Você está na página 1de 1

MARIANO TORRES V. CA (G.R NO.

L- 63046, JUNE principle that a person dealing with registered lands


21, 1990) need not go beyond the certificate of title but
nevertheless pointed out that there are circumstances
FACTS: Mariano Torres owned a parcel of land at the in this case which should have put the Cue’s on guard
corner of Quezon Boulevard and Raon Street (now and prompted them to investigate the property being
Gonzalo Street) and a building erected thereon known mortgaged to them. Also, the Cue’s failed to contest
as "M. Torres Building” evidenced by a Transfer
the ruling of the trial court negating the liability of the
Certificate of Title No. 53628-Manila issued in his
assurance fund. For these reason the SC held that the
name. Torres was and still is in possession of the
realties, holding safely to his owner's duplicate Cue’s remedy merely is to go against Fernandez’
certificate of title, and, at least until 1971, paying the estate.
real estate taxes due thereon, and collecting rentals
from his tenants occupying the building.
In 1966, Francisco Fernandez, Torres' brother- BEVERLY ANNE YAP V. REPUBLIC (G.R NO.
in-law, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance 199810, MARCH 15, 2017)
of Manila, docketed as LRC GLRO Cad. Rec. No. 133,
where he, misrepresenting to be the attorney-in-fact of FACTS: Consuelo dela Cruz applied for a free patent
Torres and falsely alleging that the owners' duplicate over a parcel of land located in Daliao, Toril, Davao
copy of TCT No. 53628 was lost, succeeded in City. As she could not wait for the approval of her
obtaining a court order for the issuance of another application, she executed a deed of waiver in favor of
copy of the certificate. And further forged a simulated Rollie Pararigan.
sale in his favor whereupon TCT No. 53628 in the Pararigan filed his own Free Patent Application
name of Torres was cancelled and TCT No. 86018 was and subsequently a free patent was issued to him. An
issued in his name. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-11182 was
On various dates from December, 1966 to thereby issued in his name on Nov. 25, 1982.
November, 1967 Fernandez mortgaged the realties to On September 1989 mortgaged the lot to Banco
Mota, Cue and Fermin who later on assigned it all to Davao-Davao City Development Bank (Bank). The
Cue. The mortgages were annotated at the back of property wa later foreclosed for Pararigan’s failure to
TCT No. 86018 and so was the deed of assignment. pay his loan and sold to the Bank at public auction.
Upon knowledge of fraud Torres filed an However, the Land covered by OCT No. P-
adverse claim and on March 30, 1968, Torres filed Civil 11182 was allegedly occupied by Valparaiso and
Case No. 72494 against Fernandez to annul TCT No. Malalis in an adverse, exclusive and continuous
86018 as well as the proceedings in LRC GLRO Cad. occupation since 1945. On October 1990 the
Rec. No. 133. On April 2, 1968, a notice of lis pendens Valparaiso and Malalis filed a protest with the Bureau
was annotated at the back of Fernandez' TCT. of Lands, praying the recall of free patent issued to
A case was filed by Fernandez against the Cue Pararigan.
to which it resulted to an amicable settlement that he The administrative protest caused by
would pay his obligation and the Cues would deliver Valparaiso and Malalis reached the Office of the
the documents (title). However before Fernandez Secretary of the DENR. From the Investigation
could have done his part the court declared that the Reports it was found out that actual fraud and bad faith
proceedings held that TCT No. 86018, issued in the have been committed by Pararigan in his public land
name of Fernandez, is without force and effect as TCT application which led to the issuance of title. That the
No. 53628 in the name of Torres is the true and legal protestants’ have been in actual occupation of the land
evidence of ownership of the subject immovable. It in dispute since 1945 and have introduced
appears that this decision had become final and improvements thereon. That Pararigan never occupied
executory. the same nor his predecessor-in-interest, Consuelo
Meanwhile Fernandez was not able to comply dela Cruz, that he misrepresented in his application
with the agreement thus the subject land were levied that he was the actual occupant and there were no
upon and sold in a public auction where Mota was the others who occupied the lot in dispute. And that
highest bidder. Pararigan did not post a copy of his notice for FPA on
On August 31, 1971, the redemption period for both the bulletins of Daliao and Lizardo as required by
the subject immovable having lapsed without law.
Fernandez nor Torres redeeming the properties,
Rosario Mota was issued the Sheriff's Deed of Sale. ISSUE: WON FREE PATENT AND CERTIFICATE
Thereafter, TCT No. 86018 was cancelled and TCT ISSUED TO PARARIGAN WAS VALID AND
No. 105953 was issued in Mota’s name. She then INDEFEASIBLE
notified the occupants of the building to pay their rents
from that day to her. RULING: No. True, once a patent is registered and the
On December 17, 1971 Torres filed a corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land
complaint, which later gave rise to this petition, with the covered by them ceases to be part of the public
Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil domain and becomes private property. Further, the
Case No. 85753, against Fernandez and his spouse Torrens Title issued pursuant to the patent becomes
and the Cues to restrain the latter from collecting indefeasible a year after the issuance of the latter.
rentals and for the declaration as void TCT No. However this indefeasibility of a title does not attached
105953. to tiles secured by fraud and misrepresentation. Well
settled is the doctrine that the registration of a patent
ISSUE: WON CUE’s CAN CLAIM AGAINST under the Torrens System does not by itself vest title,
ASSURANCE FUND it merely confirms the registrants already existing one.
Also, a fraudulently acquired free patent may
RULING: No, the Cue’s cannot claim as against the only be assailed by the government in action for
assurance fund. The trial court recognized the reversion.

Você também pode gostar