G.R. No. L-4929; July 23, 1953
ANTONIO MIRASOL, petitioner, vs. PORFIRIO GEROCHI Y GAMBOA, MARIANO GEROCHI Y GAMBOA, JUAN NAVAJAS Y GAMBOA, SATURNINA NAVAJAS Y GAMBOA and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

On July 30, 1946, Filomena Ledesma (posing as sole heir of Teodorica Gamboa) and Saturnina Gerochi (posing as sole heir of Dionisia Gamboa) each executed deeds of sale over an undivided one-fourth share in Lot No. 3760 (covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1399 of Iloilo City) in favor of Salvador Solano. These deeds were annotated on the title. On August 1 and 17, 1946, Solano sold these portions to Natividad Escarilla under a pacto de retro, which deeds were also annotated. After Escarilla became absolute owner, she transferred her interest in one-half of the undivided one-fourth share acquired from Saturnina Gerochi to Antonio Mirasol on October 21, 1946, with the deed annotated on the title.
On October 8, 1947, Porfirio Gerochi, Mariano Gerochi, Juan Navajas, and Saturnina Navajas filed an action to annul the deeds, claiming Porfirio and Mariano were the true heirs of Teodorica Gamboa, and Juan and Saturnina were the true heirs of Dionisia Gamboa. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, declaring: (1) Mirasol as owner of Saturnina Navajas’s share (one-half of the undivided one-fourth from Dionisia Gamboa) based on valid deeds; (2) the deeds involving Filomena Ledesma’s share null and void; (3) Porfirio and Mariano Gerochi as owners of the undivided one-fourth share of Teodorica Gamboa; and (4) Juan Navajas as owner of the other half of Dionisia Gamboa’s share. The Court of Appeals also ordered Natividad Escarilla to pay Mirasol P1,575 on his cross-claim. Mirasol petitioned for review, arguing that as a purchaser in good faith and for value of registered land, his title is indefeasible under the Torrens system.

ISSUE

Whether Antonio Mirasol, as a purchaser of registered land based on annotated deeds but without a transfer certificate of title issued in his name, qualifies as a “subsequent purchaser in good faith” protected under Section 39 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act), thereby making his acquisition valid against all claims.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. Mirasol cannot invoke the protection of Section 39 of Act No. 496 as a “subsequent purchaser of registered land who takes a certificate of title for value and in good faith.” The Court distinguished his case from De la Cruz vs. Fabie (35 Phil. 144) and Reynes vs. Barrera (68 Phil. 656), where purchasers acquired property from registered owners holding certificates of title. Here, Mirasol bought the property from Natividad Escarilla, who acquired it from Salvador Solano. Neither Solano, Escarilla, nor Mirasol ever secured a transfer certificate of title in their names; only annotations were made on the original certificate, which remained in the names of the previous owners. The Court cited Director of Lands vs. Addison (49 Phil. 19), which held that the issuance of a transfer certificate of title is essential for a conveyance to enjoy the full protection of the Torrens system. Without such a certificate, Mirasol is not a holder in good faith of a certificate of title and is charged with presumptive knowledge of the law, making his acquisition incomplete and not protected against prior claims. Thus, the deeds were properly declared null and void as to the shares of the true heirs, and Mirasol’s petition was denied. Costs were awarded against petitioner.