Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > January 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13551 January 30, 1960 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ABUNDIO MADRID

106 Phil 1060:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-13551. January 30, 1960.]

CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, Petitioner, v. ABUNDIO MADRID, ET AL., Respondents.

M. S. Calayag for Petitioner.

Rodolfo R. Medina for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REGISTRATION OF LAND TITLES; FORGED DOCUMENTS; TRANSFER OF RIGHT NOT EFFECTED. — In order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good faith for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. When the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE; WHEN HE IS PROTECTED BY LAW. — The innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged deed. Such situation does not obtain where the purchaser has been the victim of impostors pretending to be the registered owners but who are not said owners.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DUTY OF MORTGAGEE TO ASCERTAIN IDENTITY OF MORTGAGOR. — The giving of a certificate of title by the owners to another person is not in itself an act of negligence on the part of the former; it is a perfectly legitimate act. Delay in demanding that certificate of title is likewise not an act of neglect where it does not appear that the owners have executed any deed or document authorizing the holder of the certificate to execute deeds for and in their behalf. But one who consents to be the mortgagee of said certificate of title without taking sufficient care to see to it that the person who executed the deed of mortgage is the real registered owner of the property is guilty of negligence and must suffer for it.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals against the petitioner and in favor of respondents. The facts found in the appellate court below are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The spouses Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu are the owners of a residential lot at 148 Provincial Road, corner Sto. Sacramento, Makati, Rizal, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31379 (for Rizal). Planning to build a house thereon, the said spouses sought a loan from the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, RFC for short, in November, 1953. One Carmencita de Jesus, godmother of Rosalinda, offered to work for the shortening of the usually long process before a loan could be granted and the spouses, accepting the proferred assistance, delivered to her the Transfer Certificate of Title covering the lot in January, 1954, to be surrendered to the RFC. Later, the spouses were able to secure a loan of P4,000.00 from their parents for the construction of their house and they decided to withdraw the application for a loan they had filed with the RFC. They so informed Carmencita de Jesus and asked her to retrieve the Transfer Certificate of Title and return it to them. Shortly thereafter, Carmencita told them, however, that the RFC employee in charge of keeping the Transfer Certificate of Title was out on leave. In August, 1954, one Florentino Calayag showed up in the house of the spouses and asked for Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu. Rosalinda answered that she was Rosalinda Yu and Abundio, that he was Abundio Madrid. Calayag would not believe them. He said that he was looking for Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu who had executed a deed of mortgage on the lot where the house they were in then stood, and that the term of the mortgage had already expired, he added. Abundio and Rosalinda then retorted that they had not mortgaged their land to anyone. The spouses immediately went to consult with a lawyer who accompanied them to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal. They found out then that the land had been mortgaged to Constancio Joaquin on January 21, 1954 (Exh. B). Thus runs the evidence of the Plaintiffs-Appellees.

The appellant admits that Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu, the registered owners of the mortgaged property, were not those persons who had signed the deed of mortgage. His version of the case is as follows: In the month of January, 1954 Carmencita de Jesus saw Florentino Calayag and asked the latter to find a money-lender who could grant a loan on a security or real property, showing, at the same time, a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the spouses Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu. Calayag approached Constancio Joaquin who having funds to spare for the purpose, visited the land and, finding it well situated, told Calayag to show to him the prospective borrowers. On the following day, Calayag brought two women to the law office of Atty. M. S. Calayag and presented them to Constancio Joaquin as Rosalinda Yu and Carmencita de Jesus. The alleged Rosalinda Yu claimed to be the owner of the lot with her husband Abundio Madrid who authorized her to secure a loan on their property, she assured him, and that Abundio would come when the contract therefor was ready to sign it with her. Thus, the deed of mortgage Exhibit I was signed by the persons who posed themselves as Abundio Madrid and Rosalinda Yu on the following day. The whole amount of the loan was delivered to the supposed Rosalinda Yu immediately after the registration of the document of mortgage in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal, according to Florentino Calayag." (Dec. of the Court of Appeals, CA-G. R. No. 16717-R, prom. Nov. 29, 1957).

The appellate court below further found that the petitioner "visited the property proposed for mortgage to find out at the same time who was the real owner thereof. But he contented himself with the information given to him by the person living then on the land that the owner was a woman known as ‘Taba’. There ended his inquiry about the identity of the prospective mortgagors." (Dec. of the Court of Appeals, p. 8). The lower court based its decision on the case of Lara, Et Al., v. Ayroso, 95 Phil., 185, 50 Off. Gaz., (10), 4838, in which we held that as the land mortgaged was still in the name of the real owner when mortgaged to the mortgagees by an impostor, the mortgagees were defrauded not because they relied upon what appeared in a Torrens certificate of title, but because they believed the words of the impostor; that it was the duty of the mortgagees to ascertain the identity of the man with whom they were dealing — which circumstances differentiate the case from the previous cases of De la Cruz v. Fabie, 35 Phil., 144 and Blondeau, Et Al., v. Nano and Vallejo, 61 Phil., 625.

In the first assignment of error it is argued that since par. 2 of Sec. 55 of the Land Registration Act expressly provides that "in all cases of registration by fraud the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to the fraud, without prejudice to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title", the second proviso in the same section "that a registration procured by the presentation of a forged deed shall be null and void" should be overlooked. There is no merit in this argument, which would have the effect of deleting the last proviso. This last proviso is a limitation of the first part of par. 2 in the sense that in order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good faith for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. When the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property.

In the second assignment of error it is further argued that as the petitioner is an innocent purchaser for value, he should be protected as against the registered owner because the latter can secure reparation from the assurance fund. The fact is, however, that petitioner herein is not the innocent purchaser for value protected by law. The innocent purchaser for value protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of a deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a forged deed, as the law expressly states. Such is not the situation of the petitioner, who has been the victim of impostors pretending to be the registered owners but who are not said owners.

The next assignment of errors are predicated on the assumption that both the petitioner and the respondents are guilty of negligence. The giving of the certificate of title to Carmencita de Jesus is in itself no act of negligence on the part of respondents; it was perfectly a legitimate act. Delay in demanding the certificate of title is no act of neglect either, as respondents have not executed any deed or document authorizing Carmencita de Jesus to execute deeds for and on their behalf. It was petitioner who was negligent, as he did not take enough care to see to it that the persons who executed the deed of mortgage are the real registered owners of the property. The argument raised by petitioner’s counsel that in case of negligence on the part of both the one who committed a breach of faith is responsible, is not applicable. Petitioner alone is guilty of neglect, so he must suffer from it.

Finding no error in the decision of the Court of Appeals, we hereby affirm it with costs against petitioner. So ordered.

Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Gutiérrez David, JJ., concur.

Padilla, J., concurs in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16413 January 26, 1960 - EMILIO C. SANTOS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 877

  • G.R. No. L-10854 January 27, 1960 - MANILA POLO CLUB v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    106 Phil 885

  • G.R. Nos. L-12091 & L-12092 January 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIM HO

    106 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-9075 January 29, 1960 - S. V. S. PICTURES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 897

  • G.R. No. L-12476 January 29, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANGLO CALIFORNIA NATIONAL BANK

    106 Phil 903

  • G.R. No. L-12573 January 29, 1960 - PAULINA DURAN v. BERNARDINO PAGARIGAN

    106 Phil 907

  • G.R. Nos. L-12614 & L-12615. January 29, 1960 - JUAN ESTELLA, ET., AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL

    106 Phil 911

  • G.R. No. L-12981 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: MARCIANO DEETUANKA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 916

  • G.R. No. L-13194 January 29, 1960 - BUENAVENTURA T. SALDAÑA v. PHILIPPINE GUARANTY CO., INC.

    106 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-13489 January 29, 1960 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. JOSE J. GONZALES

    106 Phil 925

  • G.R. No. L-13536 January 29, 1960 - ADRIANO VALDEZ v. RODRIGO OCUMEN

    106 Phil 929

  • G.R. No. L-13956 January 29, 1960 - ROMULO C. NICOLAS v. FULGENCIO DACARA

    106 Phil 934

  • G.R. No. L-14027 January 29, 1960 - LIBERTAD ALTAVAS CONLU v. COURT OF APPEALS

    106 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-14306 January 29, 1960 - PABLO CALION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 943

  • G.R. No. L-14341 January 29, 1960 - MARCIANO SONGAHID v. BENITO CINCO

    106 Phil 946

  • G.R. No. L-14359 January 29, 1960 - IN RE: SALVADORA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    106 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-16360 January 29, 1960 - FILEMON SALCEDO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    106 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-6406 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KUSAIN SAIK

    106 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-9483 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIAS NANA

    106 Phil 966

  • G.R. No. L-11215 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUIRINO BALOYO

    106 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-11430 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS ESTACIO

    106 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. L-11756 January 30, 1960 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. MA- AO SUGAR CENTRAL CO., INC.

    106 Phil 989

  • G.R. No. L-11908 January 30, 1960 - FLORA CAMPANERO v. APOLONIO T. COLOMA

    106 Phil 993

  • G.R. No. L-12105 January 30, 1960 - TESTATE ESTATE OF C. O. BOHANAN v. MAGDALENA C. BOHANAN

    106 Phil 997

  • G.R. No. L-12280 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO TEMPLONUEVO

    106 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-12661 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ARANDA

    106 Phil 1008

  • G.R. No. L-12692 January 30, 1960 - COSMIC LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. AGAPITA MANAOIS

    106 Phil 1015

  • G.R. No. L-12754 January 30, 1960 - ESTANISLAO ALFONSO v. PASAY CITY

    106 Phil 1017

  • G.R. No. L-13146 January 30, 1960 - VALENTIN CASTILLO v. ARTURO SAMONTE

    106 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-13160 January 30, 1960 - BIENVENIDO NERA v. PAULINO GARCIA

    106 Phil 1031

  • G.R. No. L-13274 January 30, 1960 - REMEDIOS SACLOLO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1038

  • G.R. No. L-13399 January 30, 1960 - ALBERTA VICENCIO v. GAVINO TUMALAD

    106 Phil 1042

  • G.R. No. L-13456 January 30, 1960 - IRINEO C. HAMOY v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

    106 Phil 1046

  • G.R. No. L-13488 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG

    106 Phil 1055

  • G.R. No. L-13551 January 30, 1960 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ABUNDIO MADRID

    106 Phil 1060

  • G.R. No. L-13564 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CENTENERA v. NICASIO YATCO

    106 Phil 1064

  • G.R. No. L-13764 January 30, 1960 - RAFAEL RUEDA v. MARCELO JUAN

    106 Phil 1069

  • G.R. No. L-13781 January 30, 1960 - Testate Estate of JOSE J. JAVELLANA v. JOSE JAVELLANA

    106 Phil 1073

  • G.R. No. L-14016 January 30, 1960 - ALFREDO FORMOSO v. DELFIN S. FLORES

    106 Phil 1079

  • G.R. Nos. L-14023 & L-14135 January 30, 1960 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    106 Phil 1081

  • G.R. No. L-14047 January 30, 1960 - PRIMO PANTI v. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CATANDUANES

    106 Phil 1093

  • G.R. No. L-14109 January 30, 1960 - NATIONAL LUMBER & HARDWARE CO. v. PEDRO J. VELASCO

    106 Phil 1099

  • G.R. No. L-14310 January 30, 1960 - MAURO PRIETO v. JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ

    106 Phil 1103

  • G.R. No. L-14327 January 30, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO BORJA

    106 Phil 1111

  • G.R. No. L-14373 January 30, 1960 - GENERAL INSURANCE & SURETY CORP. v. NG HUA

    106 Phil 1117

  • G.R. No. L-14375 January 30, 1960 - ANDRES CASTILLO v. FROILAN BAYONA

    106 Phil 1121

  • G.R. No. L-14535 January 30, 1960 - BENITO SYMACO v. PATERIO AQUINO

    106 Phil 1130

  • G.R. No. L-14674 January 30, 1960 - MELECIO R. DOMINGO v. JUDGE S. C. MOSCOSO

    106 Phil 1138

  • G.R. No. L-16286 January 30, 1960 - CESAR SAMSON v. NUMERIANO G. ESTENZO

    106 Phil 1140