SHAREYDE F.

NAVARRO
LTD – LATEST JURISPRUDENCE

Calma vs. Lachica, Jr.

G.R. No. 222031
November 22, 2017

Topic: Double sale; buyer in good faith

FACTS: Respondent Atty. Jose Lachica claims to be the owner of a 20,000 sq.m. parcel of land in
Cabanatuan City covered by TCT No. T-28380, having acquired the same through sale from Ceferino
Tolentino. The title to said property was also delivered to him in 1974 and he has been in actual physical
possession of the property since then. However, the 1974 Deed of Sale was lost so the parties executed a
new Deed of Sale executed on April 29, 1979. Respondent had to travel to far-away places because of his
job in the government but he continued to possess the entire property through his helper. In 1981, he
caused the annotation of a Notice of Adverse Claim on TCT No. T-28380. After the notarization of the 1979
Deed of Sale in 1986, Ceferino and his son Ricardo requested respondent to allow them to cultivate the
5,000 sq.m. portion of the subject land and in consideration, they would process the transfer of the title to
respondent’s name. Respondent agreed out of trust. In 2001, respondent returned to Cabanatuan and
found that title to the property was transferred to Ricardo’s name, which was in turn cancelled and
transferred under petitioner Emilio Calma’s name. Respondent argued that the sale between Ceferino and
Ricardo was null and void for being executed with fraud and that that not only was Ricardo in full knowledge
of the sale of the subject property to him by Ceferino, but also his adverse claim was evidently annotated
in the latter's title and carried over to Ricardo's title. Respondent filed a petition for the annulment of deeds
of sale and cancellation of title petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Calma is a buyer in good faith

HELD: YES

Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the COT issued therefor
and is in no way obliged to go beyond it to determine the condition of the property unless the party has
knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make further inquiry. In the case at bar, petitioner was never remiss in his
duty of ensuring that the property that he was going to purchase had a clean title. Despite Ricardo's title
being clean on its face, petitioner still conducted an investigation to check its authenticity and status with
the RD and the mortgagee-bank. Thus, petitioner was proven to be in good faith. The CA’s conclusion that
the annotation of the adverse claim on Ceferino's title and carried over to Ricardo's title for a total of 13
years before it was cancelled should have aroused suspicion have no factual or legal basis. What is essential
on the matter of petitioner's good faith in the acquisition of the subject property is the cancellation of such
adverse claim, which clearly appears on the face of Ricardo's title. Even the defect in Ricardo's title due to
his bad faith in the acquisition of the subject property, as found by both the RTC and the CA, should not
affect petitioner's rights as an innocent purchaser for value. Under Article 1544 of the Civil Code, petitioner's
right as an innocent purchaser for value who was able to register his acquisition of the subject property
should prevail over the unregistered sale of the same to the respondent.
SHAREYDE F. NAVARRO
LTD – LATEST JURISPRUDENCE

Republic vs. Salud, Mamaril

G.R. No. 209385
August 31, 2016

Topic: Reconstitution; document required

In 2007, Justina Clarissa Mamaril bought on installment a parcel of land from her aunt, Salud Abalos. After
the first payment of installment, Abalos entrusted to Mamaril the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT. Mamaril
later lent the title to Abalos who used it as a collateral for a loan. The mortgage was cancelled. Upon full
payment, Mamaril requested the return of the duplicate copy but it was title already missing. Mamaril went
to the RD to secure another copy of the original COT but the office claimed that no records pertaining to
her title were found and such may have been one among those files not recovered from a fire which razed
their office on August 26, 2000. Abalos and Salud filed a petition for reconstitution. The RTC granted the
petition but denied the prayer for the issuance of new owner's duplicate copy of title due to their failure to
file an affidavit of loss before the RD. The CA, on the other hand, found the documents they submitted
sufficient to serve as bases for reconstituting the lost certificate of title.

ISSUE: Whether the documents presented were sufficient for reconstitution

HELD: NO.

Reconstitution of COT partakes of a land registration proceeding and must be granted only upon clear proof
that the title sought to be restored was indeed issued to the petitioner. Jurisprudence prescribed the
requirements to warrant the order of reconstitution, namely:
(a) that the COT had been lost or destroyed;
(b) that the documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant reconstitution of the
lost or destroyed COT;
(c) that the petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein;
(d) that the COT was in force at the time it was lost or destroyed; and
(e) that the description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same and those contained
in the lost or destroyed COT.

The respondents failed to meet these requisites. Notably, the respondents claimed the loss, not only of the
OCT on file with the RD but also that of the owner's duplicate copy. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 26, Section 3
enumerates the bases or the sources from which the certificates of title shall be reconstituted. On the face
of the inability of the respondents to establish the loss of the owner's duplicate copy which is one of the
specifically enumerated competent sources for the reconstitution of title, the other pieces of evidence
presented also failed to justify their prayer. The respondents anchored their plea for the grant of
reconstitution of title mainly on the certified print copy of the microfilm of TCT No. T-24567 which they
deem to qualify under Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 26. However, its authenticity was relentlessly questioned by
the OSG on the ground that the person who signed the certification was not established as a public officer
and that she has the custody of the original microfilm.

The courts to be careful in granting reconstitution of lost or destroyed certificates of title on the basis of
documents and decrees made to appear authentic from mere photocopies and certifications of officials
supposedly signed with the seals of their office affixed thereon, bearing in mind the ease and facility with
which documents are made to appear as official and authentic. Court finds it proper to remand the instant
case to the RTC for consideration and further evaluation of contentious factual questions surrounding the,
existence of the subject Torrens title as well as the circumstances of its loss.