RODIGUEZ v.
LIM o Pablos birth certificate indicating Dominga was his
Reynaldo and Nancy Rodriguez
v. Concordia Lim, Eurestes Lim, Elmer Lim
November 30, 2006
Callejo, Sr., J.
Edited by Carmela Fojas
Topic: Torrens System
Facts:
Pablo Goyma Lim, Jr. filed a complaint for the
cancellation of certificate of title, and injunction against
the spouses Rodriguez.
Pablo Goyma Lims allegations:
o He is the illegitimate son of Dominga Goyma, who
was the owner of 2 parcels of land. Both were
registered in her name in 1948, under TCT No. T-
2857. The first parcel had an area of 28,051 sqm. and
was situated in Pagbilao Municpality, Quezon. The
second parcel had an area of 260,590 sqm. and was
situated in Atimonan Municipality, Quezon.
o Dominga died in 1971 and Pablo succeeded to her
rights of ownership and possession. However, Sps.
Rodriguez allegedly unlawfully and fraudulently
made it appear that they had purchased the 2 lots
from persons who do not own them.
o Sps. Rodriguez allegedly caused the cancellation of
TCT No. T-2857. (1) TCT T-2587 was cancelled, and a
new TCT was issued in favor of Frisco Gudani the
estranged husband of Dominga; (2) The second TCT
was cancelled again, and a new one issued in favor of
Eduardo Victa; (3) The third TCT was cancelled, and a
new one was issued in favor of the Sps. Rodriguez.
These TCTs were all issued on the same date.
o In May 1975, the Sps. Rodriguez tried to enter and
occupy the two lots by force and intimidation, hence
Pablos complaint that the Sps. be permanently
enjoined from entering the said lots, that TCT T-2857
in the name of Dominga Goya be reinstated, and that
the Sps. be ordered to pay Pablo damages.
Spouses Rodriguezs allegations:
o Dominga was not Pablos mother
o The lots were conjugal property of Frisco Gudani and
Dominga, and that Frisco was her only surviving heir
upon her death
o They were purchasers in good faith as Frisco Gudani
executed an instrument of extrajudicial settlement of
the estate and Domingas share was adjudicated in his
favor. Frisco later sold the lots to Eduardo Victa, who
in turn sold the lots to the Sps. Rodriguez.
Efforts of the parties to enter into an amicable settlement
of the case fell through.
Pablo died in 1988 in the course of the trial, and was then
substituted by herein respondents his wife Concordia
Lim, and his children Eurestes and Elmer.
The Lims presented various documentary exhibits:
o Deed of Absolute Sale wherein 4 parcels of land,
including the 2 subject lots, were sold to Dominga
o Marital Consent executed by Frisco Gudani and
Dominga
mother
o Domingas statement of assets, income, and liabilities
wherein she indicated Pablo as her son
o Income tax returns wherein she indicated that she
was the head of the family and had been separated
from her husband
o Real property tax receipts
Documentary evidence adduced by Sps. Rodriguez:
o Deed of Absolute Sale showing that they acquired the
lots from Eduardo Victa
Deposition of Frisco Gudani:
o He and Dominga lived together for 11 months then
separated
o It was Atty. Aguilan who prepared a false affidavit
and told him to sign it otherwise the property he will
receive will be forfeited in favor of the government
o He does not know anything about the two parces of
land.
TC: Ruled in favor of Pablo and his family, and against the
Sps. Rodriguez, finding that all the transactions involving
the subject lots were fraudulent and made through the
machinations of one Atty. Aguilan. All transfer
transactions were null and void, and the TCT was
reinstated in Domingas name. Sps. Rodriguez were liable
for damages, and were ordered to vacate the premises.
The decision was based on these factual findings:
o Frisco Gudani and Dominga were married, but Frisco
abandoned the conjugal home after 11 months. 10
years after their marriage they executed a document
of marital consent, however Dominga later cohabited
with Pablo Lim, Sr. and the couple had a son.
o The subject lots were purchased by Dominga using
her personal funds and Frisco Gudani had not
contributed anything in such purchase, as they had
already been separated at that time. Dominga had
taken possession of the lots during her lifetime and
had given the TCT to her son Pablo before her death.
Pablo then immediately took possession of said lots.
o 2 years after Domingas death Frisco was informed of
the lots. A lawyer, Atty. Aguilan, made Frisco believe
that the lots would be forfeited in favor of the
government should he refuse to acquire them, hence
he signed: (1) An affidavit claiming the properties; (2)
A petition before the CFI for the issuance of a second
owners duplicate copy of the TCT; (3) An affidavit of
loss for the loss of the owners duplicate; (4) An
affidavit stating that Pablo Lim, Jr. was not
Domingas son.
o The lawyer then made Frisco, a simple laborer, sign
the Deed of Absolute Sale of the lots in favor of
Eduardo Victa. Frisco only received P5,000 for the sale
because the lawyer said that he had not contributed
anything to the acquisition of the lots.
o The court found that the Sps. Rodriguez were
purchasers in bad faith because they had prior
knowledge of Pablo Lim Jr.s claim over the lots, and
even knew of his plans to file a case against them.
Moreover, the TCTs were all issued on the same date,
which is highly irregular.
 o Even if the fraud was not enough to invalidate the
transactions, they would still be void because Frisco
Gudani had not authority to sell. Dominga acquired
the lots after her de facto separation from Frisco, who
had not contributed anything to the acquisition of
said lots. The estate left by Dominga should have first
been partitioned to determine if Frisco had any valid
claim over such. As there was no proceeding, he had
no valid claim, and as such had not authority to sell.
CA: Affirmed the decision. Pablos right to succession was
transmitted upon the death of the decedent (Dominga),
following Art. 777, CC. As such, Frisco Gudani could not
dispose of the said lots before partition of the estate and
without authority given by Pablo. MR by the Sps. was
denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioners cannot raise the defense of indefeasibility of
a Torrens title with respect to their TCT, as the principle
of indefeasibility of Torrens title does not apply where
fraud attended the issuance of the title. The Torrens title
does not furnish a shield for fraud (Sacdalan v. CA). The
fact that all of the TCTs were issued on the same date is
highly irregular, and further points to the Sps. being
purchasers in bad faith.
Frisco Gudani and Eduardo Victa are not indispensable
parties, as their interests will not be affected by the courts
action in the litigation. Final determination of the case
could be had without their participation. The complaint
was for the cancellation of the Sps. Rodriguezs TCT and
for injunction against the Sps. These would not affect the
interests of Frisco Gudani and Eduardo Victa.

Issue:
WON the CA erred in ruling in favor of Pablo Jr. (in ruling that
Pablo was a co-owner of the lots, in ruling that Frisco Gudani
could not dispose of the lots before partition and authority of
Pablo, in ruling that Sps. Rodriguez were purchasers in bad
faith, in ruling that Frisco Gudani and Eduardo Victa were
indispensable parties and were not impleaded)

Held: NO.

Dispositive: Wherefore, the petition is denied. The decision

dated July 18, 1995 and Resolution dated October 5, 1998 of the
Court of Appeals are affirmed in toto.

Ratio:
The factual findings of the trial court regarding Pablos
illegitimacy shall not be disturbed. Such filiation is
established in the same manner as that of legitimate
children (established by record of birth or an admission of
legitimate filiation in a public document or private
handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned).
Or in absence thereof, it may be proven by open and
continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child,
or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court or
special laws. The recognition of an illegitimate child in
birth records is a consummated act of acknowledgement
and is sufficient. Pablos family presented various
documentary exhibits, and their authenticity was not
refuted by petitioners.
The affidavits signed by Frisco Gudani, upon
recommendation of Atty. Aguilan, contained falsehoods.
It has consistently been held that when the owners
duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in
fact in the possession of another person, then the
reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that
rendered the decision had no jurisdiction.
Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss
of the original certificate (Eastworld Motor Industries v.
Skunac Corporation). The decision authorizing the
issuance of a new owners duplicate certificate of title
may be attacked at any time.
As a result, all of the TCTs issued may be nullified as they
stem from a void document the second owners
duplicate TCT. TCTs may be annulled if issued based on
void documents.