the heirs of Matilde Cenizal Arguson
but both were dismissed and the titles of the registered owners were
Sec. 122. Whenever public lands in the Philippine Islands belonging to confirmed by the trial court. 23 This decision was later sustained by
the Government of the United States or to the Government of the this Court. 24 While this is not to say that the present petition is barred
Philippine Islands are alienated, granted, or conveyed to persons or to by res judicata, as the government was not a party in these cases, it
public or private corporations, the same shall be brought forthwith does suggest that the issue it wants to rake up now has long been
under the operation of this Act and shall become registered lands. 19 settled. It should not be the subject of further judicial inquiry, especially
at this late hour. Litigation must stop at some point instead of dragging
This should be related to Section 12 of the Friar Lands Act, providing on interminably.
thus:
The Torrens system was adopted in this country because it was
Sec. 12. . . . upon the payment of the final installment together with all believed to be the most effective measure to guarantee the integrity of
accrued interest, the Government will convey to such settler and land titles and to protect their indefeasibility once the claim of
occupant the said land so held by him by proper instrument of ownership is established and recognized. If a person purchases a
conveyance, which shall be issued and become effective in the piece of land on the assurance that the seller's title thereto is valid, he
manner provided in section one hundred and twenty-two (Sec. 122) of should not run the risk of being told later that his acquisition was
the Land Registration Act. ineffectual after all. This would not only be unfair to him. What is worse
is that if this were permitted, public confidence in the system would be
The petitioner claims that it is not barred by the statute of limitations eroded and land transactions would have to be attended by
because the original transfer of the land was null and void ab initio and complicated and not necessarily conclusive investigations and proof of
did not give rise to any legal right. The land therefore continued to be ownership. The further consequence would be that land conflicts could
part of the public domain and the action for this reversion could be filed be even more numerous and complex than they are now and possibly
at any time. The answer to that is the statement made by the Court in also more abrasive if not even violent. The government, recognizing
Heirs of Tanak Pangawaran Patiwayan v. Martinez 20 that "even if the worthy purposes of the Torrens system, should be the first to
respondent Tagwalan eventually is proven to have procured the patent accept the validity of titles issued thereunder once the conditions laid
and the original certificate of title by means of fraud, the land would not down by the law are satisfied. As in this case.
revert back to the State," precisely because it has become private land.
Moreover, the petitioner errs in arguing that the original transfer was We find that the private respondents are transferees in good faith and
null and void ab initio, for the fact is that it is not so. It was only for value of the subject property and that the original acquisition
voidable. The land remained private as long as the title thereto had not thereof, although fraudulent, did not affect their own titles. These are
been voided, but it is too late to do that now. As the Court has held in valid against the whole world, including the government.
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals. 21
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED, without any pronouncement
A certificate of title fraudulently secured is not null and void ab initio, as to costs. It is so ordered.
unless the fraud consisted in misrepresenting that the land is part of
the public domain, although it is not. In such case the nullity arises, not Narvasa, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ.,

concur.