FORGED DEED

Generally, a forged or fraudulent deed or any instrument

effecting transfer of ownership is a nullity and conveys no title.
[see Justice Oswaldo Agcaoili, Property Registration Decree and
Related Laws 8 (2011 edition), p. 482, citing Rodriguez v. Lim,
G.R. No. 135817, November 30, 2006; Manlapat v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 125585, June 8, 2005; Baguio v. Republic, G.R.
No. 119682, January 21, 1999; Pascua v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 140243, December 14, 2000; Fudot v. Cattleya Land, Inc.,
G.R. No. 171008, September 13, 2007]
When the instrument presented to the Registry of Deeds for
registration is forged, even if accompanied by the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not
thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee or the
mortgagee, for that matter, acquire any right or title to the
property [Ibid. citing Bernales v. Sambaan, G.R. No. 163271,
January 16, 2010]. Accordingly, an innocent purchaser for value
protected by law is one who purchases a titled land by virtue of
a deed executed by the registered owner himself, not by a
forged deed. [Bernales v. Sambaan, supra.]. This principle is
expressed under the third paragraph of Section 53 of P.D. 1529,
otherwise known as the “Property Registration Decree” which
reads:
Section 53. x x x.
x x x. After the entry of the decree of registration on the
original petition or application, any subsequent registration
procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of
title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and
void.
Hence, a forged deed conveys no title and any transaction that has
transpired by virtue of the same document is an absolute nullity.
Since no ownership was conveyed, the issued Transfer Certificate of
Title by reason of the forged instrument has no basis at all.
Consequently, the person who buys the real property in question
cannot take refuge in the protection accorded by the Torrens system
on titled lands. [ibid.]

Additionally, while one who buys from the registered owner does not
need to look behind the certificate of title, one who buys from one
who is not the registered owner is expected to examine not only the
certificate of title but all factual circumstances necessary for him to
determine if there are any flaws in the title of the transferor, or in his
capacity to transfer the land. The Court has consistently applied the
stricter rule when it comes to deciding the issue of good faith of one
who buys from one who is not the registered owner, but one who
exhibits a certificate of title [see Yu v. Pacleb, G.R. No. 172172,
February 24, 2009].
Lou Nonoi Orio Tan

May 22, 2017 at 7:43 PM ·

WHEN AN ALLEGED FORGERY OR SPURIOUS DOCUMENT

COULD NOT PROSPER
It is not for private respondents to deny forgery. The burden of
proof that the affidavit of waiver is indeed spurious rests on
petitioners. Yet, significantly, even as they insist on forgery they
never really took serious efforts in establishing such allegation
by preponderant evidence. It must be stressed that mere
allegations of fraud are not enough. Intentional acts to deceive
and deprive another of his right, or in some manner injure him,
must be specifically alleged and proved.
The affidavit of waiver in favor of Ines, being a public document
duly acknowledged before a notary public, under his hand and
seal, with his certificate thereto attached, is prima facie
evidence of the facts stated therein. Petitioners cannot impugn
its validity by mere self-serving allegations. There must be
evidence of the clearest and most satisfactory character.
Petitioners thus miserably failed to refute their accusation of
fraud. (Excerpts from: HEIRS OF MARIANO, JUAN, TARCELA and
JOSEFA, all surnamed BRUSAS, petitioners, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and HEIRS OF SPOUSES INES BRUSAS and CLETO
REBOSA, respondents. [G.R. No. 126875. August 26, 1999])