Regidor B.

Yumul
Oc tober 2 4,2 0 1 5

Land Title and Deeds

Atty. Er win Tia mson

G.R. No. 8 0 6 8 7 April 1 0, 1 9 8 9

REPUBLIC OF T HE PHILIPPI NES, represented by the
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE MARIANO M. U MALI, in his c apa city as
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Four th Judicial
Region, Branch 2 3, Tre c e M a r tires City, REMEDIOS M ICLAT,
JUAN C. PULIDO, ROSALINA NAVAL, and the REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF CAVITE, respondents.

FACTS :

A land in question in Tanza, Cavite, and consists of 78,865square

meters is being contesed for reversion back to public land by the
government because it was acquired due to forgery and fraud.
The genesis of the case started in 1910 when It was originally
purchased on installment from the government by Florentina
Bobadilla, who allegedly transferred her rights thereto in favor of
Martina, Tomasa, Gregorio and Julio, all surnamed Cenizal, in 1922 ,
Tomasa and Julio assigned their shares to Martina, Maria and
Gregorio.
In 1971 these three assignees filed a joint affidavit for the
issuance of certificate of title over said land. TCT No. 55044
(replacing Bobadilla's OCT No. 180) was issued by the register of
deeds of Cavite in favor of Maria Cenizal, Gregorio Cenizal, and (in
lieu of Martina Cenizal) Rosalina Naval, Luz Naval, and Enrique Naval.
Eventually the land mentioned above were transferred to
Remedios Miclat under TCT No. 80392, Juan C. Pulido under TCT No.
80393, and Rosalina, Luz and Enrique Naval under TCT No. 80394.
The government filed a complaint seeking reversal of the
mentioned land to the government for the reason that these transferred
have proceeded from a fraudulent transfer and by forgery of the
documents. The government alleged that Gregorio Cenizal having
died on February 25, 1943, and Maria Cenizal on January 8, 1959,
they could not have signed the joint affidavit dated August 9, 1971, on
which Deed No. V-10910 (Sale Certificate No. 1280) was based.

Pulido and the Navals denied any participation in the joint

affidavit and said they had all acquired the property in good faith and for
value. While Miclat moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the
government had no cause of action against her because there was no
allegation that she had violated the plaintiff's right, that the government
was not the real party-in-interest because the subject land was already
covered by the Torrens system, and that the action was barred by
prescription or laches.
The RTC ruled in favor of the Umalis and Pulido, hence the
government filed an appeal with an appeal with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE:

Can a title transferred from a titled land covered by Torrens Title

that proceeds from fraud and forgery be reverted back to the public
domain?

HELD :

The Supreme Court ruled that a titled land that has been
transferred from a title covered by a Torrens title that came from a
fraudulent transaction can not be reverted back to the government
because such titled land is a product of a private land titled under
Torrens system even if it was evident that the land was titled through
fraudulent means. This policy was derived from the provisions of
Land Registration Act Section 39 and Property Registration Decree
Sec 44 which both provisions commonly states that ,every subsequent
purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value in
good faith shall hold the same free of all encumbrance except those
noted on said certificate of title.