1. DURAN v.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE Issue: Whether private respondent was a buyer in
COURT
G.R. No. L-64159 September 10, 1985
Doctrine:
The fraudulent and forged document of sale may
become the root of a valid title if the certificate has
already been transferred from the name of the true
owner to the name indicated by the forger.
The 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 the said certificate.
Good faith, while it is always to be presumed in
the absence of proof to the contrary, requires a
well-founded belief that the person from whom
title was received was himself the owner of the
land, with the right to convey it.
Facts: Petitioner Duran owned 2 parcels of land.
She left the Philippines in June 1954 and returned
in May 1966. On 1963, a Deed of Sale was made in
favor of the petitioners mother. On December
1965, Durans mother mortgaged the same
property to private respondent Erlinda Marcelo-
Tiangco. When Duran came to know about the
mortgage made by her mother, she wrote the
Register of Deeds informing the latter that she had
not given her mother any authority to sell or
mortgage any of her properties in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, foreclosure proceedings were initiated
by Tiangco upon the failure of Durans mother to
redeem the mortgaged properties.
Duran claims that the Deed of Sale is a forgery,
saying that at the time of its execution in 1963 she
was in the United States. Respondent Court ruled
that there is a presumption of regularity in the
case of a public document.
good faith and for value
Held: Yes. Good faith consists in the possessors
belief that the person from who he received the
thing was the owner of the same and could convey
his title (Arriola v. Gomez Dela Serna, 14 Phil. 627).
Good faith, while it is always to be presumed in the
absence of proof to the contrary, requires a well-
founded belief that the person from whom title was
received was himself the owner of the land, with
the right to convey it (Santiago v. Cruz, 19 Phil.
148).
The 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 the said certificate. 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. If the rule were
otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the
Torrens Certificate of Titles would be futile and
nugatory. Thus the rule is simple: the fraudulent
and forged document of sale may become the root
of a valid title if the certificate has already been
transferred from the name of the true owner to the
name indicated by the forger.
While it is true that under Article 2085 of the Civil
Code, it is essential that the mortgagor be the
absolute owner of the property mortgaged, and
while as between the daughter and her mother, it
was the daughter who still owns the lots, STILL
insofar as innocent third persons are concerned
the owner was already the mother inasmuch as
she had already become the registered owner.