Adea Case

DY v.
ALDEA
G.R. NO. 219500 AUGUST 9, 2017
PONENTE: MENDOZA, J.
FACTS:
Petitioner Mamerto Dy is the owner of 6,738 square meters located in Cebu and covered by TCT No. T-
24849. Mamerto agreed to sell the subject land to his brothers Nelson and Sancho Dy, Jr. And then asked them to
secure copies of the tax declarations covering the subject land from the Municipal Assessor's Office. Nelson found
out that the subject land had gone through a series of anomalous transactions. The owner's duplicate copy of the lot
was declared lost and, as a result, a new owner's duplicate copy of the same TCT was issued and the subject land
was subsequently mortgaged.
Mamerto, through his lawyer, sent a letter to the Register of Deeds of Cebu informing the said office that
his owner's duplicate copy of the lot was never lost and that he never mortgaged his property to anyone. When
Mamerto discovered that the subject land was being fenced upon the instruction of respondent Aldea, he
immediately filed a complaint against the latter before the barangay office of Minglanilla, however, failed to attend
the hearing. A certificate to file action was subsequently issued.
The Deputy Register of Deeds, informed Nelson that TCT No. T-134753 covering the subject land was
issued in Lourdes' name. Mamerto insisted that he never executed any deed of sale in favor of Lourdes and that the
signature appearing on the purported deed of sale was not his authentic signature.
Lourdes Aldea met with the person impersonating Mamerto (the impostor) where she paid the impostor for
the 3,369 square meter-portion of the subject land. Thereafter, they signed the Deed of Sale.
Thereafter, the impostor called Lourdes and insisted that she should buy the entire land for it would be
difficult and expensive to subdivide the same. Lourdes was informed by Fatima that the impostor was dead and he
had not given any money to process the transfer of the subject land. Lourdes went to the Office of the Provincial
Assessor to process the payment of capital gains tax and the transfer of title in her name. Eventually, the Register of
Deeds issued TCT No. T-134753 under her name.
Consequently, Mamerto filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of deed of sale and TCT No. T-134753,
and recovery of real property with injunction and damages.
The RTC nullified Lourdes’ title as it was based on a void reconstituted title. It further opined that the
contract of sale between Lourdes and the impostor was null and void because the latter did not have the right to
transfer ownership of the subject land at the time it was delivered to Lourdes. The trial court held that Lourdes could
not be considered a buyer in good faith because she should have been suspicious of the transaction which occurred
at a hotel room and without any lawyer present. It noted that Lourdes gave her money to the seller even if the
owner’s copy of the certificate of title was not handed to her; and that she decided to buy the remaining portion of
the subject land when the price was reduced to P200.00 per square meter for the flimsy reason that it would be hard
for the seller to subdivide the subject land.
The CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s ruling. It declared that Lourdes was an innocent purchaser for
value. The appellate court ruled that a person dealing with registered land is only charged with notice of the burdens
on the property which are noted on the face of the register or the certificate of title. It observed that the only
annotation at the back of the title was that it was mortgaged.
ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE RECONSTITUTED TITLE FROM WHICH TCT NO. T-134753 IN
THE NAME OF LOURDES WAS DERIVED IS VALID.
2. WHETHER OR NOT LOURDES IS AN INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE WHO IS
ENTITLED TO THE APPLICATION OF THE MIRROR DOCTRINE
RULING:
1. The reconstitured title is not valid.
When the owner’s duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is, in fact, in the possession of another
person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction.
Reconstitution can be validly made only in case of loss of the original certificate.
Mamerto asserted that he never lost his owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-24829 and that he had
always been in possession thereof. Moreover, it is beyond doubt that another person impersonated Mamerto and
represented before the court that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-24829 was lost in order to secure a new
copy which was consequently used to deceive Lourdes into purchasing the subject land. Hence, the fact of loss or
destruction of the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, which is the primordial element in the validity of
reconstitution proceedings, is clearly missing.
Accordingly, the RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the reconstitution proceedings initiated by the
impostor, and its judgment rendered thereafter is null and void. This alone is sufficient to declare the reconstituted
title null and void.
2. Lourdes Aldea is not an innocent purchaser for value.
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other
person has a right or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the buyer at the time of the
purchase or before receipt of any notice of claims or interest of some other person in the property. It is the party who
claims to be an innocent purchaser for value who has the burden of proving such assertion, and it is not enough to
invoke the ordinary presumption of good faith.
To successfully invoke and be considered as a buyer in good faith, the presumption is that first and
foremost, the “buyer in good faith” must have shown prudence and due diligence in the exercise of his/her rights.
Lourdes was deficient in her vigilance as buyer of the subject land. During cross-examination, Lourdes
admitted that she did not conduct a thorough investigation and that she merely instructed her uncle to check with the
Register of Deeds whether the subject land is free from any encumbrance.
Further, it must be noted that Lourdes met the seller only during the signing of the two deeds of sale. Yet,
she did not call into question why the seller refused to see her during the negotiation.

Adea Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adea Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adea Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DY v.

You might also like