C:\Users\USER\Documents\batas sept 2016\batas app\cases\G.R. No. 177181, July 07, 2009.

htm

On June 3, 2004, the RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner on the ground
that petitioner's title emanated from a title older than that of the
respondent. Moreover, the RTC held that there were substantial and numerous
infirmities in the Homestead Patent of Charles. The RTC found that there
was no record in the Bureau of Lands that Charles was a homestead applicant
or a grantee of Homestead Patent No. 113074. Upon inquiry, the RTC also
found that a similar Homestead Patent bearing No. V-113074 was actually
issued in favor of one Mariano Costales over a parcel of land with an area
of 8.7171 hectares and located in Bunawan, Agusan in Mindanao, per
Certification[22] issued by the Lands Management Bureau dated February 18,
1998. Thus, the RTC held that Charles's Homestead Patent was fraudulent and
spurious, and respondent could not invoke the protection of the Torrens
system, because the system does not protect one who committed fraud or
misrepresentation and holds title in bad faith

Petitioner asseverates that Homestead Patent No. 113074 is not found in the
files of the Land Management Bureau, nor does Charles's name appear as an
applicant or a patentee; that, similarly, Homestead Patent No. V-113074
was actually issued to Mariano Costales over a parcel of land in Mindanao
and not in Mindoro; that, being fake and spurious, Charles's Homestead
Patent is void ab initio and, as such, does not produce or transmit any
right;

C:\Users\USER\Documents\batas sept 2016\batas app\cases\G.R. No. 188395,

November 20, 2013.htm

Heirs of Felix mainly alleged that since the SPA

was spurious, no valid title was conveyed to the Spouses Go.[

(a) person dealing with registered land has a right to rely on

the Torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of
inquiring further except when the party has actual knowledge of facts
and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make
 such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the
lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a
reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the
property in litigation. The presence of anything which excites or
arouses suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the
face of the certificate. One who falls within the exception can
neither be denominated [as] innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith; and hence does not merit the protection of the
law

While this Court protects the right of the innocent purchaser for value and
does not require him to look beyond the certificate of title, this
protection is not extended to a purchaser who is not dealing with the
registered owner of the land. In case the buyer does not deal with the
registered owner of the real property, the law requires that a higher
degree of prudence be exercised by the purchaser. As succinctly pointed
out in San Pedro v. Ong: