LTD-Mathay vs CA

Land Titles and Deeds: August 31, 2012|1

SPS. Mathay vs. CA, SPS. Atangan, SPS. Poblete, SPS Tirona (GR No. 115788) FACTS: A. Civil Case No. TM-175 (Spouses Atangan vs. Spouses Mathay and Register Deeds of Cavite) Involves two parcels of land (Lot No 2186-A and Lot No. 2186-C) covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT No. T-195350 and TCT No. 195351) issued in the name of Spouses Atangan Sps. Atangan alleges that they are owners of two (2) parcels of land purchased from Spouses Tomas Lucido and Eustaquia Villanueva as evidenced by the deed of sale and by the Transfer Certificates issued. They immediately took possession of the same and paid the corresponding realty taxes. Atagan alleges that the vendees’ titles were transferred to them by virtue of a decision on the Civil case (Lucido vs Batallones and Petronilla Quimio, Director of Lands, and Registers of Deeds of Cavite). Batallones and Quimio, on the other hand are the vendees of the lands from the Bureau of Lands. Sale of the parcel of lands in favor of the heirs of Batallones and Quimio was evidenced by Deed of Conveyance duly issued by the Bureau of Lands Sps. Atagan further alleges that Mathays (defendant) have enclosed a portion of said property with a fence without their consent. The defendants (Spouses Mathay) declare that they were also issued with a title covering the said land. Spouses Atagan asserts that the said title issued to Mathays was a product of forgery because it was based on an alleged transferred certificate in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay who have no right whatsoever on the real estate in question. Upon investigation, it was certified by the Bureau of Lands that the said titles were falsified and forged. Atagan therefore prays that since the title of the Mathays have no basis in law and that the same was illegally procured on the basis of forgery, the same should be cancelled and the Mathays have no right to take possession of the property in question. They also demand moral, irreparable damages and attorney’s fee for the same.

B. Civil Case No. TM-180 (Spouses Poblete vs. Spouses Mathay and the Register of Deeds of Cavite)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Involves a parcel of land registered in the name of Juana Batallones and Gaudencio Quimio which was allegedly sold to Spouses Poblete as per “Deed of Conditional Sale”. Spouses Poblete alleges that they are registered owners of a parcel of land having purchased the same from Juan Battallones and Gaudencio for themselves and on behalf of their co-heirs as evidenced by Deed of Sale. The spouses took possession of the land and alleges that the defendants (Spouses Mathay) have enclosed a portion of the said property with a fence without the consent and against the will of the plaintiffs. The vendees whose titles were transferred in favor of the plaintiffs have obtained the title by virtue of the decision by the court on the civil case (Tomas Lucido vs. Juana Onate Batallones and Petronilla Q. Quimio, Director of Lands, the Register of Deeds of Cavite). 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 the Record Officer of the District Land Office. The sale of the subject 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. The defendants (Spouses Mathay) declare that they were also issued with a title covering the said land. Spouses Poblete asserts that the said title issued to Mathays was a product of forgery because it was based on an alleged transferred certificate in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay who have no right whatsoever on the real estate in question. Upon investigation, it was certified by the Bureau of Lands that the said titles were falsified and forged. Spouses Poblete therefore prays that since the title of the Mathays have no basis in law and that the same was illegally procured on the basis of forgery, the same should be cancelled and the Mathays have no right to take possession of the property in question. They also demand moral, irreparable damages and attorney’s fee for the same.

B. Civil Case No. TM-206 (Spouses Tirona vs. Spouses Mathay, et. al) Spouses Motas bought a parcel of land (Lot 2186-B) covered by a Transfer of Certificate of Title of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite from David Quimio as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. They were issued by a Transfer Certificate (TCT No. T-203730).

Land Titles and Deeds: August 31, 2012|2 -

-

-

-

-

Vendors David Quimio, Sr., et. al, are the previous registered owners of the said land as evidenced by a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-192530). They obtained rights and interest thereon from their predecessors who were vendees from the Bureau of Lands which was then confirmed in a decision on a Civil case (Tomas Lucido vs. Juana Batallones and Petonila Quimio) The subject land was subdivided into eight lots as evidenced by a Subdivision Plans. The subdivided lots were bought by the Spouses from Motas in good faith, and were therefore issued with Transfer Certificates of Title. Spouses Tirona are the one paying the corresponding real property taxes thereon and were issued with corresponding tax declaration. They allege that the defendants (Spouses Mathay) have enclosed among others the property in question with a fence and took physical possession thereof without their knowledge and consent The defendants (Spouses Mathay) declare that they were also issued with a title covering the said land. Spouses Tirona asserts that the said title issued to Mathays was a product of forgery and falsification because it was based on an alleged transferred certificate in favor of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay who have no right whatsoever on the real estate in question. Upon investigation, it was certified by the Bureau of Lands that the said titles were falsified and forged. Spouses Tirona therefore prays that since the title of the Mathays have no basis in law and that the same was illegally procured on the basis of forgery, the same should be cancelled and the Mathays have no right to take possession of the property in question. They also demand moral, irreparable damages and attorney’s fee for the same.

The lower court decided for the defendant spouses Mathay and against the plaintiffs in the three consolidated cases. On appeal, the Court of Appeals decided in favor of the plaintiff-appellants. Thus, the appeal. ISSUES: 1. WON Spouses Mathay can be considered buyers in good faith 2. WON Spouses-private respondents own the individual properties in question HELD: 1.

Spouses Mathay cannot be considered as purchasers in good faith because prior to the fencing of the subject land, neither they nor their

2.

predecesssors-in-interest (Banayo and Pugay) ever possessed the same. At the same time the property was sold to petitioners (Mathays), 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 well settled principle that the person dealing on a registered land need not go beyond the certificate of title, there are still circumstances which would put party on guard and prompt him to investigate or inspect the property being sold to him. It is expected from the purchaser of a valued price of a land to inquire first into the status or nature of possession of the occupants, in concept of owner. 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.” In addition, before the fence around subject property was erected, private respondent communicated their objection to the fencing of the area by petitioners but they were ignored by the Mathays, who continued enclosing the premises under controversy in the present of armed men employed by them. The Spouses-Private respondents are the valid owners of the individual properties in question because all the subsequent certificates of title including the petitioner’s titles are void for the same were forged and falsified. It was further proved that the titles issued to Mathays are void for the allegedly Sales Certifcate executed by Tomas Lucido in favor of Pedro Pugay was not signed by the said Tomas Lucido. Neither does it bear the signature of the latter. It further proved that the deeds showed by Banayo and Pugay were not for the individual property in question. The circumstances surrounding the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale by Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay in favor of the spouses Sonya Mathay and Ismael Mathay further showed that it did not comply with the legal formalities and was not duly notarized. Furthermore, the residence certificates of vendors Banayo and Pugay appeared to be of dubious source.

The Spouses Mathay utterly failed to discharge the burden of proving the sustainability of their posture of them being buyers in good faith. Furthermore, the title of Pedro Banayo and Pablo Pugay relied upon by them has been shown by preponderance of evidence to be the product of forgery. Petition is DISMISSED for the lack of merit, and the Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED in toto.