Mathay vs. Court of Appeals

1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mathay vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 115788. September 17, 1998.
SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL MATHAY, JR., petitioners, vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. TEODULFO & SYLVIA
ATANGAN, SPS. AGUSTINA & AMOR POBLETE, SPS.
EDUARDO & FELICISIMA TIRONA, respondents.
Land Titles; Sales; Purchasers in Good Faith; Words and

Phrases; Evidence; Burden of Proof; “Purchaser in Good Faith,”
Defined; He who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith
and for value, has the burden of proving such assertion.—A
purchaser in good faith and for value is defined as “one who buys
property of another, without notice that some other person has a
right to, or interest in, such property and pays a full and fair price
for the same at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice
of the claims or interest of some other person in the property.” As
a rule, he who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith and
for value, has the burden of proving such assertion. This onus
probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the legal
presumption of good faith, i.e., “that everyone is presumed to act
in good faith.”
Same; Same; Same; As is the common practice in the real

estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises involved is a
safeguard a cautious and prudent purchaser usually takes, and
should he find out that the land he intends to buy is occupied by
anybody else other than the seller who is not in actual possession,
it would then be in-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
557
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 557
cumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupant’s

possessory rights.—Here, petitioners cannot be categorized as
purchasers in good faith. Prior to the fencing of subject land,
neither they (Mathays) nor their predecessors-in-interest (Banayo
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001774ced48f203319ce3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25
and Pugay) ever possessed the same. In fact, at the time the said
property was sold to petitioners, the private respondents were not
only in actual possession of the same but also built their houses
thereon, cultivated it and were in full enjoyment of the produce
and fruits gathered therefrom. Although it is a recognized
principle that a person dealing on a registered land need not go
beyond its certificate of title, it is also a firmly settled rule that
where there are circumstances which would put a party on guard
and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being sold
to him, such as the presence of occupants/tenants thereon, it is, of
course, expected from the purchaser of a valued piece of land to
inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the
occupants, i.e., whether or not the occupants possess the land en
concepto de dueño , in concept of owner. As is the common practice
in the real estate industry, an ocular inspection of the premises
involved is a safeguard a cautious and prudent purchaser usually
takes. Should he find out that the land he intends to buy is
occupied by anybody else other than the seller who, as in this
case, is not in actual possession, it would then be incumbent upon
the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupant’s possessory
rights. The failure of a prospective buyer to take such
precautionary steps would mean negligence on his part and would
thereby preclude him from claiming or invoking the rights of a
“purchaser in good faith.”
Same; Same; Same; No one can transfer a greater right to

another than he himself has—the spring cannot rise higher than
its source.—The aforesaid ruling of the Court of Appeals accords
with the Latin maxim: nemo potest plus juris ad alium transferre
quam ipse habet. “No one can transfer a greater right to another
than he himself has.” Thus, in Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of
Quezon City, this Court held: “Needless to state, all subsequent
certificates of title including petitioner’s titles are void because of
the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than its source.
The law must protect and prefer the lawful owner of registered
title over the transferee of a vendor bereft of any transmissible
rights.”
Same; Same; Same; Double Sales; A certificate is not

conclusive evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had
already been
558
registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence.—

But “a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown
that the same land had already been registered and an earlier
certificate for the same is in existence.” In the case at bar, as
borne out by pertinent records, the private respondents obtained
their rights and title from TCT No. T-85866, which was registered
on August 9, 1976 under the name of Heirs of Onofre Batallones
and Patronillo Quimio. On the part of petitioners, their supposed

title originated from a spurious title of Pedro Banayo and Pablo
Pugay illegally registered on February 28, 1980.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Land Registration; On the

assumption that there was regularity in the registration leading to
the eventual issuance of two transfer certificates of title, the better
approach is to trace the original certificates from which the
certificates of title in dispute were derived, and should there be
only one common original certificate of title, the transfer certificate
issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail, absent any
anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of registration.—
Where two transfer certificates of title have been issued on
different dates, to two different persons, for the same parcel of
land even if both are presumed to be title holders in good faith, it
does not necessarily follow that he who holds the earlier title
should prevail. On the assumption that there was regularity in
the registration leading to the eventual issuance of subject
transfer certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the
original certificates from which the certificates of title in dispute
were derived. Should there be only one common original
certificate of title, as in this case under consideration, the transfer
certificate issued on an earlier date along the line must prevail,
absent any anomaly or irregularity tainting the process of
registration.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Elmor P. Orajay for petitioners.
Tinoco, Tinoco & Associates collaborating counsel for
petitioners.
Franco L. Loyola for private respondents.
559
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 559

PURISIMA, J.:
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

of the Revised
1
Rules of Court, 2 seeking to set aside the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 18, 3
1993
in CA-G.R. CV No. 37902, reversing the Decision dated
March 30, 1992
4
in Civil Case Nos. TM-175, 180 and 206 of
Branch 23, Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City,
Province of Cavite.
The antecedent facts which gave rise to private
respondents’ complaints are summarized in the Decision of
the lower court, as follows:
“Civil Case No. TM-175 entitled “Spouses Teodulfo T. Atangan

and Silvia [sic] L. Atangan vs. Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael
Mathay, Jr., and the Register of Deeds of Cavite,” involves (2) [sic]
parcels of land situated in Tanza, Cavite, covered by Transfer

Certificate of Title Nos. T-195350 covering Lot No. 2186-A, issued
by the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite in the name of
Spouses Teodulfo T. Atangan and Silvia [sic] L. Atangan, and
TCT No. T-195351, covering Lot No. 2186-C, issued in the name of
Silvia [sic] L. Atangan and Teodulfo T. Atangan, on July 24, 1985.
PLAINTIFFS allege that:
1) they are the registered owners of two (2) parcels of land
situated in Tanza, Cavite having purchased the same from
Spouses Tomas Lucido and Eustaquia Villanueva as evidenced by
a Deed of Sale; 2) they were issued TCT Nos. T-195350 and T-
195351; 3) the vendors, spouses Tomas Lucido and Eustaquia
Villanueva were also issued TCT Nos. T-192527 and T-192529 by
the Register of Deeds of Cavite, which were cancelled in favor of
the plaintiffs; 4) vendors’ titles which were transferred to
plaintiffs were obtained by virtue of the decision in Civil Case No.
NC-709 entitled Tomas Lucido vs.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 34-80.

2 Fourth Division composed of Associate Justices Corona Ibay-Somera (ponente),
Nathanael O. De Pano, Jr. (Chairman) and Asaali S. Isnani (member).
3 “Annex A,” CA Original Rollo.
4 Presided by Judge Ramon Añonuevo.
560

Juana Onate Batallones and Petronilla C. Quimio, Director of

Lands, and Registers (sic) of Deeds of Cavite; 5) the heirs of
Onofre Batallones and Norberto Quimio are the vendees of the
said lands from the Bureau of Lands as evidenced by a
Certification issued by Adelwisa P. Onga, (sic) Record Officer of
the District Land Office of Trece Martires City; 6) the sale of the
said parcels of land from the Bureau of Lands in favor of the heirs
of Batallones and Quimio was also evidenced by a Deed of
Conveyance duly issued by Bureau of Lands; 7) from the time
they obtained titles of the two parcels of land [they] have taken
possession and paid the corresponding realty property taxes; 8)
defendants have enclosed a portion of said property with a fence
and occupied 23,800 square meters without the consent and will
of plaintiffs; 9) plaintiffs have learned that defendants as vendees
have also issued title covering the same land in the name of the
plaintiffs under TCT No. T-113047; 10) the titles issued to
defendants was (sic) the product of forgery because it was based
on an alleged TCT No. T-3444 in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo
Pugay of Trece Martires City who have no right whatsoever on
the real estate in question; 11) upon investigation, it was certified
by the Bureau of Lands that the said titles were falsified and
forged because alleged Deed No. V-12918 was issued to one Jack
C. Callado for Lot 18, Block 56, Tala Estate situated in Caloocan
City and there was no record in the Bureau of Lands that Deed
No. V-12918 was issued for Lot 2886, S.C. Malabon Estate, Cavite
in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay from whom defendants

have allegedly acquired title over the said property; 12)
considering that the title of the defendants have no basis in law
and fact and that the same was illegally, unlawfully and
maliciously issued by the Register of Deeds on the basis of forged
and falsified and none [sic] existing documents as basis for the
issuance thereof, the same may be cancelled and defendants have
no right to take possession of the real properties thereon
including the portion pertaining to the herein plaintiffs consisting
of 23,800 square meters, more or less; 13) in view of bad faith,
illegal and unlawful actuations of the defendants in obtaining
titles over the property in question thru forged and falsified
documents, plaintiffs suffered sleepless nights, anxiety, mental
anguish for which they are entitled to claim for moral damages in
the sum of P100,000.00; 14) despite repeated demands from the
plaintiffs for the defendnats (sic) to desist from enclosing the
titled property with a fence, the latter without any lawful right
insisted and actually closed their property with a fence, causing
irreparable damage and prejudice to the plaintiffs; 15) in view of
the illegal, unlawful, mali-
561
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 561

cious and bad faith of the defendants and in disregard of the

rights of the plaintiffs, the latter are constrained to hire the
services of counsel for which they agreed to pay the sum of
P50,000.00 in addition to the appearance fee of P500.00 every
hearing of this case.
x x x x x x x x x
Involved in Civil Case No. TM-180 entitled Sps. Agustina
Poblete and Amor Poblete vs. Sps. Sonya Mathay and Ismael
Mathay, Jr., and the Register of Deeds of Cavite for Annulment of
Titles and Recovery of Possession, is a parcel of land situated in
Tanza, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-
192532 registered in the name of Juana Batallones and
Gaudencio Quimio which was allegedly sold to the herein
plaintiff, as per “Deed of Conditional Sale” dated December 28,
1987.
PLAINTIFFS allege that:
1) Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a parcel of land

situated in Tanza, Cavite having purchased the same from
Juana Batallones and Gaudencio Quimio for themselves
and on behalf of their co-heirs as evidenced by Deed of
Sale;
2) Plaintiffs-predecessors-in-interest were duly issued
Certificate of Title No. T-192532;
3) said vendees whose titles aforesaid was transferred in
favor of the plaintiffs have obtained the title by virtue of
the decision by then Court of First Instance of Naic,
Cavite in Civil Case No. NC-709 entitled Tomas Lucido
versus Juana Onate Batallones and Petronilla Q. Quimio,
Director of Lands, the Register of Deeds of Cavite;
4) the heirs of Onofre Batallones and Modesta Quimio are

the vendees of the land from the Bureau of Lands as
evidenced by a Certification issued by Adelwisa P. Ong,
Record Officer of the District Land Office of Trece
Martires City;
5) the sale of the said parcel of land from the Bureau of
Lands in favor of the heirs of Batallones and Quimio was
also evidenced by a Deed of Conveyance duly issued by the
Bureau of Lands;
6) plaintiffs have taken possession thereof;
7) defendants have enclosed a portion of said property with a
fence and occupied 114,987 square meters thereof without
the consent and against the will of plaintiffs;
562

8) plaintiffs have learned that defendants as vendees have

been also issued Transfer Certificate of Title covering the
same land titled in the name of the plaintiffs under TCT
No. T-112047;
9) the title issued to defendants was the product of forgery
because it was based on an alleged TCT No. T-111070 in
favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay of Trece Martires
City who have no right whatsoever on the real estate in
question;
10) upon investigation it was certified by the Bureau of Lands
that the said title was falsified and forged because alleged
Deed No. V-12918 was issued to one Juana C. Collado for
Lot 18, Block 56, Tala Estate situated in Caloocan City
and that there was (sic) no records in the Bureau of Lands
that Deed No. 12918 was issued Lot 2886, S.C. Malabon
Estate, Cavite in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay
to whom defendants have allegedly acquired title over the
said property;
11) considering that the title of the defendants have (sic) no
basis in law and in fact and that the same was illegally,
unlawfully and maliciously issued by the Register of
Deeds on the basis of forged and falsified and none [sic]
existing documents as basis for issuance thereof, the same
may be cancelled and defendants have no right to take
possession of the real property thereon including the
portion pertaining to the herein plaintiffs consisting of
114,987 square meters more or less, said title creates
cloud on the title of plaintiffs and by their predecessors-in-
interest and as such plaintiffs could not deal on said
property and complete transactions thereto, thereby
irreparable damage (sic);
12) as a result of the illegal, unlawful, unjust and malicious
actuations of the defendants, plaintiffs were deprived of
the use of the said parcel of land unlawfully and illegally
occupied by them and they failed to introduce the
necessary improvements thereon and for which they

suffered damages in the amount of not less than
P50,000.00;
13) in view of the bad faith, illegal and unlawful actuations of
the defendants in obtaining title over the property [,
plaintiffs] suffered from sleepless nights, anxiety, mental
anguish for while (sic) they are also entitled to claim for
moral damages in the sum of P100,000.00;
14) despite repeated demands from the plaintiffs for the
defendants to desist from enclosing the titled property
with a fence, the latter without any lawful right insisted
and actually enclosed
563
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 563

their property with a fence, causing irreparable damage

and prejudice to the plaintiffs;
15) in view of the illegal, unlawful, malicious and bad faith of
defendants and disregard of the right of the plaintiffs, the
latter are constrained to hire the services of counsel for
which they agreed to pay the sum of P50,000.00 in
addition
5
to appearance of P500.00 every hearing of this
case;
x x x x x x x x x
In Civil Case No. TM-206 entitled Spouses Eduardo and
Felicisima Tirona, et al. vs. Spouses Sonia (sic) Mathay, et al., for
“Quieting of Title, Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession
with Damage,” etc.
PLAINTIFFS, allege that:
3) on December 31, 1985, Spouses Bonifacio Motas and

Juliana Motas bought a parcel of land situated at (sic)
Tanza, Cavite known as Lot 2186-B of Psu-04-01892,
containing an area of 18,943 square meters covered by
Transfer of (sic) Certificate of Title No. T-192530 of the
Registry of Deeds of Cavite from David Quimio as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale;
4) Spouses Bonifacio Motas and Juliana Motas issued TCT
No. T-203730 by the Register of Deeds of Cavite;
5) Vendors David Quimio, Sr., et al., are the previous
registered owners of said parcel of land as evidenced by
TCT No. T-192530;
6) Vendors David Quimio, Sr., whose title was transferred to
Motas have obtained rights and interest thereon from
their predecessors who were vendees from the Bureau of
Lands which was confirmed in the Decision of then Court
of First Instance of Cavite in Civil Case No. 809 entitled
Tomas Lucido versus Juana Batallones and Petronilla
Quimio, et al., issued on January 30, 1981;
7) said parcel of land was subdivided under Psu-04-01763
into eight lots as evidenced by Sub-division Plan; (sic)
_______________
5 As Answer to the Complaint, defendant Spouses Mathay interposed

exactly the same affirmative defenses they put up in Civil Case No. TM-
175.
564

8) plaintiffs bought the subdivided lots from Motas in good

faith, and issued Transfer Certificate of Titles by the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite, as follows:
NAME LOT TCT NO. AREA

1. Sps. Eduardo & 2186-D-6 203728 3,000 sq. m.
Felicisima Tirona 2186-D-1 203723 741 sq. m.
2. Soledad Motas & Sps. 2186-D-8 206078 3,409 sq. m.
Ignacio San Jose &
Lucila San Jose 2186-D-8 206078 1,591 sq. m.
3. Anania Cervania 2186-D-3 203725 2,500 sq. m.
4. Ricardo Malabanan 2186-D-4 203726 2,500 sq. m.
5. Plocerfina Tanyag 2186-D-2 203724 700 sq. m.
6. Ruperta Bartolome 2186-D-5B 220606 550 sq. m.
2186-D-5C 220607 700 sq. m.
2186-D-5D 220608 700 sq. m.
2186-D-A 220605 550 sq. m.
9) plaintiffs are the one (sic) paying the corresponding real

property taxes thereon and were issued corresponding tax
declaration by the Office of the Provincial Assessor of
Cavite;
10) plaintiffs have come to know that defendants Spouses
Sonia (sic) Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr. have enclosed
among others said real properties of the plaintiffs with a
fence and took physical possession thereof without the
knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs;
11) plaintiffs have learned also that defendants have also
issued Transfer Certificate of Title covering among others
the same land titled in the name of the plaintiffs under
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-113047;
12) the title issued to defendants was the product of forgery
because it was based on an alleged Transfer of Certificate
of Title No. 3444 in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo
Pugay of Trece Martires City who have no right
whatsoever on the real estate in question and who have
been in prior physical possession thereof, as such said title
is void-ab-initio;
13) upon investigation, it was certified by the Bureau of Lands
that the said titles were based on falsified and forged
documents because alleged Deed No. V-12918 which was
the basis for the issuance thereof, was issued to one Jack
C. Gallado for Lot 18, Block 56, Tala Estate situated in

Caloocan City and that there was no
565
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 565

records in the Bureau of Lands that Deed No. V-12918

was issued for Lot 2886, S.C. Malabon Estate, Cavite in
favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay to whom
defendants have allegedly acquired title over the said
property;
14) the title of the defendants have no basis in law and in fact
and that the same was illegally, unlawfully and
maliciously issued by the Register of Deeds of Cavite on
the basis of forged and falsified and none [sic] existing
documents;
15) said Transfer Certificate of Titles were illegally and
unlawfully issued without basis in favor of defendants
Mathay and their predecessors-in-interest, creating a
cloud on the titles of the plaintiffs and as such may be
declared null and void;
16) plaintiffs have the right to exclude defendants Mathays
from their enjoyment of their property and considering
that said defendants have been duly informed of the defect
and nullity of their title yet they insisted and continue to
insist in the enjoyment of the right from a void title;
17) as a result of the illegal, unlawful, unjust and malicious
actuations of the defendants, plaintiffs were deprived of
the use of the said parcel of lands unlawfully and illegally
occupied by defendants Mathay as they failed to introduce
the necessary improvements thereon and for which they
suffered damages in the amount of not less than
P50,000.00 and the amount of P500.00 a month for each
lot as reasonable compensation for the use of their lands;
18) in view of the bad faith, illegal and unlawful actuations of
the defendants in obtaining titles over the property in
question thru forged and falsified documents, plaintiffs
suffered from sleepless nights, anxiety, mental anguish for
which they are also entitled to claim for moral damages in
the sum of P150,000.00;
19) in view of the illegal, unlawful, malicious and bad faith of
the defendants and in disregard of the right of the
plaintiffs, the latter are constrained to hire the services of
counsel for which they agreed to pay the sum of
P50,000.00 in addition
6
to an appearance fee of P1,000.00
every hearing.”
x x x x x x x x x
_______________
6 As Answer to the Complaint, defendant Spouses Mathay interposed

exactly the same affirmative defenses they put up in Civil Cases No. TM-
175 and TM-180.
566

After trial on the merits, the lower court decided for

defendant spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr.,
and against the plaintiffs in the three consolidated cases;
disposing, thus:
“WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, (sic) judgment is hereby

rendered in favor of the defendants:
a) declaring Contract of Sale 3397 in favor of Tomas Lucido,

the Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 3397 issued by
Tomas Lucido in favor of Onofre Batallones and Norberto
Quimio, the Deed of Conveyance in favor of Onofre
Batallones and Norberto Quimio and Transfer Certificate
of Title No. 85866 in the name of Onofre Batallones and
Norberto Quimio, as null and void;
b) declaring Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-195350, T-
195351, T-192527, T-192529, T-192528, T-192532, T-
252996, T-252997, T-252998, T-252999, T-253000, T-
253001, T-253002, T-253003, T-253004, T-253005, T-
253037, T-206078, T-203724, T-220506, T-220607, T-
220608, T-220605, T-203728, T-203726, T-203730, T-
203723 and T-203725, as null and void, and directing the
Register of Deeds of Cavite Province to cancel them;
c) ordering Spouses Teodulfo Atangan & Sylvia Atangan,
Onofre Batallones, Norerto (sic) Quimio, Spouses Tomas
Lucido and Juana Batallones, Agustin Poblete, Juancho
Albert Poblete, Spouses Bonifacio Motas and Juliana
Motas, Soledad Mateo, Ricardo Malabanan, Flocerfina
Bartolome, Spouses Eugenio Bartolome and Ruperto
Bartolome, Spouses Eduardo Tirona and Felicisima Tirona
and Anania Gervania (sic) to surrender to the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Cavite their owner’s copy of their
Transfer of Certificates of Title covering portions of Lot
2186;
7
d) declaring TCT No. T-11304 [sic] valid and the defendants
to have superior rights to the property in question and to
be the true and lawful owners of the same;
e) ordering plaintiffs jointly and severally liable to pay
defendants attorney’s fees of P50,000.00 and to pay the
costs;
f) denying all other claims of the parties for lack of basis in
law and/or evidence.
SO ORDERED.”
_______________
7 Should be TCT No. T-113047.
567
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 567

On appeal, the Court of Appeals

8
culled from the records on
hand the following facts, to wit:
“Plaintiff-appellants and defendants-appellees are all holders of

Transfer Certificates of Title which all appear duly issued by the
Register of Deeds of Cavite.
Plaintiffs derived their titles as follows:
The land claimed by the parties is known as Lot 2186 of the
Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate originally consisting of 174,914 sq.
meters and previously covered by a survey in the name of
plaintiffs predecessor-in-interest Heirs of Onofre Batallones and
Heirs of Patronillo Quimio
9
and Tomas Lucido evidenced by Psd
04-010692 (Exh. A). The Heirs of Batallones and Patronillo 10
Quimio were issued TCT No. 85866 on August 9, 1976 (Exh. C).
On July 13, 1976, the Director of Lands transmitted to the
Register of Deeds of Cavite the Deed of Conveyance and for
issuance of corresponding TCT to the Heirs of Onofre Batallones
and Norberto Quimio represented
11
by Juana S. Batallones and
Patronillo Quimio (Exh. K). The original vendee of said lot from
the Bureau of Land was Tomas Lucido who 12was issued contract of
Sale 3397 dated March 16, 1936 (Exh. M). Lucido assigned his
rights over said parcel of land to Onofre Batallones and Norberto
Quimio on October 17, 194413 evidenced by assignment of Sale
Certificate No. 3397 (Exh. N). In an [O]rder dated June 18, 1976,14
said assignment was approved by the Director of Lands (Exh. O).
On July 1, 1976 the then Department of Natural Resources
through Jose A. Janalo, Assistant Secretary issued Sales
Certificate No. 3397,
15
Deed No. T-11692 to Heirs of Batallones and
Quimio (Exh. Q). On June 18, 1976, the Bureau of Lands
forwarded
_______________
8 CA Decision, pp. 18-25; Rollo, pp. 52-59.

9 Records, p. 193.
10 Records, p. 194.
11 Records, p. 203.
12 Records, p. 206.
13 Records, p. 208.
14 Records, p. 210; See also “Exh. P,” p. 211.
15 Records, p. 212.
568

to the Department of Natural Resources for signature the Deeds

of 16
Conveyance in favor of Heirs of Batallones and Quimio (Exh.
S).
After the
17
Heirs of Batallones and Quimio were duly issued TCT
No. 85866 on August 9, 1976, Tomas Lucido filed Civil Case No.
NC 709 before the then Court 18
of First Instance of Cavite, Branch
1, Naic, Cavite (Exh. GG) which ended in a Decision by said
court based on a Compromise Agreement duly executed by Juana
Onate Batallones representing the heirs of Onofre Batallones and
Patronillo Onate Quimio, representing the heirs of Norberto
Quimio and pursuant thereto 35,000 sq. meters on the southern
portion was given to Tomas Lucido married to Eustaquia
Villanueva while the remaining portion of Lot 2186 pertained and
belonged to the defendants Heirs 19
of Batallones and Heirs of
Norberto Quimio (Exh. Y). Pursuant to the Approved
Compromise Agreement in the said decision (Exh. Y), a deed of
partition was executed by Juana Batallones, et al., and Tomas
Lucido whereby the land covered by TCT No. T-85866 of the
Register of Deeds was subdivided into six (6) lots known as Lots
2186-A, 2186-B, 2186-C, 2186-D, 2186-E and 2186-F, pursuant to
approved technical descriptions and subdivision plan Psd-04-
10692, and that lots 2186-A containing an area of 9,100 sq. meters
and lot 2186-C containing an area of 24,700 were assigned to
Tomas Lucido while the rest 20
of the lots assigned to Juana
Batallones et al., (Exh. FF). After securing clearance
21
from the
Department of Agrarian Reform (Exh. PP-1) and payment of
required fees and compliance with the requirements of
registration the Register of Deeds of Cavite, Trece Martirez (sic)
City issued the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title to the
Heirs of Batallones and Quimio and Tomas Lucido, as follows:
_______________
16 Records, p. 222.
17 “Exh. C,” Records, p. 194.
18 Records, pp. 275-82.
19 Records, pp. 247-49.
20 Records, pp. 270-74.
21 Records, pp. 321-23.
569
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 569

Lot 2186-A TCT No. 192527 Lucido, Tomas

22
(sic)
Exh. E, V-2
23
Lot 2186-B TCT No. 192528 Exh. AAA
Lot 2186-C TCT No. 192529 Tomas Lucido
24
Exh. D, V-3
Lot 2186-D TCT No. 192530
Lot 2186-E TCT No. 192531 Exh. AAA-1
25
Lot 2186-F TCT No. 192532 Exh. G
Tomas Lucido married to Eustaquia Villanueva who was the 26

registered owner of lot 2186-A, TCT No. 192527 (Exh. E; V-2)
2186-A sold
27
to plaintiffs Teodulfo P. Atangan married to Sylvia
Atangan evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale [e]xecuted on July
28
28
12, 198529 (Exh. U-1). and another Deed of Sale for Lot 2186-C
(Exh. U) Plaintiffs Atangan were duly issued TCT Nos. T-195350
for lot 2186-A and TCT30
No. T-195351 for Lot 2186-C (Exhs. V-1
and V, respectively). Said plaintiffs
31
paid the corresponding taxes
thereon (Exhs. U-6, U-7) and they were duly issued Tax
Declaration No. 11677
32
and Tax Declaration No. 11679 (Exhs. U-4,
U-3, respectively).
Juana Batallones, et al., sold lot 2186-F to plaintiffs Agustina
Poblete, married to Amor Poblete, Juancho 33
Albert A. Poblete, and
Juliana Motas married to Bonifacio Motas evidenced 34
by a deed of
absolute sale executed on June 8, 1988 (Exh. XX). Said parcel of
_______________
22 Records, p. 196.
23 Records, p. 197.
24 Records, p. 243.
25 Records, p. 198.
26 Records, p. 196.
27 Spouses Atangan are the plaintiffs in the first case: Civil Case No. TM-175.
28 Records, pp. 230-31.
29 Records, pp. 228-29.
30 Records, pp. 239-40.
31 Records, pp. 337-38.
32 Records, pp. 234-35.
33 The Pobletes and the Motases are the plaintiffs in the second case: Civil Case
No. TM-180.
34 Records, pp. 381-82.
570

land was subdivided under Sub. plan Psd-04-0106-92, and, as a

result the following Certificate of Titles were issued to the
following plaintiffs:
Lot 2186-F-1 TCT No. T-252996 Agustina

35
Poblete
Exh. SS
Lot 2186-F-2 TCT No. T-252997 - do - 36
Exh. SS-1
Lot 2186-F-3 TCT No. T-252998 - do - 37
Exh. SS-2
Lot 2186-F-4 TCT No. T-252999 - do - 38
Exh. SS-3
Lot 2186-F-5 TCT No. T-253000 Juancho Albert
39
Poblete
Exh. SS-4
Lot 2186-F-6 TCT No. T-213001 - do - 40
Exh. SS-5
Lot 2186-F-7 TCT No. T-253002 Juancho Albert
41
Poblete
Exh. SS-6
Lot 2186-F-8 TCT No. T-253003 Juliana Motas
42
Exh. SS-7
Lot 2186-F-9 TCT No. T-253004 - do - 43
Exh. SS-8
Lot 2186-F-10 TCT No. T-253005 - do - 44

Exh. SS-9
Lot 2186-F-11 TCT No. T-253007 - do - 45
Exh. SS-10
_______________
35 Records, p. 332.
36 Records, p. 333.
37 Records, p. 334.
38 Records, p. 335.
39 Records, p. 336.
40 Records, p. 337.
41 Records, p. 338.
42 Records, p. 339.
43 Records, p. 342.
44 Records, p. 340.
45 Records, p. 341.
571
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 571

David Quimio, owners of Lot 2186-D, TCT No. 19530 sold

the same to plaintiff Juliana Motas married to Bonifacio
Motas evidenced by a notarized 46
deed of absolute sale dated
December 31, 1985 (Exh. VV). Said lot contained an area
of 18,943 sq. meters more or less. She was issued TCT No.
T-201592 by the Register of Deed (sic) of Cavite. Plaintiffs
Motas caused said lot to be subdivided under Psd-017063
and sold the same to plaintiffs Tirona, et al., in Civil Case
No. TM-206 and corresponding Transfer Certificates of
Titles were issued to the said plaintiffs as follows:

1. Sps. Eduardo & 2186-D- 203728 3,000 sq.
6 m.
Felicisima Tirona 2186-D- 203723 741 sq.
1 m.
2. Soledad Mateo (sic) & 2186-D- 206078 3,409 sq.
8 m.
Sps. Ignacio San Jose
& Lucila San Jose 2186-D- 206078 1,591 sq.
8 m.
3. Anania Cervania 2186-D- 203725 2,500 sq.
3 m.
4. Ricardo Malabanan 2186-D- 203726 2,500 sq.
4 m.
5. Plocerfina Tanyag 2186-D- 203724 700 sq.
2 m.
6. Ruperta Bartolome 2186-D- 220606 550 sq.
5B m.

2186-D- 220607 700 sq.
5C m.
2186-D- 220608 700 sq.
5D m.
2186-D- 220605 550 sq.
A m.
1. Sps. Eduardo R. Tirona Exh.
47
SS-
11
Exh. SS-
12
2. Soledad Motas & Sps. Exh.
48
NN-
Ignacio 1
San Jose & Lucila San Exh. SS-
Jose 13
3. Anania Servnia (sic) Exh.
49
SS-
20
Exh. SS-
19
4. Ricardo Malabanan Exh.
50
NN-
4
5. Plocerfina Tanyag Exh.
51
NN-
3
6. Ruperta Malabanan Exh.
52
NN-
6
_______________
46 Records, p. 378.
47 Records, pp. 343-44.
48 Records, pp. 345, 305.
49 Records, pp. 358-59.
50 Records, p. 357.
51 Records, p. 309.
52 Records, pp. 311-14.
572

Exh. NN-7
Exh. NN-8
Exh. NN-9
7. Plaintiff Juliana Motas & Lot No. 2186-D
Bonifacio Motas TCT No. 203730
53
Exh. VV-1
Said plaintiffs were duly issued

54
corresponding Tax Declaration
and have paid the realty taxes thereon and they were in actual
possession of the contested parcels of land until the same were
fenced by defendants Mathay’s men over their objection and upon

inquires, they discovered that the defendants Mathay were55 issued
TCT No. T-113047 covering same parcel of land (Exh. 2) based
on a Deed of Absolute [S]ale executed allegedly
56
on 21 May 1980 by
Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay 57
(Exh. 3) and notarized by
Manalad Santera (Exh. 3-A).
Defendants-appellees Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael
Mathay, Jr. claimed that the land described as Lot 2186 of the
Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate, situated in Tanza, Cavite,
containing an area58of 174,917 square meters covered by TCT No.
T-111070 (Exh. 8), registered in the name of Pedro Banayo and
Pablo Pugay on February 28, 1980 was purchased by the 59
defendants from Pedro Pugay 60on May 31, 1980 (Exhs. 3, 3-A),
and TCT No. T-113047 (Exh. 2) was issued in their favor on June
3, 1980 by the Office of the Register of Deeds of Cavite Province,
61
declared for taxation purposed (sic) (Exhs.62 4, 5) and
corresponding taxes paid (Exhs. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22).
_______________
53 Records, p. 380.
54 “Exhs. NN-1,” Records, p. 304; “NN-2-B,” Records, p. 307; “NN-2-C,”
Records, p. 308.
55 Records, p. 456.
56 Records, p. 450.
57 Records, p. 451.
58 Records, p. 456.
59 Records, pp. 450-51.
60 Records, p. 449.
61 Records, pp. 453-54.
62 Records, pp. 468-72.
573
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 573

It appears that Director of Lands Ramon N. Casanova, under the

Deed No. V-12918 and Sales Certificate No. 2454 in consideration
of P8,958.00 sold to Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay Lot 2186 of
the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate, friar Lands Estate, situated in
the Municipality of Tanza, Province of Cavite, containing an area
of 17 hectares, 49 ares and 17 centares of the subdivision plan A-
21 approved by the Court 63of Land Registration on the 4th day of
February, 1911 64(Exh. 15) with the technical description of the
land (Exh. 15-A) and on February 21, 1980, a letter addressed to
the Register of Deeds 65for issuance of title to Pedro Banayo and
Pablo Pugay (Exh. 16) which was cancelled by TCT No. 113047
issued in the66name of Spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay,
Jr., (Exh. 2), and that according to the old Sales Register Book
kept in the office, Lot 2186 of the Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate,
Cavite, is registered
67
in the name of Pedro Banayo and Pablo
Pugay (Exh. 17-A). It appears also that Pugay and Banayo were
assignees 68
of the subject lot under Assignment of Sale Certificate
No. 3397, of the Bureau of Lands, with Tomas Lucido as
assignor.”
x x x x x x x x x
On November 18, 1993, the Court of Appeals came out with

a judgment of reversal, the dispositive portion of which,
reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in

favor of plaintiffs-appellants in the above-entitled three cases
against defendants-appellees. The consolidated decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martirez (sic) City in Civil
Case No. TM-175, Civil Case No. TM-180 and Civil Case No. TM-
206 is reversed and set aside. The defendants-appellees Register
of Deeds of Cavite, Trece Martirez (sic) City is ordered to cancel
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 113047 covering Lot 2186 of Sta.
Cruz de Malabon Estate in the name of Spouses Ismael and
Sonya Mathay. Spouses Ismael and Sonya Mathay are ordered to
vacate Lot 2186,
_______________
63 Records, p. 465.
64 Records, p. 466.
65 Records, p. 466.
66 Records, p. 449.
67 Records, p. 467.
68 Records, p. 299.
574

Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate, Cavite in favor of the plaintiffs-

appellants.
SO ORDERED.”
With the denial of their motion for reconsideration, the

spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr. found their
way to this Court via the present Petition; theorizing, that:
I.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN

SETTING ASIDE THE GENUINE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
OF TITLE NO. 113047 OF SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL MATHAY,
JR., WHO ACQUIRED THE SAID TORRENS TITLE AS
BUYERS IN GOOD FAITH, SINCE THE DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY FOR THE TRANSFER, EVEN PRIOR TO THE
SALE, WERE ALL DULY FILED AND CLEARED WITH THE
RE REGISTER OF DEEDS, ASSESSOR’S OFFICE, B.I.R., AND
OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES. MOREOVER, THE LAW
STATED IN “DINO VS. COURT OF APPEALS,” G.R. NO. 95921,
SHOULD BE UPHELD, IN CASE OF BASELESS ASSERTION
OF ALLEGED FORGERY BY THE RESPONDENTS;
II.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED

IN NOT RECOGNIZING THE 1980 TITLE OF SPS. SONYA &
ISMAEL MATHAY, JR. OVER AND ABOVE THE LATER 1986-
88 ALLEGED TITLES OF RESPONDENTS-ATANGAN, ET AL.,
WHICH IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE APPLICABLE LAW
ON THE MATTER, NAMELY: ART. 1544 OF THE CIVIL CODE
OF THE PHILIPPINES;
III.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED

IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE DEED OF SALE
EXECUTED BY VENDORS—BANAYO & PUGAY IN FAVOR OF
VENDEES—SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL MATHAY, JR. IS DULY
NOTARIZED IN SO FAR AS THE VENDORS AND VENDEES
ARE CONCERNED AND THAT, FURTHERMORE, THE COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY
OF THE PETITIONERS’ DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE ALL
DULY EXECUTED.
575
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 575

The petitioners, spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael

Mathay, Jr., claim to be buyers in good faith, reasoning out
that TCT No. T-111070, the derivative title of their TCT
No. T-113047, appeared to be free from any encumbrance.
They argue that a person dealing on a registered land may
safely rely on the correctness of the covering certificate of
title and is not required to go beyond the certificate of title
to determine the condition of the property.
A purchaser in good faith and for value is defined as
“one who buys property of another, without notice that
some other person has a right to, or interest in, such
property and pays a full and fair price for the same at the
time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the69claims
or interest of some other person in the property.” As a
rule, he who asserts the status of a purchaser in good faith
and for value, has the burden of proving such assertion.
This onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere
invocation of the legal presumption of good 70
faith, i.e., “that
everyone is presumed to act in good faith.”
Here, petitioners cannot be categorized as purchasers in
good faith. Prior to the fencing of subject land, neither they
(Mathays) nor their predecessors-in-interest (Banayo and
Pugay) ever possessed the same. In fact, at the time the
said property was sold to petitioners, the private
respondents were not only in actual possession of the same
but also built their houses thereon, cultivated it and were
in full enjoyment of the produce and fruits gathered
therefrom. Although it is a recognized principle that a
person dealing on a registered land need not go beyond its
certificate of title, it is also a firmly settled rule that where
there are circumstances which would put a party on guard
and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property

being sold to him, such as the presence of
occupants/tenants thereon, it is, of course, expected from
the purchaser of a valued piece of land to inquire first into
the status or nature of possession of the occupants, i.e.,
whether or not the occupants possess the land en concepto
de dueño , in con-
_______________
69 Sandoval vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 283 [1996].

70 Baltazar vs. Court of Appeals, 168 SCRA 354, 357 [1988].
576

cept of owner. As is the common practice in the real estate

industry, an ocular inspection of the premises involved is a
safeguard a cautious and prudent purchaser usually takes.
Should he find out that the land he intends to buy is
occupied by anybody else other than the seller who, as in
this case, is not in actual possession, it would then be
incumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the
occupant’s possessory rights. The failure of a prospective
buyer to take such precautionary steps would mean
negligence on his part and would thereby preclude him
from claiming or invoking the rights of a “purchaser in good
faith.”
So also, before the fence around subject property was
erected, private respondents communicated their objection
to the fencing of the area by petitioners but they were
ignored by the petitioners, who continued enclosing the
premises under controversy in the presence of armed men
employed by them (petitioners).
Consequently, not being “innocent purchasers for value,”
within legal contemplation, petitioners’ reliance on Article
1544 of the New Civil Code is misplaced. Such stance of
theirs lacks legal and factual basis. The fundamental 71
premise of preferential rights under the law is good faith.
Viewed in proper perspective, we uphold the finding by
the Court of Appeals that the petitioners cannot invoke
Art. 1544 of the Civil Code in view of the questionable
documents from which their title emanated. As the Court of
Appeals ratiocinated:
“We think the applicable rule as stated in Baltazar v. Court of

Appeals, No. L-78728, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 334, is that
as between two persons both of whom are in good faith and both
innocent of any negligence, the law must protect and prefer the
lawful holder of registered title over the transferee of a vendor
bereft of any transmissible rights. Under the foregoing principle
derived from the above case law, the Mathays have no rights as
against plaintiffs-
_______________
71 Tanedo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80 [1996]; Paylago vs. Jarabe, 131
Phil. 354.
577
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 577

appellants,
72
their recourse is against their vendors Banayo and
Pugay.”
The aforesaid ruling of the Court of Appeals accords with

the Latin maxim: nemo potest plus juris ad alium
transferre quam ipse habet. “No one can transfer a greater
right to another than he himself has.”
73
Thus, in Calalang vs.
Register of Deeds of Quezon City, this Court held:
“Needless to state, all subsequent certificates of title including

petitioner’s titles are void because of the legal truism that the
spring cannot rise higher than its source. The law must protect
and prefer the lawful owner of registered title over the transferee
of a vendor bereft of any transmissible rights.”
In sum, “defective titles cannot be upheld 74against the

unblemished titles of the private respondents.”
Petitioners further submit that requiring them to
inquire beyond the face of the torrens title defeats the
primordial objective of the torrens system, which is that a
person dealing on registered land has the right to rely on
the torrens title.
But “a certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is
shown that the same land had already been registered 75
and
an earlier certificate for the same is in existence.” In the
case at bar, as borne out by pertinent records, the private
respondents obtained their rights and title from TCT No. T-
85866, which was registered on August 9, 1976 under the
name of Heirs of Onofre Batallones and Patronillo Quimio.
On the part of petitioners, their supposed title originated
from a spurious title of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay
illegally registered on February 28, 1980.
_______________
72 CA Decision, pp. 41-42; Rollo, pp. 75-76.

73 231 SCRA 88 [1994].
74 Lorenzana Food Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 231 SCRA 713
[1994].
75 Heirs of Luis J. Gonzaga vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 327 [1996].
578

So also, where two transfer certificates of title have been

issued on different dates, to two different persons, for the
same parcel of land even if both are presumed to be title
holders in good faith, it does not necessarily follow that he
who holds the earlier title should prevail. On the
assumption that there was regularity in the registration
leading to the eventual issuance of subject transfer
certificates of title, the better approach is to trace the
original certificates from which the certificates of title in
dispute were derived. Should there be only one common
original certificate of title, as in this case under
consideration, the transfer certificate issued on an earlier
date along the line must prevail, absent any anomaly or
irregularity tainting the process of registration.
In light of the attendant facts and circumstances, there
is therefore a need to refer to the background or history of
the land under controversy. As conceded by petitioners,
their TCT No. T-113047 was derived from TCT No. 111070
under the names of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay. Hence,
the necessity of looking into and determining the
legitimacy of the title of the two, Banayo and Pugay.
In an effort to support their claim of ownership over
subject Lot 2186, Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay presented
two theories. First, they theorize that on October 17,
76
1970,
under Assignment of Sale Certificate No. 3397, Tomas
Lucido assigned and transferred to them all his interests in
the contested land. Their second theory is that subject real
property was sold to them by then Director of Lands
Ramon N. Casanova, 77
under Deed No. V-12918 and Sales
Certificate No. 2454.
After a careful examination of germane records,
however, we are of the conclusion, and so find, that the
aforestated theories of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay are
without any factual and legal basis.
_______________
76 “Exh. LL,” Records, p. 299.

77 “Exh. 15,” Records, p. 465.
579
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 579

The assignment of Sales Certificate No. 3397 allegedly

executed by Tomas Lucido in favor of Pedro Banayo and
Pablo Pugay was not signed by the said Tomas Lucido.
Neither does it bear the signature of the latter. Worse,
78
the
same Tomas Lucido testified on the witness stand, that he
does not know Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay, and he
never received P50,000.00 from them. What is more, Tomas
Lucido reiterated that he really sold the land in question to
the herein private respondents, spouses Teodulfo Atangan
and Sylvia Atangan, the plaintiffs in Civil 79
Case No. TM-
175, as shown by the two Deeds of Sale he executed in
favor of the said spouses Teodulfo Atangan and Sylvia

Atangan.
To reinforce their aforesaid second theory, Banayo and
Pugay declared that, for and in consideration of Eight
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Eight (P8,958.00) Pesos,
former Director of Lands Ramon Casanova issued Deed No.
V-12918 with Sales Certificate No. 2454, which Deed was
the basis of the issuance to them of TCT No. T-111070 by
the Register of Deeds of the Province of Cavite.
But Mr. Marcelino Freiras, Chief of Reservation and
Special Land Grant Section of the Bureau of Lands,
stressed that the signature of former Lands Director
Ramon Casanova on the said Deed No. V-12918 with Sales
Certificate No. 2454, was forged. According to him
(Freiras), having worked with him for the past thirty (30)
years, he 80 is familiar with the signature of Director
Casanova. 81
Then, too, in a letter addressed to Atty. Franco Loyola,
counsel for private respondents, the same Mr. Freiras
informed that, as 82indicated by the entries in the Deed of
Conveyance Book, Deed V-12918 was issued on October
10, 1979, for Lot No. 18, Block 16, Tala Estate, Caloocan
City, in the
_______________
78 TSN of August 28, 1990, pp. 3-11.

79 “Exhs. T and U,” Records, pp. 225-29.
80 TSN, April 21, 1989, pp. 27-28.
81 “Exh. UU-1,” Records, p. 375.
82 “Exhs. RR and RR-1,” Records, pp. 330-31.
580

name of one Zaida C. Calado, and not for the subject land,
identified as Lot 2186 of Sta. Cruz de Malabon Estate,
Cavite City, originally registered under the names of the
Heirs of Onofre
83
Batallones and Patronillo Quimio. In
another letter sent in answer to the query of Juana Motas,
one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. TM-180, Alicia V.
Dayrit, Office Caretaker of Land Management Division of
the Bureau of Lands, corroborated what Mr. Freiras
disclosed, as aforementioned. In her said letter, Alicia V.
Dayrit revealed to Mrs. Motas that there is really no record
of any Deed No. V-12918 issued for Lot 2186 of Sta. Cruz
de Malabon Estate, Cavite City, in favor of Pedro Banayo
and Pablo Pugay, and that what appears in the Registry
Book of Deeds of Conveyance is Deed of Conveyance No. V-
11692 issued on July 1, 1976 in favor of Onofre Batallones
and Norberto Quimio by the then Secretary of Natural
Resources, which Deed pertains to Lot 2186 of Sta. Cruz de
Malabon Estate. The aforesaid revelations 84
were
corroborated in open court by witness Freiras. Further,
the Court detected discrepancies in the entries of the

documents above mentioned. Pedro Banayo and Pablo
Pugay contended that by virtue of Sales Certificate No.
2454, the then Director of Lands Ramon85
Casanova issued
Deed V-12918, on February 18, 1980. However, after a
meticulous examination of the evidence on record, the
Court noticed that former Director Ramon Casanova issued
another Deed V-12918 but, bearing Sales 86
Certificate No.
3397 and dated February 19, 1980. It should be
remembered that Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay declared
that the issuance of TCT No. T-111070 in their favor was
based on the said two documents, both bearing the
signature of Director Casanova.
The foregoing observations jibe with the revelation of
Freiras that the alleged signatures of former Lands
Director Ra-
_______________
83 “Exh. I,” Records, p. 201.

84 Mr. Freiras testified on the following dates: January 30, 1989;
February 15, 1989; and April 21, 1989.
85 “Exh. 15,” Records, p. 465.
86 “Exh. LL-1”; Records, p. 42; p. 301.
581
VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 581

mon Casanova appearing on the said documents in

question were forged. Also strengthened thereby is the
testimony of Mrs. Adelwisa O. Ong, former Record Officer
and now Acting Administrative Officer of the Bureau of
Lands in Cavite, that subject land was patented under
Deed No. V-11692, registered under the name of the Heirs
of Onofre Batallones and Norberto Quimio, and the name
of Tomas Lucido was mentioned in the Old Sales 87
Register
Book as he was the approved vendee of the same.
Besides, it is too evident to be overlooked that the
number of the Sales Certificate of the second Deed V-12918
(bearing Sales Certificate No. 3397) is the same number of
the Sales Certificate appearing in the Assignment of Sale
allegedly executed by Tomas Lucido in favor of Pedro
Banayo and Pablo Pugay. This fact alone, which this Court
cannot ignore, is fatal to the cause of Pedro Banayo and
Pablo Pugay.
Furthermore, the circumstances 88 surrounding the
execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale by Pedro Banayo
and Pablo Pugay in favor of the spouses Sonya Mathay and
Ismael 89Mathay, Jr. beclouded the issuance of TCT No.
113047. Records disclose that the said Deed of Absolute
Sale did not comply with legal formalities and was not duly
notarized. Atty. Mapalad Santera, who signed the
document as Notary Public, had no commission as Notary
Public for the Province of Cavite, at the time subject
90
90
document was supposedly notarized, and the residence
certificates of vendors
91
Banayo and Pugay appeared to be of
dubious source.
To bolster their submission that their title is genuine
and authentic, private respondents introduced several
documentary evidence. They also presented officials
concerned and the
_______________
87 TSN, January 30, 1989, p. 34.

88 “Exh. A,” Records, p. 450.
89 “Exh. 2,” Records, p. 449.
90 “Exhs. CCC-1 to CCC-4,” Records, pp. 496-99.
91 “Exhs. EE and EE-1,” Records, pp. 268-69.
582

caretakers of the said documents, who all testified for the

private respondents.
On the other hand, the petitioners, spouses Sonya
Mathay and Ismael Mathay, Jr., who claim to be buyers in
good faith, utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving
the sustainability of their posture. Worse for them, as
above discussed, the title of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay
relied upon by petitioners has been shown by
preponderance of evidence to be the product of forgery.
All things studiedly considered, we are of the irresistible
conclusion that the respondent Court of Appeals did not err
in reversing the appealed decision of the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR
CV No. 37902 AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Romero and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), No Part: Close personal
relation to a party.
Petition dismissed, judgment affirmed in toto.
Notes.—One who deals with property subject of a notice

of lis pendens cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in
good faith—neither can he acquire better rights than those
of his predecessor in interest. (Yu vs. Court of Appeals, 251
SCRA 509 [1995])
A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should
put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted
in good faith. (Sandoval vs. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA
283 [1996])
——o0o——
583
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Mathay vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathay vs. Court of Appeals

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

Mathay vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1/29/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 295 new

556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SPS. SONYA & ISMAEL MATHAY, JR., petitioners, vs.

Land Titles; Sales; Purchasers in Good Faith; Words and

Same; Same; Same; As is the common practice in the real

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 557

Mathay vs. Court of Appeals

cumbent upon the purchaser to verify the extent of the occupant’s

Same; Same; Same; No one can transfer a greater right to

Same; Same; Same; Double Sales; A certificate is not

558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mathay vs. Court of Appeals

registered and an earlier certificate for the same is in existence.—

and Patronillo Quimio. On the part of petitioners, their supposed

Same; Same; Same; Same; Land Registration; On the

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 559

At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45

“Civil Case No. TM-175 entitled “Spouses Teodulfo T. Atangan

parcels of land situated in Tanza, Cavite, covered by Transfer

1 Rollo, pp. 34-80.

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Juana Onate Batallones and Petronilla C. Quimio, Director of

in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay from whom defendants

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 561

cious and bad faith of the defendants and in disregard of the

1) Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a parcel of land

4) the heirs of Onofre Batallones and Modesta Quimio are

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

8) plaintiffs have learned that defendants as vendees have

necessary improvements thereon and for which they

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 563

their property with a fence, causing irreparable damage

3) on December 31, 1985, Spouses Bonifacio Motas and

5 As Answer to the Complaint, defendant Spouses Mathay interposed

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

8) plaintiffs bought the subdivided lots from Motas in good

NAME LOT TCT NO. AREA

9) plaintiffs are the one (sic) paying the corresponding real

C. Gallado for Lot 18, Block 56, Tala Estate situated in

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 565

records in the Bureau of Lands that Deed No. V-12918

6 As Answer to the Complaint, defendant Spouses Mathay interposed

175 and TM-180.

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

After trial on the merits, the lower court decided for

“WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, (sic) judgment is hereby

a) declaring Contract of Sale 3397 in favor of Tomas Lucido,

7 Should be TCT No. T-113047.

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 567

On appeal, the Court of Appeals

“Plaintiff-appellants and defendants-appellees are all holders of

8 CA Decision, pp. 18-25; Rollo, pp. 52-59.

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

to the Department of Natural Resources for signature the Deeds

VOL. 295, SEPTEMBER 17, 1998 569

Lot 2186-A TCT No. 192527 Lucido, Tomas

Tomas Lucido married to Eustaquia Villanueva who was the 26