11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

G.R. No. 161360. October 19, 2011.*

ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED (Deceased) substituted by

CARMEN M. TIONGCO a.k.a. CARMEN MATILDE B.
TIONGCO, petitioner, vs. JOSE B. TIONGCO and ANTONIO G.
DORONILA, JR., respondents.

Civil Law; Property; Reconveyance; Prescription; An action for

reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe
in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.—
The Court agrees with the CA’s disquisition that an action for reconveyance
can indeed be barred by prescription. In a long line of cases decided by this
Court, we ruled that an action for reconveyance based on implied or
constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten (10) years from the issuance
of the Torrens title over the property.
Same; Same; Same; Same; There is but one instance when prescription
cannot be invoked in an action for reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff
is in possession of the land to be reconveyed.—However, there is an
exception to this rule. In the case of Heirs of Pomposa Saludares v. Court of
Appeals, 420 SCRA 51 (2004), the Court reiterating the ruling in Millena v.
Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 126 (2000), held that there is but one instance
when prescription cannot be invoked in an action for reconveyance, that is,
when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed. In Heirs of
Pomposa Saludares, 420 SCRA 51 (2004), this Court explained that the
Court in a series of cases, has permitted the filing of an action for
reconveyance despite the lapse of more than ten (10) years from the
issuance of title to the land and declared that said action, when based on
fraud, is imprescriptible as long as the land has not passed to an innocent
buyer for value. But in all those cases, the common factual backdrop was
that the registered owners were never in possession of the disputed property.
The exception was based on the

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

546

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

theory that registration proceedings could not be used as a shield for fraud
or for enriching a person at the expense of another.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the plaintiff in an action for
reconveyance remains in possession of the subject land, the action for
reconveyance becomes in effect an action to quiet title to property, which is
not subject to prescription.—In Alfredo v. Borras, 404 SCRA 145 (2003),
the Court ruled that prescription does not run against the plaintiff in actual
possession of the disputed land because such plaintiff has a right to wait
until his possession is disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an
action to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him the
continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature
of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title. The Court
held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance remains in
possession of the subject land, the action for reconveyance becomes in
effect an action to quiet title to property, which is not subject to prescription.
Same; Same; Sales; Words and Phrases; “Innocent Purchaser for
Value”; Definition of an Innocent Purchaser for Value.—In the case of
Sandoval v. Court of Appeals, 260 SCRA 283 (1996), the Court defined an
innocent purchaser for value as one who buys 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 persons in the
property. He is one who buys the property with the belief that the person
from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to
the property. A purchaser can not close his eyes to facts which should put a
reasonable man on his guard and still claim that he acted in good faith.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Exception to the rule that every person
dealing with a property registered under the Torrens title need not inquire
further but only has to rely on the title; One who falls within the exception
can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith and hence does not merit the protection of the law.
—While it is settled that every person dealing with a property registered
under the Torrens title need not inquire further but only has to rely on the
title, this rule has an exception. The exception is when the party has actual
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably
cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has some
knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts
to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of
the property in litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the

547

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the vendor
appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception
can neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser
in good faith and hence does not merit the protection of the law.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Public Attorney’s Office for petitioner.
  Jose B. Tiongco for respondents.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us on appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45 is the Court of Appeals (CA) August 28, 2003
Decision1 which dismissed petitioner Estrella Tiongco Yared’s
appeal and affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 26, of Iloilo City, dismissing petitioner’s complaint
for annulment of affidavit of adjudication, deeds of sale and Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCTs), reconveyance and damages. Also
assailed is the appellate court’s November 27, 2003 Resolution3
denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The factual antecedents, as culled from the records, follow:
Matilde, Jose, Vicente, and Felipe, all surnamed Tiongco, were
born to Atanacio and Maria Luis Tiongco. Together they were
known as the Heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco.
The present dispute involves three parcels of land namely, Lots
3244, 3246 and 1404, all located in Iloilo City. Lots 3244 and 1404
used to be covered by Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) Nos. 484
and 1482, respectively, in the names of Matilde (wife of Vicente
Rod-

_______________
1  Rollo, pp. 83-92 . Penned by Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios with
Associate Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Jose C. Reyes, Jr. concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 93-103. Penned by Judge Ricardo M. Ilarde.
3 Id., at pp. 105-106.

548

riguez), Jose (married to Carmen Sonora), Vicente (married to

Ursula Casador), and Felipe (married to Sabina Montelibano), each
in ¼ undivided share, while Lot 3246 used to be covered by OCT
No. 368 in the name of “Heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco.”4
While all of the Heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco have died, they
were survived by their children and descendants. Among the

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

legitimate children of Jose were petitioner and Carmelo Tiongco, the

father of respondent Jose B. Tiongco.5
Sometime in 1965, petitioner built her house on Lot 14046 and
sustained herself by collecting rentals from the tenants of Lots 3244
and 3246. In 1968, petitioner, as one of the heirs of Jose, filed an
adverse claim affecting all the rights, interest and participation of her
deceased father on the disputed lots, but the adverse claim was
annotated only on OCT No. 484 and OCT No. 1482, respectively
covering Lots 3244 and 1404.7
In 1983, respondent Jose prohibited petitioner from collecting
rentals from the tenants of Lots 3244 and 3246. In December 1983,
respondent Jose filed a suit for recovery of possession with
preliminary injunction against several tenants of Lots 3244 and 3246
wherein he obtained a judgment in his favor.8 Respondent Jose also
filed a case for unlawful detainer with damages against petitioner as
she was staying on Lot 1404. While the RTC, Branch 33, of Iloilo
City ruled in respondent Jose’s favor, the CA reversed the RTC’s
decision and ruled in favor of petitioner.9 As such, respondent Jose
never took possession of the properties.
In 1988, when petitioner inquired at the Office of the Register of
Deeds of Iloilo City, she discovered that respondent Jose had already
executed an Affidavit of Adjudication10 dated April 17, 1974,
declaring

_______________
4  Records, pp. 11-13.
5  Rollo, p. 84.
6  Id., at p. 86.
7  Id., at pp. 54, 86.
8  Id., at pp. 85-87.
9  Id., at pp. 54-55.
10 Id., at pp. 117-118.

549

that he is the only surviving heir of the registered owners and

adjudicating unto himself Lots 3244, 3246 and 1404. Consequently,
the OCTs of the aforementioned lots were cancelled, and in place
thereof, the Register of Deeds of Iloilo City issued TCT No. T-
37195 for Lot 3244, TCT No. T-4665 for Lot 3246, and TCT No. T-
37193 for Lot 1404, all in the name of respondent Jose.11
Based on the records with the Register of Deeds, it also appears
that on May 10, 1974, the same day when the TCTs covering Lots
3244 and 1404 were issued, respondent Jose sold the said lots to
Catalino Torre. TCT Nos. T-37195 and T-37193 were thus cancelled
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

and TCT Nos. T-37196 and T-37194 were issued in the name of
Catalino Torre.12
Similarly, the records of the Register of Deeds showed that Lot
3246 was likewise disposed of by respondent Jose. On March 30,
1979, or barely two days after obtaining TCT No. T-4665,
respondent Jose sold Lot 3246 to respondent Antonio G. Doronila,
Jr. who was issued TCT No. T-4666 which cancelled TCT No. T-
4665. Catalino Torre also sold Lots 3244 and 1404 on the same date
to Doronila who was issued the corresponding new TCTs.13
However, just a few days later, or on April 2, 1979, Doronila sold
Lot 1404 back to respondent Jose. Lots 3244 and 3246 were also
sold back to respondent on January 17, 1980.14
On October 2, 1990, petitioner filed a complaint before the court
a quo against her nephew respondent Jose and respondent Antonio
G. Doronila, Jr. Petitioner argued that respondent Jose knowingly
and wilfully made untruthful statements in the Affidavit of
Adjudication because he knew that there were still other living heirs
entitled to the said properties.15 Petitioner claimed that the affidavit
was null and void ab initio and as such, it did not transmit or convey
any right of the original owners of the properties. Any transfer
whatsoever is

_______________
11 Id., at pp. 84-85, 87; records, pp. 28-30.
12 Id., at p. 85; id., at pp. 31-34.
13 Id.; id., at pp. 36-39.
14 Id., at p. 56.
15 Id., at p. 87.

550

perforce likewise null and void.16 Moreover, the petitioner averred

that since respondent Jose executed said documents through fraud,
bad faith, illegal manipulation and misrepresentation, Lots 3244 and
1404 should be reconveyed to its original registered owners and Lot
3246 to the heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco subject to subsequent
partition among the heirs.17 Petitioner also posited that granting for
the sake of argument that the affidavit of adjudication was simply
voidable, respondent Jose became a trustee by constructive trust of
the property for the benefit of the petitioner.18
Respondent Jose, for his part, argued that the petitioner’s father,
Jose, was not an heir of Maria Luis de Tiongco but an heir of Maria
Cresencia de Loiz y Gonzalez vda. De Tiongco. Respondent Jose
claimed that he was the only legitimate son and that while it was
true that he has two other siblings, he refused to acknowledge them
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

because they are illegitimate.19 Respondent Jose denied that the

series of sales of the properties was fraudulent. He claimed that Lot
3244 was bought by the City of Iloilo from its own auction sale for
tax delinquency and was merely resold to him. Respondent Jose
averred that he has been paying real property taxes on the said
properties for more than ten (10) years and that petitioner collected
rentals from Lots 3244 and 3246 only because he allowed her.20
After trial, the Iloilo City RTC ruled in favor of respondent Jose.
The court a quo ruled that prescription has set in since the complaint
was filed only on October 2, 1990 or some sixteen (16) years after
respondent Jose caused to be registered the affidavit of adjudication
on May 10, 1974.21
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA22 which, however,
sustained the trial court’s ruling. The CA agreed with the trial court
that an action for reconveyance can indeed be barred by prescription.
Ac-

_______________
16 Id.
17 Id., at pp. 87-88.
18 Id., at p. 71.
19 Id., at p. 88.
20 Id.
21 Id., at p. 101.
22 Id., at p. 89.

551

cording to the CA, when an action for reconveyance is based on

fraud, it must be filed within four years from discovery of the fraud,
and such discovery is deemed to have taken place from the issuance
of the original certificate of title. On the other hand, an action for
reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in
ten (10) years from the date of issuance of the original certificate of
title or transfer certificate of title. For the rule is that the registration
of an instrument in the Office of the Register of Deeds constitutes
constructive notice to the whole world and therefore the discovery of
fraud is deemed to have taken place at the time of registration.23
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the above ruling,
but the CA as aforesaid, denied petitioner’s motion. Hence, the
present petition for review on certiorari.
Petitioner raised the following arguments in the petition, to wit:
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
LOWER COURT THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF ADJUDICATION

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

EXECUTED BY RESPONDENT JOSE B. TIONGCO, WHO IS A

LAWYER AND IS AWARE OF ITS NULLITY, IS MERELY VOIDABLE;
ON THE CONTRARY, SAID DOCUMENT IS A COMPLETE NULLITY
BECAUSE RESPONDENT JOSE B. TIONGCO HAS MALICIOUSLY AND
IN BAD FAITH ADJUDICATED IN FAVOR OF HIMSELF THE
PROPERTIES IN QUESTION OVER WHICH HE, AS A LAWYER,
KNOWS HE HAS NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER AND HE ALSO KNOWS
HAS BEEN IN POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER AND HER
PREDECESSORS-IN-INTEREST UNTIL THE PRESENT.
B. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
DISMISSAL OF PETITIONER’S COMPLAINT BY THE LOWER COURT
ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT
JOSE B. TIONGCO’S AFFIDAVIT OF ADJUDICATION, BEING A TOTAL
NULLITY, THE ACTION TO DECLARE SUCH NULLITY AND OF
THOSE SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTIONS ARISING FROM SAID
ADJUDICATION DOES NOT PRESCRIBE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IN
THIS CASE THE PETITIONER AND HER PREDE-

_______________

23 Id., at pp. 90-91.

552

CESSORS-IN-INTEREST HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN POSSESSION OF

THE LOTS IN QUESTION AND RESPONDENT JOSE B. TIONGCO HAS
NEVER BEEN IN POSSESSION THEREOF.24
C. FURTHER, EVEN IF ARGUENDO, THE AFFIDAVIT OF ADJUDICATION
IS VOIDABLE, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS STILL ERRED
IN AFFIRMING THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE
LOWER COURT ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION BECAUSE THE
RESPONDENT, JOSE B. TIONGCO, BEING A LAWYER AND BEING
AWARE OF PETITIONER’S OWNERSHIP OF THE LOTS IN QUESTION,
THE SAID AFFIDAVIT OF ADJUDICATION MAKES THE
RESPONDENT AN IMPLIED TRUSTEE THEREOF FOR THE
PETITIONER AND THE ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE BASED ON
TRUST DOES NOT PRESCRIBE SO LONG AS THE BENEFICIARY
LIKE THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN ACTUAL PHYSICAL
POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT THEREOF, AS HELD IN
THE CASE OF VDA. DE CABRERA VS. COURT OF APPEALS (267 SCRA
339).25

The only issue in this case is who has a better right over the
properties.
The petition is meritorious.
The Court agrees with the CA’s disquisition that an action for
reconveyance can indeed be barred by prescription. In a long line of

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

cases decided by this Court, we ruled that an action for

reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust must perforce
prescribe in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over
the property.26
However, there is an exception to this rule. In the case of Heirs of
Pomposa Saludares v. Court of Appeals,27 the Court reiterating the
ruling in Millena v. Court of Appeals,28 held that there is but one

_______________
24 Id., at pp. 62-63.
25 Id., at pp. 68-69.
26  Amerol v. Bagumbaran, No. L-33261, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 396,
406-407; Bautista v. Bautista, G.R No. 160556, August 3, 2007, 529 SCRA 187, 192.
27 G.R. No. 128254, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 51, 57.
28 G.R. No. 127797, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA 126, 132.

553

instance when prescription cannot be invoked in an action for

reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff is in possession of the land
to be reconveyed. In Heirs of Pomposa Saludares,29 this Court
explained that the Court in a series of cases,30 has permitted the
filing of an action for reconveyance despite the lapse of more than
ten (10) years from the issuance of title to the land and declared that
said action, when based on fraud, is imprescriptible as long as the
land has not passed to an innocent buyer for value. But in all those
cases, the common factual backdrop was that the registered owners
were never in possession of the disputed property. The exception
was based on the theory that registration proceedings could not be
used as a shield for fraud or for enriching a person at the expense of
another.
In Alfredo v. Borras,31 the Court ruled that prescription does not
run against the plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land
because such plaintiff has a right to wait until his possession is
disturbed or his title is questioned before initiating an action to
vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him the
continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the
nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title.
The Court held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance
remains in possession of the subject land, the action for
reconveyance becomes in effect an action to quiet title to property,
which is not subject to prescription.
The Court reiterated such rule in the case of Vda. de Cabrera v.
Court of Appeals,32 wherein we ruled that the imprescriptibility of
an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is
not in possession of the property. In effect, the action for
reconveyance is an action to quiet the property title, which does not
prescribe.

_______________
29 Supra note 27 at p. 58.
30  Rodriguez v. Director of Lands, 31 Phil. 272 (1915);  Zarate v. Director of
Lands, 34 Phil. 416 (1916); Amerol v. Bagumbaran, supra note 26; Caro v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 76148, December 20, 1989, 180 SCRA 401.
31 G.R. No. 144225, June 17, 2003, 404 SCRA 145, 166.
32 G.R. No. 108547, February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 339, 353.

554

Similarly, in the case of David v. Malay33 the Court held that there
was no doubt about the fact that an action for reconveyance based on
an implied trust ordinarily prescribes in ten (10) years. This rule
assumes, however, that there is an actual need to initiate that action,
for when the right of the true and real owner is recognized, expressly
or implicitly such as when he remains undisturbed in his possession,
the statute of limitation would yet be irrelevant. An action for
reconveyance, if nonetheless brought, would be in the nature of a
suit for quieting of title, or its equivalent, an action that is
imprescriptible. In that case, the Court reiterated the ruling in Faja v.
Court of Appeals34 which we quote:

“x x x There is settled jurisprudence that one who is in actual possession

of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his
possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to
vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed
possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity
to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party
and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who
is in possession. No better situation can be conceived at the moment for Us
to apply this rule on equity than that of herein petitioners whose mother,
Felipa Faja, was in possession of the litigated property for no less than 30
years and was suddenly confronted with a claim that the land she had been
occupying and cultivating all these years, was titled in the name of a third
person. We hold that in such a situation the right to quiet title to the
property, to seek its reconveyance and annul any certificate of title covering
it, accrued only from the time the one in possession was made aware of a
claim adverse to his own, and it is only then that the statutory period of
prescription commences to run against such possessor.”

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

In this case, petitioner’s possession was disturbed in 1983 when

respondent Jose filed a case for recovery of possession.35 The RTC
of Iloilo City ruled in respondent Jose’s favor but the CA on
November 28, 1991, during the pendency of the present controversy
with the

_______________
33 G.R. No. 132644, November 19, 1999, 318 SCRA 711, 720.
34 No. L-45045, February 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 441, 446.
35 Rollo, p. 86.

555

court a quo, ruled in favor of petitioner.36 Petitioner never lost

possession of the said properties, and as such, she is in a position to
file the complaint with the court a quo to protect her rights and clear
whatever doubts has been cast on her title by the issuance of TCTs in
respondent Jose’s name.
The Court further observes that the circuitous sale transactions of
these properties from respondent Jose to Catalino Torre, then to
Antonio Doronila, Jr., and back again to respondent Jose were quite
unusual. However, this successive transfers of title from one hand to
another could not cleanse the illegality of respondent Jose’s act of
adjudicating to himself all of the disputed properties so as to entitle
him to the protection of the law as a buyer in good faith. Respondent
Jose himself admitted that there exists other heirs of the registered
owners in the OCTs. Even the RTC found that “[t]hese allegations
contained in the Affidavit of Adjudication executed by defendant
Jose B. Tiongco are false because defendant Jose B. Tiongco is not
the only surviving heir of Jose Tiongco, Matilde Tiongco, Vicente
Tiongco and Felipe Tiongco as the latters have other children and
grandchildren who are also their surviving heirs.”37
In the case of Sandoval v. Court of Appeals,38 the Court defined
an innocent purchaser for value as one who buys 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 persons in the property. He is one who buys
the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives
the thing was the owner and could convey title to the property. A
purchaser can not close his eyes to facts which should put a
reasonable man on his guard and still claim that he acted in good
faith.
And while it is settled that every person dealing with a property
registered under the Torrens title need not inquire further but only
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

has to rely on the title, this rule has an exception. The exception is

_______________
36 Id., at p. 55.
37 Id., at p. 96.
38 G.R. No. 106657, August 1, 1996, 260 SCRA 283, 296-297.

556

when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that
would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or
when the purchaser has some knowledge of a defect or the lack of
title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably
prudent man to inquire into the status of the title of the property in
litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the
certificate and investigate the title of the vendor appearing on the
face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception can
neither be denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a
purchaser in good faith and hence does not merit the protection of
the law.39
In this case, when the subject properties were sold to Catalino
Torre and subsequently to Doronila, respondent Jose was not in
possession of the said properties. Such fact should have put the
vendees on guard and should have inquired on the interest of the
respondent Jose regarding the subject properties.40 But regardless of
such defect on transfer to third persons, the properties again reverted
back to respondent Jose. Respondent Jose cannot claim lack of
knowledge of the defects surrounding the cancellation of the OCTs
over the properties and benefit from his fraudulent actions. The
subsequent sale of the properties to Catalino Torre and Doronila will
not cure the nullity of the certificates of title obtained by respondent
Jose on the basis of the false and fraudulent Affidavit of
Adjudication.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
GRANTED. The August 28, 2003 Decision and November 27, 2003
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 44794 are
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Register of Deeds of
Iloilo City is ordered to RESTORE Original Certificates of Title
Nos. 484, 1482, and 368, respectively covering Lots 3244, 1404 and
3246, under the name/s of the registered original owners thereof.

_______________
39 David v. Malay, supra note 33 at p. 722.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/12
11/22/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 659

40 Vide: Heirs of Trinidad De Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
138660, February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 101, 117, citing Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129471, April 28, 2000, 331 SCRA 267,
291.

557

Furthermore, respondent Atty. Jose B. Tiongco is ORDERED to

SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10) days from notice hereof, why he
should not be sanctioned as a member of the bar for executing the
April 17, 1974 Affidavit of Adjudication and registering the same
with the Register of Deeds.
No pronouncement as to costs.
 SO ORDERED.

Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin

and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

Note.—In the determination of whether or not a buyer is in good

faith, the point in time to be considered is the moment when the
parties actually entered into the contract of sale. (Estate of Lino
Olaguer vs. Ongjoco, 563 SCRA 373 [2008])
——o0o—— 

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e90633749d52fd6ab003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/12