GR 102737; (August, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 102737 August 21, 1996
FRANCISCO A. VELOSO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AGLALOMA B. ESCARIO, assisted by her husband GREGORIO L. ESCARIO, the REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Francisco Veloso was the registered owner of a parcel of land in Manila covered by TCT No. 49138, acquired before his marriage. He discovered that his title had been cancelled and a new one (TCT No. 180685) issued in the name of respondent Aglaloma Escario. The transfer was based on a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Veloso’s wife, Irma, who purported to act under a General Power of Attorney (GPA) allegedly signed by Veloso. Veloso filed an action for annulment of documents and reconveyance, claiming he never executed the GPA, that his signature was forged, and that he did not authorize the sale. He presented evidence, including bank checks bearing his genuine signature and the testimony of the notary public who denied notarizing the GPA.
ISSUE
Whether the sale of the subject property by the petitioner’s wife to the respondent is valid, thereby precluding reconveyance.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the validity of the sale. The legal logic rests on the protection of an innocent purchaser for value and the principle of estoppel. The Court found that respondent Escario was a purchaser in good faith. She relied on the GPA, which was sufficient in form, duly notarized, and presented alongside the original certificate of title. A notarized document carries the presumption of regularity, which Veloso failed to overcome with clear and convincing evidence of forgery. The Court emphasized that the fraud, if any, was committed by Veloso’s wife, against whom his remedy for damages lies, not against the innocent purchaser.
Furthermore, the Court applied equitable estoppel under Section 55 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ). Veloso admitted he was the sole person with access to the title, yet his wife possessed it and presented it to effect the transfer. This possession operated as conclusive authority to the Register of Deeds to issue a new certificate. Since one of two innocent parties must suffer, the loss must be borne by him who, by his own act or neglect, made the loss possible. Thus, the title of the innocent purchaser for value is protected, and reconveyance is not warranted.