TOP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, - versus LUIS FAJARDO AND

PROGRAMS

G.R. No. 150462

Promulgated: June 15, 2011

THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIAS CITY, VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Emilio Gregorio (Gregorio) filed an application for registration of title over ots 1 to ! at "ag-asa#ang "angga, as Pi$as, %i&al, 'efore t(e )*+ of %i&al,said court issued an order declaring as a'andoned t(e reserved oppositions of Jose ,- .elas/ue& and Pa'lo .elas/ue&- ,(ereafter, t(e case proceeded to trial- Jose ,- .elas/ue& (.elas/ue&) filed an application for registration of title over si0 lots denominated as ots 1 and ots 1, 1, 2 and 11, situated at 3lman&a, as Pi$as, %i&al, 'efore t(e same court- )*+ declared Gregorio to 'e t(e a'solute o#ner of ots 1, 2, 4 and ! and an order #as issued '5 said court for t(e issuance of t(e decree of registration, stating t(at t(e order (ad 'ecome final- 6everal mont(s ago t(e same court ad7udicated ots 1, 1, 2 and 11 and ots 1 and 2 to Jose ,- .elas/ue& and ordered t(e issuance of a decree of registration in vie# of t(e finalit5 of t(e decision%3 called t(e attention of t(e 8irector of ands regarding t(e overlapping of ots 1, 1 and 11 a#arded to .elas/ue&, #it( ots 1 to ! ad7udicated to Gregorio, and re/uested t(at portions of t(ese lots t(at are not in conflict 'e segregated- 9n t(e 'asis of t(e %3 report, .elas/ue& petitioned t(e )*+ to set aside t(e a#ard earlier made in favor of Gregorio on t(e ground of lac: of 7urisdiction and to give due course to (is application over t(e said lots- ,(e )*+ t(en issued an 9rder declaring t(at t(e application of .elas/ue& 'e given due course insofar as ots 1 and 1 #(ic( are identical to ots 1 to ! and decision in %) in favor of Gregorio respecting t(e same lots as null and void- Gregorio appealed t(e decision of t(e )*+ to t(e )36ometime after t(is, (e entered into an agreement #it( ,omas ,rinidad (,rinidad) and uis *a7ardo (*a7ardo)- ;5 virtue of t(is agreement, *a7ardo #ould finance t(e cost of t(e litigation and in return (e #ould 'e entitled to one-(alf of t(e su'7ect propert5 after deducting t#ent5 per cent (20<) of t(e total land area as attorne5=s fees for ,rinidad if t(e appeal is successful- *a7ardo and ,rinidad filed )ivil )ase 'efore t(e %,) of Pasig to enforce t(eir agreement #it( Gregorio- ,(e court rendered 7udgment in t(eir favor+66>E: ?(at is t(e 'etter remed5 if t#o certificates of title purports to include t(e same land-

%> +@G: (;99A) +n Degollacion v. Register of Deeds of Cavite #e (eld t(at if t#o certificates of title purport to include t(e same land, #(et(er #(oll5 or partl5, t(e 'etter approac( is to trace the original certificates from #(ic( t(e certificates of title #ere derived- )iting our earlier ruling in Mathay v. Court of Appeals #e declared: 0 0 0 #(ere t#o transfer certificates of title (ave 'een issued on different dates, to t#o different persons, for t(e same parcel of land even if 'ot( are presumed to 'e title (olders in good fait(, it does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title should prevail. 9n t(e assumption t(at t(ere #as regularit5 in t(e registration leading to t(e eventual issuance of su'7ect transfer certificates of title, !"# $#!!#% &''%o&(" )* to trace !"# original (#%!)+)(&!#* +%o, -")(" !"# (#%!)+)(&!#* o+ !)!.# )/ 0)*'1!# -#%# 0#%)2#0. 6(ould t(ere 'e onl5 one common original certificate of title, 0 0 0, t(e transfer certificate issued on an earlier date along t(e line must prevail, a'sent an5 anomal5 or irregularit5 tainting t(e process of registration-

(6orr5 gu5s med5o magulo to-- :asi eto ung facts-- and t(en c(inec: :o sa 'oo: ung na:a/uote sa 'oo: e eto--pero d ito ang ruling ng sc--ca lang to-- pero para maging related sa topic sinunod :o ung nasa 'oo:--)

G.R. No. L344562 J1.7 24, 1550 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL 8AN9, petitioner, vsHON. COURT OF APPEALS :F)+!" D)2)*)o/; < CHU 9IM 9IT %#'%#*#/!#0 $7 CHU TONG U, respondentsGRIO3A=UINO, J.: *3),6: 9n 6eptem'er B, 12BC, )(u Aim Ait, represented '5 (is uncle, )(u ,ong >, filed in t(e )ourt of *irst +nstance of e5te against *elisa ;o5ano an action for cancellation of t(e latterDs )ertificate of ,itle- ,(e complaint alleged t(at )(u Aim Ait, a )(inese national and son of defendant ;o5ano, is t(e a'solute o#ner of a commercial lot and 'uilding on %i&al 3venue, ,aclo'an )it5, registered in (is name under a ,), in t(e %egistr5 of 8eeds of ,aclo'an )it5E t(at in 12!5, )(u Aim Ait #ent to mainland )(inaE t(at (e #as prevented from returning to t(e P(ilippines #(en t(e )ommunists too: over mainland )(inaE t(at t(roug( letters, (e re/uested )(u ,ong > to ta:e care of (is aforementioned propert5E t(at alt(oug( defendant ;o5ano #as a#are t(at (er son #as still alive, s(e e0ecuted an affidavit alleging t(at (e (ad died and ad7udicating to (erself, as (is sole (eir, t(e a'ove-descri'ed propert5E t(at '5 means of said affidavit of ad7udication, s(e #as a'le to o'tain ,ransfer )ertificate of ,itle in (er nameE t(at s(e

t(ereafter mortgaged t(e propert5 to t(e P(ilippine @ational ;an:, ,aclo'an ;ranc(, to secure a loan of P25,000E and t(at s(e is a'out to dispose of t(e propert5,(e defendant filed (er ans#er, admitting t(at )(u Aim Ait #as still alive 'ut s(e alleged t(at s(e signed t(e affidavit of ad7udication #it(out (aving read its contents, t(e same 'eing #ritten in Englis( #(ic( s(e does not understand- 3s affirmative defense, s(e alleged t(at plaintiff )(u ,ong > is not t(e real part5 in interest, 'eing onl5 an uncle of )(u Aim Ait and co(eir to (is estate- uc5 Pere& and t(e P(ilippine @ational ;an:, as mortgagees, #ere allo#ed '5 t(e trial court to intervene in t(e action+66>E: 1- ?(et(er or not t(e )ourt of 3ppeals erred in its decision on t(e ground t(at it does not conform #it( evidence-(eto ung nasa case tlga) 2- ?(at is t(e proper remed5 of t(e true o#ner #(o #as pre7udiced and fraudulentl5 dispossessed of (is propert5-(eto :inonnect :o lang sa topic sa 'oo:) (:au na magdecide :ung anung gagamitin n5o--) FE 8: 1,(e ruling of t(e trial court and t(e )ourt of 3ppeals t(at as t(e cancellation of ,), @o- ,-1!12 #as unaut(ori&ed and illegal, t(e issuance of ,), @o- ,-1!42 in t(e name of *elisa ;o5ano #as null and void and t(e mortgage in favor of t(e P@; #as li:e#ise null and void, contravenes e0isting 7urisprudence on t(e matter-

+n accordance #it( t(e provisions and t(e underl5ing policies and intentions of t(e and %egistration a#, a ,ransfer )ertificate of ,itle appearing in t(e name of *elisa ;o5ano alt(oug( defeasi'le in t(e (ands of *elisa ;o5ano is conclusive and indefeasi'le in t(e (ands of t(e petitioner #(ic( is an innocent mortgagee for value-

3lt(oug( generall5 a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullit5 and conve5s no title, (o#ever t(ere are instances #(en suc( a fraudulent document ma5 'ecome t(e root of a valid title- 9ne suc( instance is #(ere t(e certificate of title #as alread5 transferred from t(e name of t(e true o#ner to t(e forger, and #(ile it remained t(at #a5, t(e land #as su'se/uentl5 sold to an innocent purc(aser- *or t(en, t(e vendee (ad t(e rig(t to rel5 upon #(at appeared in t(e certificate-

2-

,(e rig(t or lien of an innocent mortgagee for value upon t(e land mortgaged must 'e respected and protected, even if t(e mortgagor o'tained (is title t(roug( fraud- ,(e remed5 of t(e persons pre7udiced is to 'ring an action for damages

against t(ose #(o caused t(e fraud, and if t(e latter are insolvent, an action against t(e ,reasurer of t(e P(ilippines ma5 'e filed for recover5 of damages against t(e 3ssurance *und- (;lanco, et al- vs- Es/uierdo, 110-P(il- !2!)-

INSULAR LIFE SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FELIX MATEO RUNES, JR. and TRINIDAD RUNES, respondents.
>G.R. No. 152540. A1?1*! 12, 2004@ CALLEJO, SR., J. %espondents 6pouses applied for and #ere granted a loan '5 t(e Fome 6avings ;an: and ,rust )ompan5, t(e petitioner=s predecessor, in t(e amount of PC00,000 #(ic( #as secured '5 a real estate mortgage over a parcel of land- 9f t(e said amount, onl5 P500,000 #as actuall5 released to t(e respondents as t(e amount of P400,000 #as #it((eld as advance interest pa5ment- ?(en t(e respondents defaulted in t(e pa5ment of t(eir loan, t(e mortgage #as foreclosed and t(e lot #as sold in pu'lic auction to t(e Fome 6avings ;an: and ,rust )ompan5 #(ic( #as declared as t(e (ig(est,(e petitioner entered into a contract to sell #it( condition t(at t(e title to t(e propert5 #ould remain in t(e name of t(e petitioner until full pa5ment '5 t(e respondents of t(e purc(ase price3fter t(eir pa5ment of t(e last (B0 t() installment in "a5 1222, t(e respondents made demands on t(e petitioner to release and deliver t(eir title '5 reason of full pa5ment of t(e loan and redemption price of t(e propert5- 3t t(e time, t(e respondents (ad alread5 paid a total amount, petitioner, refused to release t(e title claiming t(at t(e respondents still (ad an outstanding 'alance of P1,BC5,1!!-5B- ,(e respondents t(us filed an action against t(e petitioner for declaration of nullit5 of contract and for sum of mone5 '5 #a5 of reim'ursement of t(e amounts paid under t(e contract and damages #it( t(e %egional ,rial )ourt-

+66>E: ?(et(er or not t(e failure of defendant=s Gpetitioner=sH counsel to file seasona'l5 a notice of appeal #arrants t(e denial of t(e %,) appeal interposed '5 defendant GpetitionerH t(roug( counselFE 8: +t is settled t(at clients are 'ound '5 t(e mista:es, negligence and omission of t(eir counsel- ?(ile, e0ceptionall5, t(e client ma5 'e e0cused from t(e failure of counsel, t(e circumstances o'taining in t(e present case, as earlier discussed, do not convince t(is )ourt to ta:e e0ception-(;99A) ,(is rule is applica'le to t(e denial of an appeal or t(e failure to appeal on time due to fraud, accident, mista:e or e0cusa'le negligence- "oreover, a petition for relief from 7udgment

is an e/uita'le remed5 t(at is allo#ed onl5 in e0ceptional cases #(en t(ere is no ot(er availa'le or ade/uate remed5- ?(en a part5 (as anot(er remed5 availa'le to (im, #(ic( ma5 'e eit(er a motion for ne# trial or appeal from an adverse decision of t(e trial court, and (e #as not prevented '5 fraud, accident, mista:e or e0cusa'le negligence from filing suc( motion or ta:ing suc( appeal, (e cannot avail (imself of t(is petition>nfortunatel5 for t(e petitioner, negligence, to 'e Ie0cusa'le,J must 'e one #(ic( ordinar5 diligence and prudence could not (ave guarded against- 3tt5- %odrigue&-Ganitano=s omission could (ardl5 'e c(aracteri&ed as e0cusa'le, muc( less unavoida'le- 3s correctl5 pointed out '5 t(e )3, t(e petitioner=s counsel of record at t(e proceedings in t(e %,) #as t(e ;i(is a# 9ffices, of #(ic( 3tt5- %odrigue&-Ganitano #as an associate- ?(en s(e #as indisposed, an5 one of t(e partners or associates of t(e ;i(is a# 9ffices s(ould (ave filed t(e notice of appeal as #ell as paid t(e appellate doc:et and ot(er legal fees on time- ,(e failure of t(e ;i(is a# 9ffices to do so 'inds t(e petitioner-