Effect:

Art. 1544. If the same thing should have been

sold to different vendees, the ownership shall
be transferred to the person who may have
first taken possession thereof in good faith, if
it should be movable property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership
shall pertain to the person who in good faith
was first in the possession; and, in the absence
thereof, to the person who presents the oldest
title, provided there is good faith. (1473)

A.

Effect:
The Court held that a person is considered in law as an innocent
purchaser for value when he buys the property of another,
without notice that some other person has a right or an interest
in such property, and pays a full price for the same at the time of
such purchase, or before he has notice of the claims or interest
of some other person in the property. A person dealing with
registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title of the vendor/transferor, and the law will in no
way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the
condition of the property. The courts cannot disregard the rights
of innocent third persons, for that would impair or erode public
confidence in the Torrens system of land registration. Thus, a
title procured by fraud or misrepresentation can still be
the source of a completely legal and valid title if the
same is in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.
(Heirs of Tiro vs. PES)

A. Remedy of the Owner:

In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner
may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the
parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the
right of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of
title. After the entry of the decree of registration on the
original petition or application, any subsequent registration
procured by the presentation of a forged duplication
certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument,
shall be null and void. (3rd paragraph, Section 53, PD
1529)

B. Effect of Forged Deed:

After the entry of the decree of registration on the original
petition or application, any subsequent registration procured by the
presentation of a forged duplication certificate of title, or a
forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void. (3 rd
paragraph, Section 53, PD 1529)
the fact that the document, was certified by the notary public as having
been acknowledged in the Municipality of Mercedes, Camarines Norte,
when in fact as testified to by plaintiff Vicente Raeses it was in the
municipality of Daet where the document was actually acknowledged and
ratified (p. 12, tsn, March 5, 1974); and, (2) the fact that while the
document, was supposed to have been executed on April 20, 1961, yet the
same was registered only almost six (6) years later on April 5, 1967 is a
manifestation that indeed there was forgery, (Raneses vs IAC, 187 SCRA
397)

C. Effect of a Certificate of Title transferred from

the name of the true owner to the name of the
forger or the name indicated by the forger and
subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser.

The innocent purchaser for value protected

by the law is one who purchases a title land
by virtue of a deed executed by the
registered owner thereof and not by virtue of
a forged deed. The forged deed or
document is valid title. (Solivel v. Francisco,
170 SCRA 218)

D. Effect of a Certificate of Title transferred

from the name of the true owner to the name
of the
forger:
Under
Section
55 the Land Registration Act, as amended by Section
53 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, an original owner, of registered
land may seek the annulment of a transfer thereof on the ground of
fraud. However, such a remedy is without prejudice to the rights of
any innocent holder for value with a certificate of title.A purchaser in good faith and for value is one who buys the property
of another, without notice that some other person has a right to or
interest in such property, and pays a full and fair price for the same
at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or
interest of some other person in the property In consonance with
this accepted legal definition, petitioner is a purchaser in good faith.
There is no showing whatsoever nor even an allegation that herein
petitioner had any participation, voluntarily or otherwise, in the
alleged forgery. (Tenio-Obsequio vs CA)

E. Reliance to the correctness of the

Certificate of Title.
Every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefore and the law
will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine
the condition of the property. Stated differently, an innocent
purchaser for value relying on a torrens title issued is protected. A
mortgagee has the right to rely on what appears in the certificate of
title and, in the absence of anything to excite suspicion, he is under
no obligation to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title
of the mortgagor appearing on the face of said certificate. (Duran vs
IAC)

F. Rule on Double Sales does not apply if the

owner still holds a valid and existing
certificate of title:

G. Remedies of victim or person prejudiced

The remedy of the persons prejudiced is an
action for damages against the persons who
caused the fraud, and if the latter be insolvent,
an action against the Treasurer of the
Philippines may be filed for recovery for
damages from the Assurance fund. (PNB vs. CA,
187 SCRA 735)