G.R. No. L-25147. May 29, 1970
ANGELINA MAQUILING, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AD-LITEM, CARLOS MAQUILING, PETITIONER, VS. MONSERRAT UMADHAY, MANUEL UMADHAY, CRISANTA S. GUMBAN, AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APP…
MAKALINTAL, J.:
Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals in its CA-G. R. No. 25016-R dated July 31, 1965.
The
pertinent facts are set forth in said decision as follows:
“The whole parcel of land of which the disputed portion forms
an integral part, designated as Lot No. 3092 of the Cadastral Survey of Jaro,
Iloilo and then covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1766 of the
Register of Deeds of Iloilo, was originally owned in common by seven persons, namely: Epifanio Gerochi, Paz
Maquiling, Jose Trimones, Antonio Maquiling, Maria Maquiling and Felicidad Jimenea (Exh.
A). Subsequently, Paz Maquiling acquired
by means of purchase the one-seventh portion pertaining to Maria Maquiling,
thus making her the owner of 2/7 of the entire property.
Paz Maquiling died on May 11, 1928 leaving three children: Eriberto, Carmen, and Enrique all surnamed
Gunban. On February 28, 1947, Enrique
sold his 1/3 share in the portion owned by his late mother to herein plaintiff,
Angelina Maquiling for the sum of P400.00.
However,
this transaction was not registered (Exh. B). A few years later, Angelina Maquiling was
declared insane and her brother, Carlos Maquiling was appointed by the court
guardian of her person and property (Exh. 1).
On the other hand, Eriberto Gumban, Jr. on July 14, 1950, adjudicated
unto himself the entire participation of his late mother, claiming to be her
only forced heir and, in the same document executed a mortgage over the entire
2/7 portion of the late Paz Maquiling including a house of strong materials
built on it, in
favor of Monserrat J. Umadhay for and in consideration of the sum of
P3,000.00 (Exh. 1). This transaction was
duly registered and annotated on Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1766. (Sheet 3, Exh. A) Upon failure of Eriberto
Gumban Jr. to redeem the portion mortgaged within the time agreed upon for its
redemption, the 2/7 share of the late Paz Maquiling was sold at public
auction. Monserrat J. Umadhay was the
highest bidder at the said auction sale and the property was adjudicated in her
favor (Exh. 4). This sale was confirmed
by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on January 9, 1954 (Exh. 5). Both, the. Certificate of Public Auction and
the Order in favor of Mrs. Umadhay appear at the back of T.C.T. No. 1766 (Sheet
3, Exh. A). The evidence shows that Umadhay paid for the real estate
taxes due on the property involved for the period 1952-1953 (Exh. 4-A). Thus, another Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-15522 was issued substituting the name of Monserrat J. Umadhay in place
of Paz Maquiling (Exh. 1). On July 14,
1954, the Umadhay spouses sold the aforementioned property, together with the
house of strong materials built thereon, to defendant Crisanta S. Gumban (Exh.
6) who had a new Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-18274 over the said property issued, replacing
Monserrat J. Umadhay’s name with hers (Exh. 4).
Carmen Gumban’s share in her mother’s property was disposed of as
follows:
On May 2, 1946 she sold her 1/3 share to Salvador M. Verroya for
the sum of P325.00. Verroya later sold
the same portion to Carlos Maquiling who in turn sold it on September 24, 1948
to Eriberto Gumban, Jr. Hence, Eriberto
Gumban, Jr. now owns two-thirds of his Late mother’s 2/7 portion of the property
owned in common. The dispute we are
asked to resolve refers to the one-third share originally pertaining to Enrique
and which he sold to herein plaintiff who failed to register the sale in the
proper registry.
After due trial, the Court a quo rendered judgment for the
plaintiff, the diapositive portion of which reads in part as follows, to wit:
“POR TANTO, el Juagado falla esta asunto:
a)
Declarando a la demandante dueña de una tercera
(1/3) parte de porcion de 2/7 avas pastes del lote No. 3092 de la medicion cadastral
de Jaro (Pavia), Iloilo, ahora cubierto por el Certificado de Transferencia de Titulo No. T-18274
(antes No. 1766) de la oficina del Registrador de Titulos de Iloilo, con
derecho de la posecion de dicha tercera parte;
b)
Ordenando a la demandada Crisanta S. Gumban que
desaloje dicha porcion, entregando la posecion de la misma a la demandante;
c)
Condenando a los demandados Monserrat J. Umadhay
y Manuel Umadhay que devuelvan a la demandada Crisanta S. Gumban una tercera
parte de lo que habian recibido de ella como precio de La propiedad vendida o
sea la suma de P1,500.00;
d)
Ordenando al Registrador de Titulos de Iloilo
que, previo pago de los derechos correspondientes, expida otro certificado de
Transferencia de Titulo pars el lote No. 3092 de Jaro (Pavia), Iloilo, adjudicando una
tercera (1/3) parte de la participacion de Crisanta S. Gumban a favor de la demandante Angelina Maquiling, parteneciendo el resto de 2/3
partes a la demandada Crisanta S. Gumban; y
e)
Condenando, ademas, a los demandados que paguen,
mancomunada y solidariamente, las costae del juicio.’ (pp. 34-35 Record on
Appeal)”
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court;
upheld the validity of the deed of mortgage and subsequent foreclosure sale in
favor of the Umadhay spouses as well as the sale by the latter to Crisanta S.
Gumban; declared all these defendants as purchasers in good faith and for
value; and held that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by laches.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred, although the
latter’s error, which is only partial, can afford no comfort to the
petitioner. Both viewed the case from a
single perspective and failed to discern the distinction between the position
of the Umadhay spouses and that of Crisanta S. Gumban.
With respect to the Umadhays the pivotal fact is that when the
deed of mortgage was executed in their favor the registered owner was still Paz
Maquiling and they relied merely on the affidavit of Eriberto Gumban, Jr. adjudicating
Paz’ entire share to himself, both the affidavit of adjudication and the
mortgage being embodied in the save instrument.
Under the circumstances the Umadhays could not claim conclusiveness of
what appeared on the face of the certificate of title; it was not in
Eribertot’s name and his self-serving declaration that he was Paz Maquiling’s
sole heir could not be availed of by them in derogation of the share of the other
heir – Enrique Gumban – or of the latter’s transferee, the petitioner herein.
Mari et al., vs. Bonilla,
et al., 83 Phil. 137, resolved a similar issue. The certificate of title to the property
disputed therein was in the name of the deceased Casimiro Evangelista when his
son, Deogracias, posing as sole heir, adjudicated the property to himself and
sold it to the defendant in the case without first having the title transferred
in his name. This Court held:
“Good faith affords protection only to purchasers for value
from the registered owner. Deogracias
Evangelista, defendant’s grantor, was not a registered owner. The land was and still is registered in the
name of Casimiro Evangelista. In no way
does the certificate state that Deogracias owned the land; consequently defendants
cannot summon to their aid the theory of indefeasibility of Torrens Title. There is nothing in the certificate and in
the circumstances of the transaction which warrant them in supposing that they
need not look beyond the title. If
anything, it would have put them on their guard, cautioned them to ascertain
and verify that the vendor was the only heir
of his father, that there was no debt, and that the latter was the sole owner
of the parcel of land.”
However, while the Umadhay spouses cannot rely on the title, the
same not being in the name of their grantor,
respondent Crisanta S. Gumban stands on a different footing altogether. At the time the purchased the land the title
thereto was already in the name
of her vendors (T.C.T. 15522). She had
the right to rely on what appeared on the face of said title. There is nothing in the record to indicate
that she knew of any unregistered claims to or equities in the land pertaining
to other persons, such as that of herein petitioner, or of any other
circumstances which should put her on guard and cause her to inquire behind
the certificate. According to the Court
of Appeals, “she took all the necessary precautions to ascertain the
true ownership of the property, having engaged the services of a lawyer for the
specific purpose and, it was only after said
counsel had assured her that everything was in order did she make the final arrangements to purchase the
property.” The appellate court is
conclusion that respondent Crisanta S. Gumban was a purchaser in good faith and
for value is correct, and the title she has thereby acquired is good and indefeasible.
Wherefore, modified only insofar as the ruling with
respect to respondent Umadhay spouses is concerned, the decision of the Court
of Appeals reversing that of the trial court
is affirmed, and the complaint is dismissed, without prejudice to any other relief which,
under the law, may be available to herein petitioner against Eriberto Gumban,
Jr. and/or against respondent Umadbay spouses.
Costs in this instance to be recovered by respondent Crisanta S. Gumban
against petitioner.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., on leave.