DBC The property was already forclosed, bautista here suffered, its logical not to hold bautista liable

, after all he already paid his due, and they cannot claim against the assurance fund, the case that I have assigned here, but until now the same provisions are still present under section 95, the only difference claims against the assurance fund of 1 percent of the changes, and in act 496 and in case the land has not been declared for registration purposes, in PD 1529 only 2 disinterested persons are required, custody and investment fund, all right everytime you register for the first time that is when premium of assurance fund is collected, and also in condominiums, and original certificate of title, Dba in tax declaration u see the value, so of 1 percent. Torres vs CA A land and building owned by torres 1966 francisco Fernandez brother in law, misrepresented in himself as Marianos atty in fact. And TCT issued in his , them Fernandez mortgage the property, then so forth went to another , So torres filed an adverse claim on title . Sir: insofar as adverse claim, remember this is an execution sale, and not proprop sale, This property sold on execution and not on foreclosure, What is the difference in execution and foreclosure as far as adverse claim and mortgage is concern? So in effect torres argue: This case is significant: In execution sale, remember it is to answer an obligaton, that is why the property was sold at public auction, whatever existing the encumbrances in the certificate of title here are carried over in the new title issued. the notice of adverse claim can be carried over pursuant to the execution sale, In foreclosure of mortgage, after real estate mortgage is registered, whatever encumbrances or involuntary dealings such notice of lis dispendens and adverse claim prior the consolidation of title in the name of creditor, all of these encumbrances will not be carried over anymore, the reason it will retroact to date from the date of actual foreclosure, or consolidation of property , meaning the

issuance of the title in the name of morgagee bank or individual , it will retroact up to date of the real estate mortgage so whatever encumbrances in between it will not be carried over to the next title, that is why torres this is an execution sale and not a foreclosure, now does this case remind you of a previous case before, that a root of a valid title may not be applied, mota said she will be protected, but not apply here, bec the owner still have her own title and in her possession, is still indeafisble against the whole world, so actually this similar to Kauffman where it was an impostor. For in forge instrument to be root of valid title ,apply where valid title transfers In the name of an imposter or forger not when somebody just misrepresented him self This case is significant,